sensors
Article
Factors Influencing Temperature Measurements from
Miniaturized Thermal Infrared (TIR) Cameras:
A Laboratory-Based Approach
Quanxing Wan 1, * , Benjamin Brede 1,2 , Magdalena Smigaj 1,3






Citation: Wan, Q.; Brede, B.; Smigaj,
M.; Kooistra, L. Factors Influencing
Temperature Measurements from
Miniaturized Thermal Infrared (TIR)
Cameras: A Laboratory-Based
Approach. Sensors 2021, 21, 8466.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21248466
Academic Editor: Juan-Carlos
Jiménez-Muñoz
Received: 22 November 2021
Accepted: 13 December 2021
Published: 18 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21248466
and Lammert Kooistra 1
1 Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University & Research,
Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands; benjamin.brede@wur.nl (B.B.);
magdalena.smigaj@wur.nl (M.S.); lammert.kooistra@wur.nl (L.K.)
2 Helmholtz Center Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Section 1.4 Remote Sensing and
Geoinformatics, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
3 School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
* Correspondence: quanxing.wan@wur.nl; Tel.: +31-0-613-221-061
Abstract: The workflow for estimating the temperature in agricultural fields from multiple sensors
needs to be optimized upon testing each type of sensor’s actual user performance. In this sense,
readily available miniaturized UAV-based thermal infrared (TIR) cameras can be combined with
proximal sensors in measuring the surface temperature. Before the two types of cameras can be oper-
ationally used in the field, laboratory experiments are needed to fully understand their capabilities
and all the influencing factors. We present the measurement results of laboratory experiments of
UAV-borne WIRIS 2nd GEN and handheld FLIR E8-XT cameras. For these uncooled sensors, it took
30 to 60 min for the measured signal to stabilize and the sensor temperature drifted continuously. The
drifting sensor temperature was strongly correlated to the measured signal. Specifically for WIRIS,
the automated non-uniformity correction (NUC) contributed to extra uncertainty in measurements.
Another problem was the temperature measurement dependency on various ambient environmental
parameters. An increase in the measuring distance resulted in the underestimation of surface temper-
ature, though the degree of change may also come from reflected radiation from neighboring objects,
water vapor absorption, and the object size in the field of view (FOV). Wind and radiation tests
suggested that these factors can contribute to the uncertainty of several Celsius degrees in measured
results. Based on these indoor experiment results, we provide a list of suggestions on the potential
practices for deriving accurate temperature data from radiometric miniaturized TIR cameras in actual
field practices for (agro-)environmental research.
Keywords: UAV; thermal infrared; FLIR; radiometric; calibration; temperature; non-uniformity
correction; stabilization; sensor temperature; ambient environment
1. Introduction
1.1. Context and Background
From the 1970s on, satellite-based thermal infrared (TIR) remote sensing has been
applied widely to regional-scale investigations, for instance, hydrological modeling [1–3],
mineral exploration [4,5], urban thermal environment [6], and forest fire detection [7].
In this century, the technological development in easy-to-use low-cost miniaturized TIR
cameras has enabled their application on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in addition to
proximal platforms for local-scale studies [8–11]. UAVs have emerged as powerful plat-
forms for facilitating the acquisition of data on high temporal and spatial scales, extending
current remote-sensing-based monitoring capabilities owing to their flexibility in the exact
timing of flight missions and adaptive flight altitude [12]. The dedicated uncooled TIR
sensors are light-weight, low in power consumption, and have a high degree of compatibil-
ity with various widely used UAV platforms [10]. The other option—cooled sensors—are
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 2 of 20

for many UAV platforms too heavy to be mounted, although they can provide higher
accuracy measurements [13,14]. The combination of UAV and proximal thermal imaging,
whereby proximal measurements are used for calibration purposes, is a promising solution
for operationalizing UAV thermal surveys. This approach has started to be adopted in
a variety of agricultural applications, e.g., for crop water stress (CWS, or water-deficit
stress) detection [15–18]. The detection of CWS’s development requires detecting subtle
temperature changes, which might not be as crucial for other applications. The capability
of capturing subtle changes needs a good understanding of the structure and work process
of TIR cameras and error sources. Moreover, identifying the spatial and temporal distri-
bution of CWS is important to plan irrigation schemes, and therefore saving water use
and ensuring food production. To achieve that, a series of CWS indices based on canopy
temperature have been developed and used for indicating the crop water status. These
indicators serve for in-field CWS monitoring together with ground measurements of crop
physiological indices (e.g., soil water content, stomatal conductance (gs ), and transpiration
rate (tr )) [19–22].
The performance of uncooled TIR cameras can be affected by multiple sources of errors.
Firstly, the choice of uncooled TIR detectors determines the cameras’ performance. These
detectors can be divided into pyroelectric detectors, thermopile detectors, microbolometer
detectors (hereinafter referred to as bolometers) [23]. The bolometer’s technical route has
become the mainstream technical direction [24]. The most used sensitive materials for the
bolometer are vanadium oxide (VOx ) and amorphous silicon (α-Si) [25–27]. For both, the
detection sensitivity to infrared signals is lower than that of cooled detectors. Their ability
to convert infrared radiation into temperature changes is weaker and therefore subtle
temperature differences are difficult to distinguish. Secondly, the miniaturization process
restricts the accuracy and sensitivity of these TIR sensors [28]. In practice, the miniaturized
TIR camera’s temperature reading and its components—the gain (sensitivity) and offset of
each microbolometer often change with the sensor (focal plane array, FPA) temperature,
since its core does not include a cooling system [23]. The above-mentioned temperature
drifts can be compensated by performing non-uniformity corrections (NUCs) with high
frequency [28–30]. This temperature deviation increases during UAV flight campaigns
because of the rapid changes in the ambient environmental conditions [31]. Thirdly, the
bolometer also receives the thermal radiation emitted from the inside of the camera, which
may be larger than the thermal radiation received by the target object, resulting in a poor
signal-to-noise ratio in the acquired TIR imagery [32]. Lastly, a series of external influencing
factors that can also influence the performance of TIR cameras is the emissivity of the target
object, the measuring distance between the sensor and the target object, the atmospheric
conditions, and so forth [33].

1.2. Practices for Deriving Temperature Data in Field Situations

In the domain of optical engineering, in-depth research has been conducted contin-
uously on the working principle and radiometric calibration methods of miniaturized
TIR sensors. The theoretical research has been widely practiced in various applications,
which gives insights into the internal radiative transmission process of the sensor (as
one limiting factor), other limiting factors of accurate measurements, and corresponding
correction algorithms [8,16,34–36]. In real-world applications, whether the miniaturized
TIR sensor can maintain the accuracy level has become a major challenge. Accordingly, the
radiometric calibration of the sensor is a necessity, and then the quantitative correlation
between the temperature of the measured object and the raw value of each FPA unit can be
determined [37].
The calibration process can be challenging to implement for users. As one manu-
facturer stated, the follow-up factors affect the temperature measurement accuracy of
miniaturized TIR sensors, including surface characteristics, atmospheric interference, and
imaging system [38]. First of all, it is necessary to apply emissivity correction to the
blackbody measurements [39]. Emissivity indicates the surface characteristics of a certain
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 3 of 20

material. Real-world blackbodies have lower emissivity, although a blackbody is a concept

of an ideal emitter of which the emissivity should be one. Then, the inclusion of all the
influencing factors for eliminating temperature dependency effects is still problematic [37].
The above-mentioned “atmospheric interference” refers to the influence of environmen-
tal factors on the temperature measurement process, and the “imaging system” can be
understood as the influence of the sensor’s intrinsic characteristics. For miniaturized radio-
metric TIR sensors, the calibration algorithm of its supporting data analysis and processing
software usually takes into account the main influencing factors of the sensor and the
ambient environment. As the specific radiometric calibration specifications implemented
by the manufacturer are proprietary, it is hard for users to determine the contribution of the
aforementioned influencing factors to errors in the measurement [40–42]. Real-time FPA
temperature needs to be regarded as one of the core parameters to obtain in the radiometric
calibration process [39]. When the thermal radiation generated by different parts of the
camera (internal, lens, and other optical components) is fully considered, the corresponding
gain and offset values of each microbolometer can be determined and microbolometers’
non-uniform responses can be corrected [25,37]. Unfortunately, it is difficult to obtain FPA
temperature for many manufacturers’ equipment.
Previous research tested the raw output of miniaturized TIR sensors under constrained
conditions. This study provides insight into the accurate temperature derivation. Many
laboratory calibration methods of the sensors have been made available despite the unavail-
ability of sensor temperature [37,43,44]. In summary, relevant research was first to obtain
a large number of measurement samples by controlling variables and repeating sessions
in an indoor environment and then calibrating the measurements, aiming to achieve high
precision and consistency. Successfully developed calibration models in the laboratory
environment were eventually applied to the field tests [41,45–47]. The achieved consensus
is that: the laboratory calibration can usually obtain accurate calibration results (±0.5 ◦ C
accuracy). However, during field tests, the actual performance of the chosen calibration
methods is significantly worse. The uncertainty can increase easily up to several degrees
(>5 ◦ C) since the original relationship between the FPA temperature and the measurements
are no longer valid [10,39,48]. These studies have developed or adapted methods that
minimize multiple factors’ influences on camera outputs with no elaborated discussion on
the separate impacts [37]. Kelly et al. [37] reminded upcoming researchers of the extent to
which individual influencing factors can challenge deriving accurate measurements for
uncalibrated TIR cameras. This work aims to separate the influence of multiple factors on
the camera readings of the calibrated TIR cameras and respectively quantify the contribu-
tion of each to the degree of deviation of the measured value, to guide the corresponding
adjustments in the field practices. Two representative radiometric TIR camera models
(UAV-borne and handheld) were used to test the influence of various factors on camera
performances. Several studies [8,37,43] had tested a single TIR camera’s performance in the
laboratory environment, however, the results may be affected by the model selection. What
needs to be explored is whether different types of TIR cameras have similar performance
under the same parameter settings. Whether the phenomena existing in non-radiometric
cameras can be observed in radiometric cameras is also yet to be established.

