DIFFERENCES IN VARIOUS THERMAL IMAGING CAMERAS IN VETERINARY USE.

As I've embarked on my very passionate and sometimes difficult and confusing journey into thermal imaging, I've encountered interesting responses to the work.  The days of technology are upon us and the sophisitication of equipment is varied and abundant!


I always say, "the more I learn, the more I know I need to learn"!  The love of lifelong learning has spurred me on to continue that journey.  Thanks to my mentors in AAT for encouragement and knowledge.  These mentors have decades of experience not only with the technology but with the nuances of understanding what is "normal" and what is not.  I appreciate their support beyond expression!


A few times, I have lit the fire of excitement and desire to learn in my clients (yay!).  Just a caution however that you will also be caught in the very many nuances of this work.  Important to remember the two points of the below research article as you endeavor to understand the work.  


​Enjoy!




1)Use of “low -cost” “entry level” imagers (i.e.”I used my iPhone attached camera”):
In addition, the FLIR ONE device, although operating within 
specification, did not prove to be suitable for clinical equine work due to its
poor accuracy, stability and optics. The manufacturer makes clear that
the device is a low-cost entry-level camera, but this has not stopped a
number of research groups employing it for data collection in medical research [22–24]. 
We would comment that, while low-cost mobile phone devices may have a role to play in “proof-of-principle” exploratory research, their performance is currently not sufficient for the collection of critical data [25]


2)Comparing the same area/horse to different cameras (i.e.  Why does my camera say something different than yours?)














The apparently different thermograms presented in Fig. 7 (above) represent 
the same horse, recorded by our five cameras just minutes apart. This 
shows clearly the practical limitations of gathering thermographic data 
with more than one imager, when camera performance is variable. This 
would have particular implications for research studies that pool data 
captured by more than one camera, or for a clinical veterinary practice that
​uses several cameras for imaging. 
The difference in image presentation between thermal camera 
manufacturers also poses a challenge. The use of “rainbow” palettes is 
widely adopted across veterinary and medical thermography [26]. At 
present, however, there is no universally agreed and employed rainbow 
palette, and this can mean that a thermogram can appear quite different 
when presented in the software of different manufacturers [27].A 
simple solution to this problem would be to employ a linear grayscale 
palette to all images when thermograms from different software 
packages are compared.

SOURCE: 
Excerpt from:  
Thermal camera performance and image analysis repeatability in equine thermography 
Kevin Howella, Krzysztof Dudekb, Maria Sorokoc,⁎ a Microvascular Diagnostics, Institute of Immunity and Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG, UK b Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Technology, Lukasiewicza 7/9, 50-231 Wroclaw, Poland c Department of Horse Breeding and Equestrian Studies, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Kozuchowska 5A, 51-161 Wroclaw, Polan
https://www.academia.edu/88533560/Thermal_camera_performance_and_image_analysis_repeatability_in_equine_thermography?email_work_card=abstract-read-more 


​


Click here to see past articles