Talk:Forward-looking infrared

Does this have anything to do with the company FLIR? Guerberj 22:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The following was stuck at the end of the article, after the category tags. Perhaps someone can merge it into the text.--Srleffler 06:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC) "The original designer and manufacturer of the FLIR for the Sikorsky HH-53 Pave Low helicopter was Texas Instruments during the late 1970's. The term FLIR was in common usage at that time to describe any forward-looking infrared vision system. The FLIR for the original HH-53 Pave Low required one of the crewmen to wear a headset in order to view the image that was returned from the belly-mounted module."

"Citizen Privacy"
Do we really need this section? I don't think there's a very large outcry over FLIR use. ZakuTalk 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: I'm new here but someone has pointed out some of the legal concerns; and I remember hearing about it on NPR a long time ago. It seems that law wanted to use thermal imaging devices to scan homes without a warrent, and the concern that this was an invasion of privacy. The wiki sword cuts both ways on this issue; an issue doesn't require a large outcry to have a meaningful place in the wiki, but its also not a democracy where everything gets fair representation. I'd say that it stays and hopefully someone knowledgable in the subject matter can improve the copy. - Davandron | Talk 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Weak Support: As far as house searches are concerned, a FLIR device can not look through walls. A FLIR device only detects differences in surface temperature.

I rewrote that section using the last edits... citing that case makes a lot more sense and is much less POV than simply saying "it's an issue that needs to be raised." ZakuTalk 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

considering they don't bother to ask the people in the houses you see on police chases if they should be blurred from the image for lets say witness protection as an example, i'd say I don't think they care. and we are limited to 2nd generation by law somehow, i'm gunna build a 3rd gen camera and just leave it on record pointing up, see how they like it then. you may not think there is a very large outcry against privacy issues but thats where your sadly mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.88.51 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First/Second/Third generation FLIR
Can someone please add content about what distinguishes first, second, and third generation FLIR systems? I have heard these terms used a lot, but have not seen what (besides manufacture date) it is that distinguishes them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.147.208.161 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

1st gen is brightening, 2nd gen is more technical brightening, 3rd gen is thermal. which is why "the public" arn't aloud to use 3rd gen, personally I think its to stop "terrorists" from getting the tech but its not that hard to make yourself so I actually don't get the issue unless its true, that 3rd gen flir can see blatent ufo's most of the time. do not argue this point, I have seen alot pointing to that over the terrorist theory. i mean come on, optics teachers arn't aloud 3rd gen for a university don't bs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.88.51 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1st Generation generally refers to the "common module" platform FLIRs that had a single row of sensor elements that were scanned to create an image. Gen 2 are systems that incorporated a matrix sensor element and used time delayed integration (TDI) techniques to improve sensitivity. Reference: US Patent US 5510618 A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.6.114 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding merging with "infrared camera"
The distinction between FLIR and tracking systems is important when discussing the evolution of infrared detector systems. Whilst a sideways tracking system can be used to build up images, whether it could be called a camera is debateable, and perhaps not relevant to the article on infrared cameras. (I would suggest renaming the entire “infrared camera” article to something like “infrared imaging”, but that is a personal opinion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add my support that merging the two articles is not a good idea, as to me they are separate topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj cheetham (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsupport unless the entire topic was redone in the vein of "Thermographic Imaging". FLIR is specific edge case of a generic IR imaging device, usually alluding to "Look-Down" capability. It is often described as having narrow field of view hence the "looking down a soda straw" effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowbert (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * do not support. Since its been a year and nobody supports the merge, I am going to remove it from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.42 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia >_<
Wikipedia always seems to have odd idea on what to merge and what not to merge. As far as I'm concerned, outside from a section of military use of thermal imaging, you should not merge a military article with one about imaging! OMG!

Nobodymk2 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
how do you pronounce flir? "fleer"? 98.192.200.202 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

FLIR as a trademark?
A recent edit inserted a trademark notice into the name of a redirect. A redirect from "FLIR" exists (as it should), but there is no redirect from "FLIR (FLIR is a registered trademark of FLIR Systems, Inc.)" I have reverted the change and notified the IP to please discuss it here.