1.3. Research Objectives

The primary goal of the research is to explore the feasibility of applying different
types of miniaturized TIR cameras to field practices requiring high accuracy, such as crop
water stress mapping. The controlled-environment experiment results will be used to
put forward practical recommendations towards the design of field tests, for obtaining
high-precision in field measurements.
Specifically, the influence of the intrinsic characteristics of the TIR camera on the accu-
rate temperature measurement has been tested based on the following research questions
(RQs): a. How long does it take for the miniaturized TIR cameras to stabilize after being
switched on? b. How do the periodic NUCs affect the temperature measurements? c. Will
 Specifically,
Specifically, the influencethe influence of the intrinsic
of the intrinsic characteristics
characteristics of the TIR of camera
the TIR on camera on th
the ac-
curate temperature
curate temperature measurement measurement
has beenhas beenbased
tested testedonbased on the following
the following researchresearch
ques- q
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 4 of 20
tionsa.(RQs):
tions (RQs): How longa. How does long doesfor
it take it take for the miniaturized
the miniaturized TIR cameras TIR cameras
to stabilizeto stabilize
after
being switched
being switched on? b. How on? do b. How do the periodic
the periodic NUCs affect NUCs theaffect the temperature
temperature measurem
measurements?
c. Will changes
c. Will changes in sensorintemperature
sensor temperature have a significant
have a significant impact on impact on the measured
the measured temper- tem
ature
changes ature
in values
sensorof values of the
the UAV-mounted
temperature UAV-mounted and handheld
have a significant and handheld
impactTIRon TIR
cameras? cameras?
the measuredBesides, Besides, the influen
the influence
temperature of
values environmental
environmental
of the UAV-mountedfactors has factors
and also has
beenalso
handheld been
tested:
TIR d.tested:
cameras?Will thed. Will the
the measuring
measuring
Besides, distance
influence ofdistance
have
environ- have a st
a strong
mentaleffect oneffect
factors the on the
hasmeasured
also beenmeasured
temperature
tested: d. temperature
Will values ofvalues ofdistance
UAV-mounted
the measuring UAV-mounted
and
havehandheld and handheld
a strong onTIR cam
TIR cameras?
effect
e. How do
the measured e.temperature
How
changesdo changes
wind in
invalues ofwind
and and radiation
radiation
UAV-mounted affectandtheaffect the TIR
temperature
handheld temperature
measured
cameras? measured
e.by
How a UAV- by a U
mounted
do changes inmounted andTIR
TIR camera?
wind camera?
radiation affect the temperature measured by a UAV-mounted TIR
camera?
2. Materials
2. Materials and Methods and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
For thiswe
For this study, study,
usedwe used a2nd
a WIRIS WIRIS
GEN 2nd GEN radiometric
radiometric TIR camera TIR designed
camera designed
specifi- sp
For this study, we the
usedusea WIRIS 2nd GEN radiometric TIRhandheld
camera designed specifically
cally for the use on a UAV, and a FLIR E8-XT handheld camera only for reference meas- m
cally for on a UAV, and a FLIR E8-XT camera only for reference
for the use onurements
a UAV, and onathe
FLIR E8-XT handheld
ground. Both of camera
these only for reference
miniaturized TIR cameras measurements
usedequipped
a core equi
urements on the ground. Both of these miniaturized TIR cameras used a core
on the ground. Both of
with a vanadium these miniaturized
oxide TIR cameras
(VOx) microbolometer used a core equipped with a
with a vanadium oxide (VO x) microbolometer FPA, andFPA,theirand their working
working principleprinciple
was com- was
vanadium oxide (VOx ) microbolometer FPA, and their working principle was comparable
parable to parable
that oftoother
that of other models
camera camera [27].
models [27]. Therefore,
Therefore, the practices
the practices using these using these cam
cameras
to that of other camera models [27]. Therefore, the practices using these cameras are of
are of significant
are of significant referencereference
to the teststo the
withtests
otherwith other models.
models.
significant reference to the tests with other models.
Workswell WIRIS 2nd GEN,
Workswell WIRIS 2nd GEN, a UAV-mounted TIR camera a UAV-mounted TIR (Workswell
camera (Workswell design and design
Workswell WIRIS 2nd GEN, a UAV-mounted TIR camera (Workswell design and
manufacturing
manufacturing company, company,
Praha, CzechPraha,Republic)—henceforth
Czech Republic)—henceforth referred referred to as WIRIS—
to as WIRIS—can
manufacturing company, Praha, Czech Republic)—henceforth referred to as WIRIS—can
capture capture
calibrated calibrated
images, images,
which means whichthat meansthe that the measured
measured object’s temperature
object’s radiant radiant temper
capture calibrated images, which means that the measured object’s radiant temperature can
can be recorded
can be recorded in high resolution
in high resolution directly
directly from thefrom
outputthedata
outputset.data set. Thecamera—
The second second came
be recorded in high resolution directly from the output data set. The second camera—FLIR
FLIR E8-XT handheld TIR camera (FLIR Systems, Inc., Wilsonville, OR, the U.S.)
thedoe
E8-XTFLIR E8-XTTIR
handheld handheld
cameraTIR (FLIR camera (FLIR
Systems, Systems,
Inc., Inc., Wilsonville,
Wilsonville, OR, USA) does OR, the
the same
U.S.) but
does
same
has abut has aresolution.
lower resolution. FLIRFor FLIRtheE8-XT,
FLIRthe FLIR ResearchIR thermal
analysis ana
has a same
lowerbutresolution. lower
For FLIR E8-XT, Forthe FLIR E8-XT,
ResearchIR thermal ResearchIR thermalwas
analysis software
software was adopted forsystem
cameracommand
system command and enabling
control, enabling high-speed
adopted for camera system command and control, enabling high-speed data recording. data
software was adopted for camera and control, high-speed
recording. recording.
The The specifications
specifications of adopted of adopted
cameras’ cameras’
features features
are listed are
in listed
Table in
1. Table 1.
The specifications of adopted cameras’ features are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. The technical specification of used miniaturized thermal (TIR)
infrared (TIR) cameras.
TableTable
1. The1.technical
The technical specification
specification ofminiaturized
of used used miniaturized thermal
thermal infrared
infrared cameras.
(TIR) cameras.

Workswell
Workswell
Workswell WIRIS
WIRIS 2nd GEN
WIRIS 2ndGEN
2nd GEN FLIR FLIR E8-XT
FLIR E8-XT
E8-XT
Camera Camera
Camera

TIRTIR TIR Resolution

Resolution
Resolution 640 × 512640
640 × 512
× pixels
512 pixels
pixels 320 ×
320 240320
× 240 × 240 pixels
pixels
pixels
Field of View (FOV) 69◦ × 56◦ (focal length = 9 mm) 45◦ × 34◦
Field of
Field of View View (FOV) 69° × 56°69°
(FOV) × 56°
(focal (focal= length
length 9 mm) = 9 mm) 45° × 34°45° × 34°
Active sensor size of focal plane array (FPA) 1.088 × 0.8705 cm -
Activesize
Active sensor sensor
of size of −25 C×cm
to ◦
+150 cmC, ◦
Temperature ranges 1.088
1.088 × 0.8705 0.8705 −20 ◦ C to- +550 ◦ C-
focal
focal plane plane
array array (FPA)
(FPA) ◦ ◦
−40 C to +550 C
Temperature sensitivity 0.05 ◦ C (50 mK) < 0.05 ◦ C (50 mK)
−25 °C to−25 °C°C,
+150 to +150 °C,
Temperature
Temperature ranges ranges −20
±2 ◦ C or °C
±2%
−20 °C to +550 °C
toof+550 °C for
reading,
Accuracy −40
−40 °C±2to◦ C °C
+550 to
2%+550
or ±°C °C
of reading
ambient temperature 10 C to 35 ◦ C
◦

Temperature
Temperature Range sensitivity
sensitivity
Spectral 0.05
0.05 °C (50 °C (50µm
mK)
7.5–13.5 mK) < 0.05 °C<(50
7.5–13.00.05 °C (50 mK)
µmmK)
Calibration Yes
±2 °C or ±2
±2%°Cof
orreading,
±2% of reading,
for for
Accuracy
Accuracy ±2 °C or ±2
±2%°Cof
orreading
±2% of reading
Detector type FPA, uncooled vanadium oxide (VOx )ambient
ambient temperature
10 °C to 10
microbolometer
temperature 35 °C to 35 °C

Spectral Spectral
Range Range 7.5–13.5 7.5–13.5
μm μm 7.5–13.0 7.5–13.0
μm μm
2.2. Experimental Set-Up of Laboratory Experiments
Calibration
Calibration 2.2.1. General Description Yes Yes

DetectorDetector
type type The main research method
FPA, is touncooled
FPA,
uncooled design
vanadiuma vanadium
series
oxideof (VO
experiments
oxide (VOxby controlling variables
) microbolometer
x) microbolometer
in a laboratory environment to determine the influence of the ambient environment and
the TIR camera’s intrinsic characteristics on the accuracy of temperature measurement.
Upon all the key parameters and environmental factors being adjusted and quantified, the
experimental design of the field tests can be optimized by evaluating the laboratory results.
Four experiments have been conducted for testing the response characteristics of TIR
sensors to thermal radiation signals. Two of the experiments were used to explore the
influence of the intrinsic characteristics of TIR cameras on the temperature measurements:
(a) assessing the stabilization time of TIR cameras, (b) generating calibration curves by
 influence of the intrinsic characteristics of TIR cameras on the temperature measurements:
(a) assessing the stabilization time of TIR cameras, (b) generating calibration curves by
measuring the cameras’ responses to different sensor temperatures, indirectly achieved
by adjusting the ambient temperature. The remaining sessions aimed to explain the influ-
ence21,of
Sensors 2021, 8466ambient environmental factors on accurate measurements: (c) the effect of the 5 of 20

change in the thickness of the atmospheric layer between the sensor and the target on the
measured temperature, caused by the distance variation between the camera and the
measuring
blackbody, (d) assessing windthe cameras’
and heating responses
effectstoondifferent sensor temperatures,
temperature indirectly All
outputs of cameras. achieved
by adjusting the ambient temperature. The remaining sessions aimed to explain the
sub-experiments in this research used two blackbody calibrators (models KBB 35 and KBB
influence of ambient environmental factors on accurate measurements: (c) the effect of
55 from Kleiber Infrared GmbH,
the change in theGermany;
thickness ofemissivity = 0.98layer
the atmospheric ± 0.004,
betweentemperature
the sensor and uncer-
the target
tainty = 0.4 °C for Taon
= 10–30 °C andtemperature,
the measured 0.6 °C for Tcaused
a = 0–10 by°C,
thereproducibility
distance variation=between
0.2 °C, the
stability
camera and
= 0.1 °C, uniformity the
= 0.2 °C for the
blackbody, (d)45-mm-diameter
assessing wind and heatingcentraleffects
area)onwith fixed temperatures
temperature outputs of cameras.
All sub-experiments in this research used two blackbody
of 35 °C and 55 °C to compare the performance of adopted cameras against the target calibrators (models KBB 35 and
KBB 55 from Kleiber Infrared GmbH, Germany; emissivity = 0.98 ± 0.004, temperature
objects. uncertainty = 0.4 ◦ C for Ta = 10–30 ◦ C and 0.6 ◦ C for Ta = 0–10 ◦ C, reproducibility = 0.2 ◦ C,
The introduction to the= laboratory
stability and instruments
0.1 ◦ C, uniformity can
= 0.2 ◦ C for the refer to Figure
45-mm-diameter 1. During
central ex- fixed
area) with
◦ ◦
periments, the housing (surface)
temperatures temperature
of 35 C and 55 Cof to the camera
compare was recorded
the performance at 1 Hz
of adopted with against
cameras a
the target objects.
PT100 resistance temperature detector (RTD) (SP14, Chauvin Arnoux Group, Paris,
The introduction to the laboratory and instruments can refer to Figure 1. During experi-
France) and a data logger (CA 1823, Chauvin Arnoux Group, Paris, France), as shown in
ments, the housing (surface) temperature of the camera was recorded at 1 Hz with a PT100
Figure 1b. In an environment with itsdetector
resistance temperature temperature ranging
(RTD) (SP14, Chauvinfrom −40 Group,
Arnoux °C to Paris,
450 °C, theand a
France)
measurement accuracy of this(CA
data logger RTD1823, can reachArnoux
Chauvin 0.15 °C. A weather
Group, monitor
Paris, France), (ImagDlo,
as shown in Figurethe1b. In an
environment with its temperature ranging from − 40 ◦ C to 450 ◦ C, the measurement accuracy
Netherlands) provided automatic monitoring data of indoor meteorological elements, in-
of this RTD can reach 0.15 ◦ C. A weather monitor (ImagDlo, the Netherlands) provided
cluding air temperature (Ta) and relative humidity (RH), every 10 min. Table 2 provides
automatic monitoring data of indoor meteorological elements, including air temperature
details of the experimental set-ups.
(Ta ) and relative Regarding
humidity (RH), the
every output
10 min.data
Tableformats,
2 providesraw data
details was
of the cap-
experimental
tured as 16-bit TIFFset-ups.
images for WIRIS,
Regarding while
the output theformats,
data storagerawwas
data in
wassequential
captured as (SEQ) digital
16-bit TIFF images for
format for FLIR E8-XT.WIRIS, while the storage was in sequential (SEQ) digital format for FLIR E8-XT.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. General introduction ofGeneral

Figure 1. the experimental design.
introduction of the experimental design.

Table 2. Overview
2.2.2. Stabilization Time of environmental parameter settings related to sets of experiments.
Time Interval of
To test the amount of time required
Measuring Capture for the TIR cameras to output stable readings,
Non-Uniformity Relative
Experiment TIR Camera Distance Time Interval Atmospheric Temperature (Ta ) Humidity
images mainly containing the blackbody Corrections
/Total Timecalibrator signal were captured at regular inter- (RH)
(NUCs)
vals for a periodWIRISof up to 3 h (Table 52), a time
s/2–3 h period
2 and that
30 mincan typically easily be supported
a. Stabilization time 0.5 m 15 ◦ C
by UAV batteries. The long waiting time on the ground ensured that there was enough
FLIR E8-XT 5 s/1 h turned off

WIRIS 30 s/ 30 min Setting points: 5 ◦ C, 10 ◦ C,

b. Ambient 6–19.5 h 14 ◦ C, 18 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, 22 ◦ C, 25 ◦ C;
temperature’s 0.2 m the actual temperature change is
influence FLIR E8-XT 30 s/5.5 h turned off continuous, approximately from 70%
5 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C
c. Distance’s WIRIS 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 30 min
5 s/80 min
influence FLIR E8-XT 2.0 m, 4.0 m turned off 15 ◦ C
d. Wind and WIRIS 0.5 m 5–10 s 30 min
heating-up effects /2–3 h
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 6 of 20

2.2.2. Stabilization Time

To test the amount of time required for the TIR cameras to output stable readings,
images mainly containing the blackbody calibrator signal were captured at regular intervals
for a period of up to 3 h (Table 2), a time period that can typically easily be supported by
UAV batteries. The long waiting time on the ground ensured that there was enough time
to stabilize the camera signal before take-off, so the testing time for this type of camera in
the indoor experiments was longer. By contrast, the battery life of handheld TIR cameras
was shorter. Therefore, the goal was to understand whether the measured temperature
could reach a steady-state under strict time constraints for handheld cameras. In WIRIS
sub-experiments, two different NUC execution frequencies were applied (2 and 30 min) to
explore automatic NUCs’ influence on temperature measurements.

2.2.3. Sensor Temperature

The experimental setup for testing the sensor temperature’s influence was inspired by
the standardized calibration procedure [37,41]: using a standard heat source (blackbody
calibrator) with a constant emissivity, starting heating the blackbody in a fixed temperature
step, and then using a TIR sensor to measure the blackbody temperature. The temperature
readings are compared with the blackbody temperature, and a calibration curve is formed
after collecting multiple samples. Next, when the ambient temperature has been adjusted,
it is possible to test whether the response characteristics of a specific sensor are varying
under different ambient temperatures. Since this study used a blackbody radiator of
which the temperature could not be adjusted, it was not possible to obtain a standard
blackbody calibration curve at multiple blackbody temperatures. On the premise of
retaining similar experimental purposes, our solution was to change the major variable
from blackbody temperature to ambient temperature. Even though such an experimental
setting cannot reflect the multiple linear regression between the measured temperature,
ambient temperature, and blackbody temperature, it can indirectly indicate how the
sensor’s temperature affects the measurements instead. The sensor temperature is affected
by the environment and cannot be maintained at a constant temperature for uncooled TIR
cameras. Therefore, by adjusting the ambient temperature, we studied the effect of sensor
temperature on camera readings before temperature dependence corrections.
The adjustment of ambient temperature in the climate room (the embedded climate
box was manufactured by Hoogendoorn, size: 5 × 3 m, located in Radix Klima, Wageningen
University and Research) followed two constraints. Firstly, temperature adjustments had to
be done on an hourly basis, and the step of each adjustment could not exceed 5 ◦ C. Secondly,
the range of temperature change referred to the atmospheric temperature that might be
experienced during the growth period of the local major crops. Therefore, we referred to
the historical temperature data of Wageningen from May to October. During this period,
the monthly average of day temperature in this region could reach up to 22 ◦ C in summer,
and the lowest monthly average night temperature was 6 ◦ C in winter. Accordingly, we
extended the temperature range and set the change of ambient temperature in steps from 5
to 25 degrees in the program, with the intermediate points at 10 ◦ C, 14 ◦ C, 18 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C,
and 22 ◦ C, respectively. In effect, there was no abrupt change of ambient temperature as it
took several minutes for the temperature of the whole climate room to reach the set value.

2.2.4. Sensor–Object Distance

Being restrained by the size of the climate room, the measuring distance between the
TIR camera and black body ranged from 0.5 m to 4 m (Table 2). For a given measuring
distance, images were captured every 5 s and lasted for 20 min. Specifically for WIRIS,
the execution of NUCs was enabled every 30 min, and the start time of each round of
measurements was set to 5 min after the last NUC. Therefore, it was ensured that no NUCs
were executed during the measurement periods for both sensors.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 7 of 20

2.2.5. Wind and Heating Effects

In reality, the ambient environmental conditions that a UAV-mounted TIR camera
would experience in the air are constantly changing to varying degrees during flight
campaigns. A fan and a thermo-heater gun were respectively used to simulate the influence
of wind and solar radiation in the natural environment on the temperature measurement
result of WIRIS. (a) For the fan experiment: the camera was kept 0.5 m away from the
blackbody. A fan was placed also 0.5 m apart from the side of WIRIS in the direction
perpendicular to the camera-blackbody line. After WIRIS had been turned on for 1 h,
the fan was turned on at its wind speed level 1, specifically 2.7–3.1 m/s. The wind blew
towards the camera continuously for 30 min and at the same time the camera recorded
blackbody images every 5 s. After the first round of wind experiments, there was a control
period of 60 min. The determination of this length of time was based on the results of
the “stabilization time” experiment (refer to Section 2.2.2). Afterward, the second wind
level (2.9–3.3 m/s) was applied, followed by another 60-min control period. At last, the
experiment was repeated with the wind level 3 at speeds between 3.1 and 3.7 m/s for
30 min. (b) For the thermo-heater gun experiment: the relative positions of all instruments
were the same as in the previous section. After WIRIS had been warmed up for 1 h, the
thermo-heater gun was turned on at its level 1 (100 ◦ C). The hot air blew towards the
camera for 30 min and the camera imaged the blackbody every 10 s simultaneously. After
the next control period of 30 min, the heating-up test continued with a higher level (200 ◦ C
thermal wind) for 15 min. The duration of this experiment was shortened to avoid damage
to the camera due to overheating.