FLIR does have a registered trademark symbol on the logo on their website but I think the trademark applies to the entire logo, not just the four letters "FLIR." A very cursory check of their website does not show a trademark notice like the one that the IP entered, so I'm not sure how to proceed. If the IP can produce a reference to FLIR Systems' claim to a trademark on "FLIR" without the double-diamond logo, then we ought to look at how a notice of trademark can be put into the article. Dead Horsey (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Earlier edit history has another IP (very close by, probably the same person) giving trademark registration numbers in the edit summary. Registration #3313758 shows that the trademark is over the graphic element and the word together. A search for all trademarks registered by FLIR Systems shows several marks for FLIR with a graphic element, and one mark for FLIR as a standalone word. However, the standalone word does not have a registration number, and the last status is "non-final action mailed," with a response deadline of 27 Jan 2011.


 * If they have a bona fide trademark, let's recognize it. But let's verify that it is actually a trademark first. Dead Horsey (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:TM we don't recognize trademarks in the way that IP has tried to do. We aren't obligated to do so, and it screws with our ability to present information objectively. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

TALK PAGE vs CONTENT PAGE
The content of this article is highly inaccurate, poorly written, and improperly sourced. The Talk Page contains more accurate and complete information than the article itself. Do not tell me I can fix it! I have written articles for Wikipedia that were much better sourced and formatted than this one and they were nitpicked to death for over two months until I gave in and deleted the entire thing, only to be told I could not delete it as it was no longer mine to delete! So would one of the moderators take a look as there are several, obvious flat out false statement about FLIR, along with a very bizarre amount of unrelated material included. 75.17.204.37 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC) B

Company / DAG
Was looking for info on the company FLIR which doesn't seem to have a page. Still, I think there should be a DAG page or at least a mention in the opening blurb that this article is about the technology, not the company of the same name. 2607:4100:1:0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation, Part Deux, is it still "forward looking" in a gimballed mount?
I see someone else has already asked this, but hasn't gotten any response. Since I have two topics to mention, I figured a new section was the best choice. I always pronounced it as "flur", but with a more "i" kind of accent. "Flirr"? But I just saw an advertisement for a company selling infrared imagers that pronounced their name "fleer". Granted, it could just be for copyright/trademark issues, but I would like to know, because I went all through elementary school pronouncing "infrared" as "in-FRARED". It wasn't until I turned 13 or so that I realized that "infrared" is the same thing as "infra-red", and is pronounced the same. I still blush to this day when I think of it! =/ If the pronunciation is added, I'd also appreciate it if it was done in the good old fashioned way they do it in encyclopedias, sounding out each syllable. It seems like most wiki pages only give this new, supposedly "improved, universal" pronunciation method, but it literally looks like Greek to me, all those upside down letters and strange characters. Maybe they teach that in schools today, but they didn't ten years ago when I was in school. Never understood why they can't just give both, until the "old" method is officially, and de facto, obsolete.

Also suggesting that it might just be a convenient name is that fact that the devices are only thermal scanners. Does "FLIR" now refer to any device that doesn't take composite, "time-exposure" shots? Originally, it referred to a scanner that was fixed on the aircraft, looking "forwards". But now we have devices that can scan all around, yet they are still called "forward looking" scanners. Isn't a "side-scan system" still looking "forward" relative to its own scanners? If one aims a gimbaled FLIR pod to scan to the side or rear, is it still a "FLIR" system? It would be nice if it specified this..45Colt 06:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I now note that it says in the article that "FLIR" is used to distinguish forward-looking systems from "...gimbal mounted units...", etc. This may be true, but I have seen many units capable of steering up to 90deg or more to each side called "FLIR" units in texts I've read. Most likely this is just inaccuracy, but a clearer statement would help. It would appear that many authors use "FLIR" much like "staring scanner". But a "staring" IR scanner can be either fixed or gimballed, while according to this article, a "FLIR" must be on a fixed, forward mount. And how about "FLIR" systems that have limited "steering" ability. I believe LANTIRN is considered a "FLIR" system, but it can be "steered" by like 20deg (?) to either side. Where is the cutoff when it's no longer "forward looking"? And I believe LANTIRN uses a gimbal mounting. I also notice that the image on this article shows a Damocles targeting pod, which clearly has a swiveling head, allowing the field of view to be steered. Otherwise, the aircraft would have to fly straight at whatever target it wished to image or target..45Colt 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forward looking infrared. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904211645/http://ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)