2.2.6. Data Analysis

In the data processing stage, the blackbody extent was determined as the region of
interest (ROI), and only the measured temperature values within this range were analyzed.
Extra attention was paid to accurately locating the area corresponding to the blackbody
in the TIR images during “sensor–object distance” sub-experiments. As the measurement
distance increased, the proportion of the corresponding area in the images was significantly
reduced. Therefore, using the region of interest (ROI) to accurately frame the blackbody
area required more effort. This step was realized in combination with the reference values
in the background and overlapping with the corresponding visible (VIS) images. To derive
statistical analysis results from acquired TIR images, ImageJ [49] was used to enable batch
processing of WIRIS data, while FLIR Research Studio was used to analyze the encrypted
SEQ input data from FLIR E8-XT. As for statistical indicators, the average value was for
checking the overall situation of each blackbody image, and the standard deviation (STD)
served for analyzing the degree of difference in the response of different FPA units of TIR
cameras to radiation.

3. Results
3.1. Measured Temperature’s Stability over Time
Being judged by a steady decreasing trend after the slower increase in the original
curves and the starting point of the decreasing trend in the first-order difference series
curves, it took about 60–90 min for the measured temperature of WIRIS to reach stability
(for example, Figures 2 and 3). When the measurements stabilized, an underestima-
tion was revealed. The measured temperature was at least 1 ◦ C lower than the actual
value. Similar trends in between NUCs were observed in other repeated experiments
(Figures 4, 5 and S1). For FLIR E8-XT, significant temperature shifts were observed over
the first 30 min (Figures 6 and S2). In contrary, an overestimation of approximately 0.5 ◦ C
(35 ◦ C blackbody group) or 1.0–1.5 ◦ C (55 ◦ C blackbody group) was revealed when the
measured temperature reached its stability.
 (for example,
curves, Figures
it took about 2 and
60–90 3).for
min When the measurements
the measured temperature stabilized,
of WIRISanto
underestimation
reach stability
wasexample,
(for revealed.Figures
The measured
2 and 3).temperature was at least 1 °C
When the measurements lower than
stabilized, the actual value.
an underestimation
Similar
was trendsThe
revealed. in between
measured NUCs were observed
temperature was atinleast
other1 repeated
°C lowerexperiments (Figures
than the actual value.4,
5 and S1).
Similar Forin
trends FLIR E8-XT,
between significant
NUCs temperature
were observed shifts
in other were observed
repeated over (Figures
experiments the first 4,
30
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 5min
and(Figures
S1). For 6FLIR
andE8-XT,
S2). Insignificant
contrary, temperature
an overestimation of approximately
shifts were observed over 0.5the
°Cfirst
(358 30
°C20
of
blackbody
min (Figuresgroup)
6 andorS2).
1.0–1.5 °C (55 °C an
In contrary, blackbody group) was
overestimation revealed when0.5
of approximately the°Cmeasured
(35 °C
temperature reached its stability.
blackbody group) or 1.0–1.5 °C (55 °C blackbody group) was revealed when the measured
temperature reached its stability.

Figure2.2.The
Figure Theoriginal
originaltime
timeseries
seriescurves
curvesof ofWIRIS
WIRIScamera
camera observations.
observations. Dark blue
blue thick
thick curve:
curve: Readings
Readingsof ofthe
theaverage
average
measured temperature over time when imaging a round-shape blackbody calibrator at 55 C, as recorded by WIRISover
measured
Figure 2. temperature
The original over
time time
series when
curves imaging
of WIRIS a round-shape
camera blackbody
observations. calibrator
Dark blue at
thick55 °C,
◦
curve:as recorded
Readings by
of WIRIS
the average
over
3hhafter
afterswitching
3measured switching onthe
temperature
on the
overcamera. During
time when
camera. During the operation
imaging
the operation of the
the camera,
a round-shape
of the
the emissivity
blackbody
camera, calibrator
emissivityatof the
of55 measured
°C,
the object
as recorded
measured bywas
object wasadjusted
WIRIS over
adjusted
3from
from
theswitching
h after default value
the default on the
value
of camera.
0.95 to 0.98,
of 0.95 During
to 0.98,
being
the
being
consistent
consistent
with
operationwith
of thethat of the adopted
camera,
that of the the
blackbody
emissivity
adopted
calibrator (Ε
of the calibrator
blackbody measured BB = 0.98).
object
(E
The thin
was adjusted
BB = 0.98). The thin
red curve
from represents
the default valuethe development
of 0.95 of the
to 0.98, being standardwith
consistent deviation
that of(STD) of the temperature
the adopted readings.(ΕThe
blackbody calibrator BB = non-uniformity
0.98). The thin
red curve represents
corrections the development
(NUCs) every of the standard
30 min are shown deviation (STD) of the temperature readings. The non-uniformity
red curve represents the development of the as green lines.
standard deviation (STD) of the temperature readings. The non-uniformity
corrections (NUCs) every 30 min are shown as
corrections (NUCs) every 30 min are shown as green lines.green lines.
0.50 0.10
– Mean

– STD
0.50 T–Measured–Mean T–Measured–STD 0.10
0.30 0.08
– Mean

– STD
T–Measured–Mean T–Measured–STD

Temperature
0.30 0.08
Temperature

0.10 0.06

Temperature
Temperature

0.10 0.06
-0.10 0.04

(°C)(°C)
(°C)(°C)

-0.10 0.04
-0.30 0.02

∆ Measured
∆ Measured

-0.30 0.02
-0.50 0.00

∆ Measured
∆ Measured

-0.50 0.00
-0.70 -0.02
-0.70 -0.02
-0.90 -0.04
-0.90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -0.04
0 20 40 60 Time after
80 Starting Heating-Up
100 (Minutes)
120 140 160 180
Time after Starting Heating-Up (Minutes)
Figure 3. The first-order difference series curves of the WIRIS camera readings. The dark blue curve represents the first-
order 3.
Figure
Figure differential
3.The time series
Thefirst-order
first-order dataseries
difference
difference of thecurves
seriesobserved
curvesofofmean.
the
the Thecamera
WIRIS
WIRIS red curve
camera is the The
readings.
readings. first-order
The dark
dark difference
blue
blue curve
curve time series
represents
represents ofthe
the thefirst-
STD
first-order
of the
order observations.
differential
differential
Sensors 2021, 21, x time time series
seriesREVIEW
FOR PEER data of the observed mean. The red curve is the first-order difference time series of the
data of the observed mean. The red curve is the first-order difference time series of the STD9ofof 20 STD
of the
the observations.
observations.

Figure4.4.The
Figure Themeasured
measuredaverage
average temperature
temperature of
of the blackbody calibrator (55 ◦ C)area,
(55 °C) area,as
asrecorded
recordedbybyWIRIS
WIRIS2nd
2ndGEN
GENover
over
2 h after switching on the camera. The STD of the measured temperature is also included. In this session, the NUCs
2 h after switching on the camera. The STD of the measured temperature is also included. In this session, the NUCs were were
enabledevery
enabled min.
every22min.
Sensors 2021, Figure
21, 84664. The measured average temperature of the blackbody calibrator (55 °C) area, as recorded by WIRIS 2nd GEN over 9 of 20
2 h after
Figure 4. switching on the
The measured camera.
average The STD ofofthe
temperature themeasured
blackbodytemperature is °C)
calibrator (55 alsoarea,
included. In thisby
as recorded session,
WIRISthe
2ndNUCs
GEN were
over
2enabled
h after every 2 min
switching on. the camera. The STD of the measured temperature is also included. In this session, the NUCs were
enabled every 2 min.

5. The5.measured
FigureFigure The measuredaverage temperature
average temperatureofofthe
theblackbody
blackbody (55 ◦ C)area,
(55°C) area,asas recorded
recorded by WIRIS
by WIRIS 2nd 2nd
GENGEN
over 2over 2 h after
h after
activation.
activation.
FigureThe The
STD
5. The STD of the measured
of the measured
measured temperature
temperature
average temperature is also
is also
of the included.
included.
blackbody In
Inthis
(55 °C) session,
this
area,session,thethe
automatic
as recorded NUCs
automatic
by WIRIS were
NUCs
2nd enabled
GENwere 2 hevery
over enabled
after every
30 min. This
activation. Thefigure
STD is the
of used as a comparison with Figure 4 to visualize
In this the influence of NUC frequency
wereunder theevery
same
30 min. This figure is used asmeasured temperature
a comparison with isFigure
also included.
4 to visualize session, the automatic
the influence of NUCNUCs enabled
frequency under the same
experimental
30 conditions.
min. This figure is usedDue
as to a malfunction,
a comparison withnoFigure
data was4 torecorded
visualizebetween 17 andof
the influence 28NUC
min. frequency under the same
experimental conditions. Due to a malfunction, no data was recorded between 17 and 28 min.
experimental conditions. Due to a malfunction, no data was recorded between 17 and 28 min.
57.0 25.0

(°C)(°C)
57.0 24.0
25.0
56.5
(°C)(°C)

23.0

Temperature
24.0
56.5
Temperature

22.0
23.0

Temperature
56.0
Temperature

21.0
22.0
56.0
55.5 20.0
21.0

Surface/Housing
55.5 19.0
20.0
Measured

Surface/Housing
55.0
18.0
19.0
Measured

55.0
17.0
18.0
54.5
Series1
T–Measured–Mean T–Surface
Series2 16.0
17.0
54.5
54.0 Series1 T–Surface
Series2
15.0
16.0
T–Measured–Mean
54.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 15.0
0 10 20Time after Starting30
Heating-Up (Minutes)
40 50 60
Time after Starting Heating-Up (Minutes)
Figure 6. The measured average temperature of the blackbody calibrator (55 °C) area, as recorded by FLIR E8-XT over 1 h
after
FigureFigureswitching
6. The on the
6. measured
The measured camera.
average The
average housing temperature’s
temperature
temperature ofofthe development
theblackbody
blackbody calibrator
calibratorof
(55the ◦camera
°C)
(55 area,
C) is recorded
as
area, also depicted.
by FLIR
as recorded E8-XTE8-XT
by FLIR over 1over
h 1h
after switching
after switching on camera.
on the the camera.
The The housingtemperature’s
housing temperature’s development
development ofofthe camera
the is also
camera depicted.
is also depicted.

The measurement results showed that the effect of NUC on the measured temperature
was irregular for both applied frequencies. The direction and extent of signal adjustment
caused by NUC were both random. From the camera activation to a long time after the
completion of the warm-up period, the measured temperature has shown an increasing
trend between every two NUC executions (Figure 2, Figure 4, and Figure 5). The end of
the increasing trend is at approximately between 60 and 90 min for different experimental
groups. After the “tipping point”, the observation data showed a downward trend in
between NUCs. With frequent NUCs, the sensor corrects the gain and offset of each pixel
more often. It means that the thermal stabilization reached after each NUC is difficult to
break. In this case, the difference in response between different pixels is difficult to expand
over time. In addition, the differences in the degree of response of different pixels (referred
to STD) can be maintained at the same level. Based on the results of this session, this study
applied a “stabilization phase” of a specific length of time to stabilize the temperature
measurements in the following experiments. For WIRIS and FLIR E8-XT, the length of this
phase was 60 min and 30 min, respectively. It means that the subsequent experimental data
collection all started after the camera had been turned on for the above-mentioned time.

3.2. Response to Ambient Temperature Adjustments

There was a clear linear positive correlation between the measured temperature and
the ambient temperature for both TIR cameras (Figures 7 and 8). Specifically for WIRIS:
 phase” of a specific length of time to stabilize the temperature measurements in the follow-
ing experiments. For WIRIS and FLIR E8-XT, the length of this phase was 60 min and 30
min, respectively. It means that the subsequent experimental data collection all started after
the camera had been turned on for the above-mentioned time.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 10 of 20
3.2. Response to Ambient Temperature Adjustments
There was a clear linear positive correlation between the measured temperature and
the ambient temperature for both TIR cameras (Figures 7 and 8). Specifically for WIRIS:
whentargeting
targetingthethe35 ◦ C blackbody, the measured temperature increased by more than
35°C
when blackbody, the measured temperature increased by more than
◦
0.16°CCfor
for every
every degree
degree thethe ambient
ambient temperature
temperature increased.
increased. When
Whenimaging
imagingthe the 55 ◦C
55 °C
0.16
blackbody,the
blackbody, therate
rateofof increase
increase in in the
the measured
measured temperature
temperaturewas wasnearly
nearlydoubled
doubled(89%(89%
higher compared to the 35 ◦ C group). The frequent NUCs resulted in drifts in the measured
higher compared 35 °C group). The frequent NUCs resulted in drifts in the meas-
temperature
ured for any
temperature for given
any givenambient temperature.
ambient Thus,
temperature. the correlation
Thus, between
the correlation ambient
between am-
and measured
bient and measuredtemperature
temperature was was
negatively influenced
negatively (Figure
influenced 7). For
(Figure FLIR
7). For E8-XT,
FLIR the
E8-XT,
measured
the measured temperature’s
temperature’s correlation
correlationtotoambient
ambienttemperature
temperaturewas was stronger than that
stronger than that of
of
WIRIS(Figure
WIRIS (Figure8).8).The
Themeasured
measuredtemperature’s
temperature’sincrement
incrementwithwiththe
theambient
ambienttemperature
temperature
wasgreater
greaterfor
forthe
the55 ◦ C blackbody experiment.
55°C
was blackbody experiment.

60.0 40.0

59.0 39.0

Measured temperature of KBB35 / °C

Measured temperature of KBB55 / °C

58.0 38.0
y = 0.1619x + 52.052
57.0 37.0
R² = 0.8007
56.0 36.0

55.0 35.0

54.0 34.0
y = 0.306x + 29.726
53.0 33.0
R² = 0.747
52.0 32.0

51.0 31.0
KBB55 KBB35
50.0 30.0
4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Ambient Temperature / °C

Figure
Figure7.7.The
Thecorrelation
correlationbetween
betweenthe
thetemperature
temperaturemeasured
measuredby
byWIRIS
WIRIS2nd
2ndGEN
GENand
andthe
theambient
ambient
temperature
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEWtemperaturefor
forblackbodies °C◦ C
blackbodiesatat3535 (KBB35) and
(KBB35) and °C ◦(KBB55).
55 55 P-value
C (KBB55). waswas
P-value smaller thanthan
smaller 0.001
offor
11 0.001
20
both.
for both.

37.00 59.00

36.75 58.75

Measured Temperature (KBB55) / °C

Measured Temperature (KBB35) / °C

36.50 58.50
y = 0.0747x + 34.678
36.25 58.25
R² = 0.9264
36.00 58.00

35.75 57.75

35.50 57.50
y = 0.1162x + 55.713
35.25 R² = 0.9304 57.25

35.00 57.00

34.75 56.75
KBB35 KBB55
34.50 56.50
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Ambient Temperature / °C

Figure
Figure 8.8.The
Thecorrelation between
correlation thethe
between measured
measured temperature
temperatureby FLIR E8-XT
by FLIR and the
E8-XT andambient tem-
the ambient
perature. ThisThis
temperature. session was conducted
session at theatblackbody
was conducted temperature
the blackbody of 35 of
temperature °C35 ◦ C (KBB35)
(KBB35) and 55and
°C 55 ◦C
(KBB
55),
(KBB separately. P-value
55), separately. was smaller
P-value than 0.001
was smaller than for both.
0.001 for both.

As shown in Figure 7, the temperature measurements using WIRIS are the closest to
the blackbody temperature (55 °C) when the ambient temperature is in the range of 16 °C
to 18 °C. The measured temperature was underestimated (overestimated) when the am-
bient temperature was below (above) this interval. According to the linear regression
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 11 of 20

As shown in Figure 7, the temperature measurements using WIRIS are the closest to
the blackbody temperature (55 ◦ C) when the ambient temperature is in the range of 16 ◦ C to
18 ◦ C. The measured temperature was underestimated (overestimated) when the ambient
temperature was below (above) this interval. According to the linear regression equation
of the 35 ◦ C group, assuming that the change in ambient temperature reaches 20 ◦ C, the
corresponding measured temperature variation can exceed 5 ◦ C (Figure 7). Compared to
WIRIS, the temperature data measured by FLIR E8-XT was closer to the true value in the
lower ambient temperature ranges. When the set value of the ambient temperature was
within the atmospheric temperature range during the growing seasons of common crops
in Wageningen (approximately 6–22 ◦ C), the measured temperature was very likely to be
overestimated (Figure 8).

3.3. The Effect of Measuring Distance on the Measured Temperature

Except for the 35 ◦ C blackbody session of WIRIS (Figure 9b), all other tests have shown
a strong negative linear correlation between the measuring distance and the measured
temperature (Figures 9a and 10). As can be seen from Figure 9a, as the measuring distance
is extended from 0.5 m to 4 m, the deviation of temperature reading from the initial value
reaches approximately 6 ◦ C. Meanwhile, the degree of dispersion of the measured data in
the blackbody extent also increases significantly as the measuring distance increases. This
was affected by the sharp decrease in the number of pixels of the target object. According
to Figure 9b, when the camera is moved from 0.5 m to 2 m away from the blackbody,
the measured temperature does not show a downward trend. At a distance of 4 m, the
measured temperature drops sharply by more than 3 ◦ C. For FLIR E8-XT tests, it is obvious
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
that the measured temperature decreases with the increase of distance in Figure 10. The
change in observations caused by the position variance can reach about 5–10 C. ◦

54.0 3.0 33.5 1.6

33.0
Measured Temperature – Mean / °C
STD of Measured Temperature / °C
Measured Temperature – Mean / °C

53.0

STD of Measured Temperature / °C

1.4
2.5
32.5
52.0 1.2
32.0
51.0 2.0
y = -0.4982x2 + 1.3993x + 32 1.0
y = -1.7572x + 53.439 31.5
50.0 R² = 0.9888
R² = 0.9419 1.5 31.0 0.8
49.0
30.5 0.6
48.0 1.0
30.0
0.4
47.0 29.5
Measured–Temperature–Mean 0.5
46.0 Measured–Temperature–Mean 0.2
29.0
Measured–Temperature–STD Measured–Temperature–STD
45.0 0.0 28.5 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Distance Between Camera and Blackbody / m Distance Between Camera and Blackbody / m
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. The
The correlation
correlation between
between the
the measured
measured temperature
temperature by WIRIS
WIRIS and the measuring distance. These
These sessions
sessions were
were
conducted at the blackbody temperature of 55◦°C (a) and 35◦ °C (b). The STD of temperature observation is also included
conducted at the blackbody temperature of 55 C (a) and 35 C (b). The STD of temperature observation is also included in
in
thethe charts
charts above.
above.

58.0 40.0

56.0 38.0
Measured Temperature of

y = -3.1763x + 58.884
Measured Temperature of

54.0 36.0
35°C Blackbody / °C
55°C Blackbody / °C

R² = 0.9813

52.0 34.0

50.0 y = -1.5897x + 36.822 32.0

R² = 0.9831

48.0 30.0

46.0 28.0
 45.0 0.0 28.5 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Distance Between Camera and Blackbody / m Distance Between Camera and Blackbody / m
(a) (b)
Figure
Sensors 9. The
2021, 21, 8466 correlation between the measured temperature by WIRIS and the measuring distance. These sessions were12 of 20
conducted at the blackbody temperature of 55 °C (a) and 35 °C (b). The STD of temperature observation is also included
in the charts above.

58.0 40.0

56.0 38.0

Measured Temperature of
y = -3.1763x + 58.884
Measured Temperature of

54.0 36.0

35°C Blackbody / °C
55°C Blackbody / °C

R² = 0.9813

52.0 34.0

50.0 y = -1.5897x + 36.822 32.0

R² = 0.9831

48.0 30.0

46.0 28.0
KBB-55 KBB-35
44.0 26.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Distance Between Camera and Blackbody / m

Figure
Figure10.
10. The
Thecorrelation
correlationbetween
betweenthethetemperature
temperatureobservations
observationsmeasured
measured by
by FLIR
FLIRE8-XT
E8-XTand
and the
themeasuring
measuringdistance
distanceat
at
the
theblackbody
blackbody temperature
temperature of
of 35 ◦ C and
35 °C and 55 ◦ C.
55 °C.

3.4.
3.4.Wind
WindandandHeating
HeatingUp UpEffects
Effectson
onCamera’s
Camera’s Response
Response
This
Thispart
partofofthe
theexperiment
experimentaims aimsto tosimulate
simulatethe theeffects
effectsofof wind
wind and
and solar
solar radiation
radiation
experienced by WIRIS when it is mounted
experienced by WIRIS when it is mounted on a UAV on a UAV in the fields. During
During the control
the control
periodof
period ofwind
windtests,
tests,the
theresidual
residualeffects
effectsof
ofthetheprevious
previouswind
windspeed
speedlevel
levelononthe
themeasured
measured
temperature gradually weakened
temperature weakened(Figures
(Figures1111and andS3).
S3).When
When thethe
fanfan
restarted, thethe
restarted, measured
meas-
temperature
ured andand
temperature camera
camerahousing
housing (surface)
(surface) temperature
temperatureofofthe the instrument responded
instrument responded
quicklyto
quickly tothe
thewind
wind again.
again. The
Theresponse
responselevellevelof of both
both sets
sets of
of temperature
temperature measurements
measurements
◦ blackbody
levelled off after 45 min (Figures 11 and S3). The experiment with the 55 °CC blackbody
levelled off after 45 min (Figures 11 and S3). The experiment with the 55
showedthat
showed thatdifferent
differentwind
windspeeds
speedshad hadsimilar
similareffects
effectson
on the
the temperature
temperature measurements
measurements
and housing
housingtemperature
temperature(Figure
(Figure 11).
11). In
Inthetheother
othergroup
groupusing
usingthethe 35 ◦
35 °CC blackbody,
blackbody, aa
and
higherwind
higher windspeed
speedlevel
levelbrought
broughtgreater
greaterimpact
impactononthe thetemperature
temperatureobservations
observations–see
– see
Supplementary Materials (Figure S3). The response difference of
Supplementary Materials (Figure S3). The response difference of FPA units remained sta- FPA units remained
stable
ble in the
in the windwind
test.test. Similar
Similar to wind
to wind tests,tests, the heating-up
the heating-up treatments
treatments also also
mademade
a bigadif-
big
difference to the measured temperature (Figure 12). In the process,
ference to the measured temperature (Figure 12). In the process, the increase in the the increase in the
measured temperature could achieve higher than 7 ◦ C. However, it was not possible to
determine how long it would take for the thermal effects on temperature observations to
be maximized, because the duration of the heating treatments was not long enough.
 measured temperature could achieve higher than 7 °C. However, it was not possible to
Sensors2021,
2021,21,
21,8466
x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sensors determine would take for the thermal effects on temperature observations 13toof13 20
how long it of 20

be maximized, because the duration of the heating treatments was not long enough.
measured temperature could achieve higher than 7 °C. However, it was not possible to
determine how long it would take for the thermal effects on temperature observations to
be maximized, because the duration of the heating treatments was not long enough.

Figure 11. Simulation of the Figure 11.wind

effect of Simulation
on WIRIS of the effect
while of winda on
imaging WIRIS while imaging
blackbody ◦ C with athree
blackbody at 55 °C with three
Figure 11. Simulation of theofeffect
levels wind of wind
speeds on WIRIS
(lowest—2.7–3.1 while imagingata55blackbody
m/s, medium—2.9–3.3 at levels
55 °Cofwith
m/s, highest—3.1–3.7
wind speeds
m/s).three
One-hour
(lowest—2.7–3.1 m/s, medium—2.9–3.3 m/s, highest—3.1–3.7 m/s). One-hour control periods were set between wind tests.
levels of wind speeds (lowest—2.7–3.1
control periods werem/s, medium—2.9–3.3
set between wind tests. Them/s, highest—3.1–3.7
housing m/s). One-hour
temperature’s development (of the cam-
The housing temperature’s development
era) and the STD(of the camera)
of the and the
measured STD of the
temperature aremeasured temperature are also included.
also included.
control periods were set between wind tests. The housing temperature’s development (of the cam-
era) and the STD of the measured temperature are also included.

Figure12.
Figure 12.Simulation
Simulationofofthe
the effect
effect of
of (radiative)
(radiative) heating
heating on
onWIRIS
WIRISbybyaathermo-heater
thermo-heatergun,
gun,while
whileimaging
imaging a blackbody
a blackbodyat at
5555◦ C.
°C.AAcontrol
controlperiod
periodwas
was set
set between
between wind
wind tests.
tests. The
The STD
STD of
of the
the measured
measuredtemperature
temperaturevalues
valuesisisalso
alsoincluded. The
included. The
housingtemperature
housing temperatureisisnot
notavailable
available for
for this
this session.
session.

ulation of the effect of (radiative) heating on WIRIS by a thermo-heater gun, while imaging a blackbody at
ol period was set between wind tests. The STD of the measured temperature values is also included. The
erature is not available for this session.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 14 of 20

4. Discussion
This research explored the feasibility of applying different types of miniaturized TIR
cameras to field practices requiring high accuracy. Cameras’ performances were observed
by implementing the controlled-environment experiments in a climate room.
In terms of the time required to reach a stable state, there were differences in the
performance of different TIR camera models. In the repeated experiments with two
cameras in this study, the stabilization time ranged from approximately 60 to 90 min
(Figures 2, 4, 5 and S1 in the supplementary materials). The increasing trend gradually
weakened until the end of this warm-up period and the temperature drifted downward at
the pace of 0.5 ◦ C every 20–30 min afterward (Figure 2). In addition, the corresponding
criteria for judging whether the measured value reached a steady-state were also different.
For WIRIS, the automated NUC’s influence complicated the judgment. Images at different
moments contained different degrees of NUC influence. The reason was that after each
NUC the measured temperature drifted continuously until the next execution. Simultane-
ously, the last NUC’s correcting effect diminished. For FLIR E8-XT, the measured value
could fluctuate drastically up to more than 2 ◦ C within 10 min after the camera was turned
on (Figure 6). The measured value rose gradually after a steep drop and then stabilized.
No significant trend developed in the signal. Such variations in signal readings caused by
the warm-up process of sensors have also been found in studies using different camera
models. Kelly et al. [37] observed a similarly dramatic shift using a non-radiometric TIR
camera—FLIR Vue Pro 640, in which the signal variation was much bigger (>1000 DNs in
10 min). Smigaj et al. [50] witnessed a spike (approximately 1.5 ◦ C) within the first 15 min
when imaging a blackbody at 25 ◦ C with Optris PI-450. Berni et al. [9] also noticed the
convergence in measurements to the blackbody temperature (40 ◦ C) using FLIR Thermovi-
sion A40M. The observations were initially overestimated by nearly 2 ◦ C and gradually
approached the blackbody temperature with a decreasing rate of change. It is, therefore,
noteworthy that the pattern and extent of changes will depend on the choice of a camera.
The issue of automatic NUCs has also been taken into consideration. Previous research
dealt with the calibration of miniaturized TIR camera models by setting the NUC execution
to manual mode [39,47,51]. The influence of automated NUCs was rarely mentioned. When
using any miniaturized TIR camera model, it is advisable to examine to what extent the
actual effect matches the claimed effect by the manufacturer. For many models, NUCs
are automatically executed at a specified time interval or after capturing a certain degree
of temperature change in the field of view (FOV). The effectiveness of NUC execution
is only based on the temperature of the shutter. In an ideal situation, the assumption
is true that the shutter temperature is the same as the rest of the camera [30]. However,
such assumptions can no longer be valid in real-world tests. Even though NUCs can be
optimized in a controlled environment, the temperature of the camera’s shutter, interior
components, and lens cannot always be kept consistent. During flight campaigns, it is
likely that the camera experiences dynamic changes in environmental variables such as
ambient temperature, wind, or solar radiation. These changes can bring uncertainty to the
temperature difference between camera parts, and the speed of the change may be faster
than the execution frequency of NUCs. Accordingly, the effectiveness of NUCs would
be significantly affected outdoors. In the tests of WIRIS, it was found that the automated
NUCs introduced high uncertainty to the measured temperature. When the NUC time
interval was long (30 min), the difference in signal response between FPA units showed
a continuously increasing trend in the STD; after shortening the time interval to 2 min,
the signal response consistency between FPA units was high and remained stable during
the 2-h test. Considering both the manufacturer’s recommendation and the results of
this experiment, the higher frequency NUC is recommended. The problem to face in this
choice is the frequent and large variations of the measurement signal. Ideally, the NUC
keeps the response signals of each FPA unit consistent [28]. In this process, the gain and
offset for all microbolometers on the FPA are adjusted to ensure that [52]. Specifically, after
each NUC update, temperature drifts cause the output signal deviation of different FPA
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 15 of 20

units to vary in size and direction over time, but the output signal’s change pattern of
each FPA unit should be fixed. In this way, the changing pattern of the overall average
output should still be similar. However, we still suggest conducting quantitative research
on the influence patterns of the adopted TIR camera’s NUC on measurement results in
different environments.
The non-uniformity problem affects the performance of TIR imaging systems and
their application in many domains. The frequently used strategies to solve this problem
are as follows: one is to develop new materials for camera components to reduce the non-
uniformity of the device [53]; the other is to use signal processing to correct the problem [8].
Signal processing can help extract noise-free signals from long-sequence TIR images. In the
stabilization test (Section 3.1), the time-domain signal (such as the relationship between
the measured temperature and time) still contains significant noise. After using the first-
order difference to analyze the time-domain signal, the changing curve of the temperature
measurements is presented with smoothing applied. It is easier to judge the overall trend
of the temperature development (Figure 3). However, due to different sources of noise
in the TIR sensor circuit, the measurement results usually contain these random signals
from external interference and random factors such as thermal effects. As shown in the
research of Kelly et al. [37] and Aubrecht et al. [8], frequency-domain analysis using fast
Fourier transform (FFT) can help classify the noise generated by different frequencies and
filter out the noise in a specific frequency spectrum. Therefore, the signal-to-noise ratio
in the frequency-domain signal is small, and it is easier to extract the real signal with
less distortion.
The influence of the sensor temperature on the measurement cannot be underesti-
mated. In this study, since the FPA temperature cannot be obtained and manually adjusted,
its effects were tested indirectly. When the ambient temperature changes, the FPA tem-
perature should change in the same direction, but the magnitude of the change differs.
Therefore, the influence of the sensor temperature on the measurement can be indirectly
characterized by the correlation between the ambient temperature and the measurement.
In addition, different degrees of influence can be seen from the experimental results of
different temperature blackbodies. In the research of Lin et al. [39], the relation between the
FPA temperature, housing temperature, and the measured temperature is depicted, before
and after applying its non-uniformity correction methods. As the housing temperature
highly correlates with the ambient temperature, the similarity between the change of FPA
temperature and housing temperature suggests the high correlation between the sensor
temperature and ambient temperature. In addition, another practical difference exists
in generating the blackbody curves. Instead of depicting the relationship between the
measured signal and blackbody temperature for different blackbody temperatures, we
presented the correlation between the ambient temperature and measured temperature for
the available blackbody temperatures. This change gives the opportunity to still quantify
the ambient temperature (led to the difference in camera’s sensor temperature)’s impact on
outputs when having no blackbodies with multiple temperatures.
The measuring distance’s influence can be translated into the atmosphere’s interfer-
ence. According to Ribeiro-Gomes et al. [42], the influence of distance on measurements
should not be ignored. As this study indicated, the measured temperature was negatively
correlated with the measuring distance. As can be seen from Figures 9 and 10, the radiomet-
ric measurements suggested that the blackbodies appeared several Celsius degrees colder
than the actual target temperature when those were 4 m away from the sensors. However,
other factors could also have contributed to the uncertainty. The varying measuring dis-
tance causes the change of the atmospheric interference between the sensor and the target
object. As a result, the signal proportion of the measured object differs in the acquired
imagery. In earlier practices, Chrzanowski [54] investigated the influence of the difference
between the sensor-target distances under laboratory calibration and real-world applica-
tions on the accuracy of the temperature measurements with IR imaging systems. The
results have shown that the inaccuracy expanded significantly due to this source. Zhang
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 16 of 20

et al. [55] measured different temperatures of blackbodies (50 ◦ C, 150 ◦ C, 250 ◦ C, and
500 ◦ C) at varying distances (0–15 m) in the controlled laboratory environment with a TIR
sensor. The measured error was less than 0.7 ◦ C for all sessions, which was much smaller
than the results in this study. The author also successfully applied a correction model
to eliminate the measuring distance’s influence to less than 0.1 ◦ C. The model considers
major aspects of influence: the angular field of the TIR imager, the difference between the
target object’s temperature and ambient temperature, and the atmospheric transmittances
caused by measuring distance. It is uncertain whether this modeling practice can be extrap-
olated to field tests, as the real-world situation brings more disturbances to the measuring
process [56]. Generally, the temperature retrieval process must include an atmospheric
correction in satellite remote sensing, while insufficient attention has been paid to this
in the UAV-based research [57]. Applying atmospheric correction knowledge can help
eliminate the ambient environmental condition’s influence on UAV-based temperature
measurements at varying flight heights.
In previous practices, the fixed pattern noise of the TIR cameras and the change of
vignetting effects over time was monitored by completely covering the FOV of the cameras
with a blackbody. The temperature differences between pixels in the center and at the edge
of the sensor can reach up to more than 2 ◦ C [37]. This problem arises in the ortho-mosaic
creation based on collected UAV images [58]. There are a variety of methods used for
correcting vignetting effects [59–61]. Instead of correction solutions, it is also recommended
to only trust a certain portion of the central area in the frame during the data collection
and analysis procedures.
Based on the experimental results, the following attention points should be considered
before actual field practices of miniaturized TIR cameras:
1. A larger extent of temperature shifts has been witnessed directly after activation. We
suggest allowing a longer time for UAV-mounted cameras to stabilize after activation,
preferably at least one hour. For handheld devices, a stabilization period of 30–40 min
is enough. Other studies suggest 30–60 min to stabilize whether or not the same
abrupt changes have been observed in the beginning [22,34,43]. There is a trade-off
between the duration of the stabilization period and the length of the UAV flight.
2. For cameras of which the automatic corrections are executed periodically, there is a
trade-off between ensuring the data consistency and diminishing temperature drifts
in flight campaigns. If the former is chosen, then longer-period NUCs will make
a larger sequence of collected imagery comparable to each other upon using drift
correction methods. Otherwise, image mosaic will be a major problem with the choice
of frequent NUCs. For UAV-based cameras, we are inclined to still suggest high-
frequency NUCs if the acquired TIR imagery is applied to quantitative applications.
It is best to perform NUCs with the smallest feasible time interval one can choose
from the camera settings. For handheld cameras, it would be better to always capture
images shortly after manual or automated NUCs to avoid drifts.
3. In the laboratory experiment, following factors contributed to the accuracy changes
in distance tests: (a) noise as a result of radiation from other objects in the room;
(b) water vapor absorption (this study had very high humidity settings); (c) size of
the blackbody. For all miniaturized TIR cameras, the temperature measurements
are underestimated to a larger extent as the measuring distance increases. Tests
on different flight heights before actual flight campaigns can provide insight into
the influence of atmospheric interference in the fields. Based on the test results, the
researcher can prepare formal experiments with the corresponding influence degree in
mind. Afterwards, suitable atmospheric correction models could be used to effectively
reduce the deviation of observation values caused by atmospheric interference as
an option.
4. The measured temperature is highly correlated with the sensor temperature’s varia-
tions. Thus, real-time observations of the sensor temperature (or FPA temperature)
are preferred in flight campaigns if applicable for specific camera models (e.g., FLIR
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 17 of 20

Tau 2). This can contribute to the calibration of measured temperature in the post-
processing procedure.
5. Large fluctuations in camera signal have been found during the treatments of testing
wind and heating on camera performance. Cameras can be shaded during flights to
diminish this disturbance.
6. Previous studies concluded that it is not feasible to directly translate the laboratory
calibration methods into field tests as the uncertainty expands to a much larger extent.
However, as this study has demonstrated, a laboratory-based simulation approach
quantifies the inaccuracy in measured temperature brought by varying influencing
factors, which can guide field experimental set-ups. It still needs to be explored how
the problems found in temperature measurements can be avoided in an operational
context where all influencing factors add up by continuing follow-up field tests.

5. Conclusions
This research assessed the effects of multiple sources of influencing factors on the per-
formance of two radiometric miniaturized TIR camera models. Concerning the influence of
the cameras’ intrinsic characteristics, the laboratory experiments in a climate room suggest
that the duration of the warm-up period may vary among different models. However,
30 min for handheld cameras and 60 min for UAV-mounted cameras can guarantee accept-
able measurement accuracy. During measurements, the seemingly random changes that
automatic NUCs may bring to the temperature observations should not be neglected. A
suitable time-interval setting of NUCs, together with drift correction methods can compen-
sate for the data consistency problem in image mosaics. In addition, it is recommended to
contact the manufacturers to better understand the NUC’s effects based on the differences
between the factory calibration and user tests (without a complete series of precise instru-
ments for calibrating). To eliminate the effect of noises, it is recommended to transform
measurements into the frequency-domain signal for diminishing the signal-to-noise ratio.
The variation in sensor temperature also has a negative influence on measurement accuracy.
Lastly, ambient environmental conditions should be taken into account in the experimen-
tal design of field tests. The results clearly show the non-negligible influence of wind,
radiation, and atmospheric interference in distance tests. In the fields, the measurement
uncertainty may expand to several degrees if these factors are not properly considered.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10

.3390/s21248466/s1. Figure S1: The time series curves of WIRIS camera readings, housing (surface)
temperature measurements from one resistance temperature detector (RTD) data logger, ambient
temperature measurements provided by the laboratory. The camera readings have been recorded
against a blackbody calibrator at 35 ◦ C, over 2 h after activation. The development of the measured
temperature measurements’ standard deviation (STD) across pixels is also presented. Figure S2: The
measured average temperature of the blackbody calibrator (35 ◦ C) area, as recorded by FLIR E8-XT
over 1 h after switching on the camera. The housing temperature’s development of the camera is
also depicted. Figure S3: Simulation of the effect of wind on WIRIS while imaging a blackbody at
35 ◦ C with two levels of wind speeds (lower—2.7–3.1 m/s, higher—2.9–3.3 m/s). A one-hour control
period was set between wind tests. The housing temperature’s development (of the camera) and the
STD of the measured temperature are also included. From approximately 48 min to the end of the
session, there was a malfunction of NUC.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Q.W., B.B. and L.K.; methodology, Q.W., B.B. and L.K.;
software, Q.W.; formal analysis, Q.W.; supervision, L.K., B.B. and M.S.; writing—original draft
preparation, Q.W.; writing—review and editing, L.K., M.S. and B.B. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Q.W.’s project is funded by the China Scholarship Council (NO. 201907720012). B.B. is
supported by the IDEAS-QA4EO project of ESA-ESRIN.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 18 of 20

Data Availability Statement: The datasets used in this study are available upon request.
Acknowledgments: Q.W.would like to thank Jannick Verstegen, Gerrit Stunnenberg, David Brink,
Peter van der Zee, Marcello Novani, Andre Maassen, Berry Onderstal, Julia van Oord, Rick van
de Zedde, Kevin Yao, Henk Kramer, and Sander Mucher for supporting and providing help to the
laboratory experiments in Wageningen University and Research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Baker, E.A.; Lautz, L.K.; McKenzie, J.M.; Aubry-Wake, C. Improving the accuracy of time-lapse thermal infrared imaging for
hydrologic applications. J. Hydrol. 2019, 571, 60–70. [CrossRef]
2. Ottlé, C.; Vidal-Madjar, D.; Girard, G. Remote sensing applications to hydrological modeling. J. Hydrol. 1989, 105, 369–384.
[CrossRef]
3. Anderson, M.C.; Allen, R.G.; Morse, A.; Kustas, W.P. Use of Landsat thermal imagery in monitoring evapotranspiration and
managing water resources. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 122, 50–65. [CrossRef]
4. Ahmadirouhani, R.; Karimpour, M.-H.; Rahimi, B.; Malekzadeh-Shafaroudi, A.; Pour, A.B.; Pradhan, B. Integration of SPOT-5 and
ASTER satellite data for structural tracing and hydrothermal alteration mineral mapping: Implications for Cu–Au prospecting.
Int. J. Image Data Fusion 2018, 9, 237–262. [CrossRef]
5. Vaughan, R.G.; Hook, S.J.; Calvin, W.M.; Taranik, J.V. Surface mineral mapping at Steamboat Springs, Nevada, USA, with
multi-wavelength thermal infrared images. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 99, 140–158. [CrossRef]
6. Keramitsoglou, I.; Daglis, I.A.; Amiridis, V.; Chrysoulakis, N.; Ceriola, G.; Manunta, P.; Maiheu, B.; De Ridder, K.; Lauwaet, D.;
Paganini, M. Evaluation of satellite-derived products for the characterization of the urban thermal environment. J. Appl. Remote
Sens. 2012, 6, 061704. [CrossRef]
7. Hua, L.; Shao, G. The progress of operational forest fire monitoring with infrared remote sensing. J. For. Res. 2017, 28, 215–229.
[CrossRef]
8. Aubrecht, D.M.; Helliker, B.R.; Goulden, M.; Roberts, D.A.; Still, C.J.; Richardson, A.D. Continuous, long-term, high-frequency
thermal imaging of vegetation: Uncertainties and recommended best practices. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2016, 228-229, 315–326.
[CrossRef]
9. Berni, J.A.J.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Suarez, L.; Fereres, E. Thermal and Narrowband Multispectral Remote Sensing for Vegetation
Monitoring from an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47, 722–738. [CrossRef]
10. Messina, G.; Modica, G. Applications of UAV Thermal Imagery in Precision Agriculture: State of the Art and Future Research
Outlook. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1491. [CrossRef]
11. Gallo, M.A.; Willits, D.S.; Lubke, R.A.; Thiede, E.C. Low-cost uncooled IR sensor for battlefield surveillance. In Infrared Technology
XIX; Andersen, B.F., Shepherd, F.D., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 1993; Volume 2020, pp. 351–362.
12. Sharma, J.B. Applications of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Best Practices and Case Studies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019.
13. Sheng, H.; Chao, H.; Coopmans, C.; Han, J.; McKee, M.; Chen, Y. Low-cost UAV-based thermal infrared remote sensing: Platform,
calibration and applications. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded
Systems and Applications, QingDao, China, 15–17 July 2010; pp. 38–43.
14. Jensen, A.M.; McKee, M.; Chen, Y. Procedures for processing thermal images using low-cost microbolometer cameras for small
unmanned aerial systems. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Quebec City,
QC, Canada, 13–18 July 2014; pp. 2629–2632.
15. Martínez, J.; Egea, G.; Agüera, J.; Pérez-Ruiz, M. A cost-effective canopy temperature measurement system for precision
agriculture: A case study on sugar beet. Precis. Agric. 2016, 18, 95–110. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, L.; Niu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Han, W.; Li, G.; Tang, J.; Peng, X. Maize Canopy Temperature Extracted from UAV Thermal and
RGB Imagery and Its Application in Water Stress Monitoring. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1270. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Crusiol, L.G.T.; Nanni, M.R.; Furlanetto, R.H.; Sibaldelli, R.N.R.; Cezar, E.; Mertz-Henning, L.M.; Nepomuceno, A.L.;
Neumaier, N.; Farias, J.R.B. UAV-based thermal imaging in the assessment of water status of soybean plants. Int. J. Remote Sens.
2019, 41, 3243–3265. [CrossRef]
18. Tattaris, M.; Reynolds, M.P.; Chapman, S. A direct comparison of remote sensing approaches for high-throughput phenotyping in
plant breeding. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Bellvert, J.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Girona, J.; Fereres, E. Mapping crop water stress index in a ‘Pinot-noir’ vineyard: Comparing
ground measurements with thermal remote sensing imagery from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Precis. Agric. 2014, 15, 361–376.
[CrossRef]
20. García-Tejero, I.; Hernández, A.; Padilla-Díaz, C.; Diaz-Espejo, A.; Fernández, J. Assessing plant water status in a hedgerow olive
orchard from thermography at plant level. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 188, 50–60. [CrossRef]
21. Gerhards, M.; Rock, G.; Schlerf, M.; Udelhoven, T. Water stress detection in potato plants using leaf temperature, emissivity, and
reflectance. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2016, 53, 27–39. [CrossRef]
22. Padhi, J.; Misra, R.; Payero, J. Estimation of soil water deficit in an irrigated cotton field with infrared thermography. Field Crop.
Res. 2012, 126, 45–55. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 19 of 20

23. Ju, S.-B.; Yong, Y.-J.; Kim, S.-G. Design and fabrication of a high-fill-factor microbolometer using double sacrificial layers.
In Infrared Technology and Applications XXV; Andresen, B.F., Strojnik, M., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 1999; Volume 3698,
pp. 180–189.
24. Yu, L.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, H.; Luo, M.; Han, P.; Ji, X. Low-Cost Microbolometer Type Infrared Detectors. Micromachines 2020, 11, 800.
[CrossRef]
25. Lijing, Y.; Libin, T.; Wenyun, Y.; Qun, H. Research progress of uncooled infrared detectors. Infrared Laser Eng. 2021, 50, 20211013.
[CrossRef]
26. Sizov, F. IR region challenges: Photon or thermal detectors? Outlook and means. Semicond. Phys. Quantum Electron. Optoelectron.
2012, 15, 193–199. [CrossRef]
27. Rogalski, A. Recent progress in infrared detector technologies. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2011, 54, 136–154. [CrossRef]
28. Mesas-Carrascosa, F.-J.; Pérez-Porras, F.; De Larriva, J.E.M.; Frau, C.M.; Agüera-Vega, F.; Carvajal-Ramírez, F.;
Martínez-Carricondo, P.; García-Ferrer, A. Drift Correction of Lightweight Microbolometer Thermal Sensors On-Board
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 615. [CrossRef]
29. Deane, S.; Avdelidis, N.P.; Ibarra-Castanedo, C.; Zhang, H.; Nezhad, H.Y.; Williamson, A.A.; Mackley, T.; Maldague, X.;
Tsourdos, A.; Nooralishahi, P. Comparison of cooled and uncooled ir sensors by means of signal-to-noise ratio for ndt diagnostics
of aerospace grade composites. Sensors 2020, 20, 3381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Olbrycht, R.; Wi˛ecek, B.; De Mey, G. Thermal drift compensation method for microbolometer thermal cameras. Appl. Opt. 2012,
51, 1788–1794. [CrossRef]
31. Aragon, B.; Johansen, K.; Parkes, S.; Malbeteau, Y.; Al-Mashharawi, S.; Al-Amoudi, T.; Andrade, C.F.; Turner, D.; Lucieer, A.;
McCabe, M.F. A calibration procedure for field and UAV-based uncooled thermal infrared instruments. Sensors 2020, 20, 3316.
[CrossRef]
32. Chen, X.; Liu, B.; Fang, C.; Lv, Q. Microbolometer parameters optimization for high-performance focal plane array. Optik 2021,
240, 166910. [CrossRef]
33. Acorsi, M.; Gimenez, L.; Martello, M. Assessing the Performance of a Low-Cost Thermal Camera in Proximal and Aerial
Conditions. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3591. [CrossRef]
34. Neale, C.M.U.; Jaworowski, C.; Heasler, H.; Sivarajan, S.; Masih, A. Hydrothermal monitoring in Yellowstone National Park
using airborne thermal infrared remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 184, 628–644. [CrossRef]
35. Byerlay, R.A.; Coates, C.; Aliabadi, A.A.; Kevan, P.G. In situ calibration of an uncooled thermal camera for the accurate
quantification of flower and stem surface temperatures. Thermochim. Acta 2020, 693, 178779. [CrossRef]
36. Breen, T.B.; Kohin, M.; Marshall, C.A.; Murphy, R.; White, T.E.; Leary, A.R.; Parker, T.W. Even more applications of uncooled
microbolometer sensors. In Infrared Technology and Applications XXV; Andresen, B.F., Strojnik, M., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA,
USA, 1999; Volume 3698, pp. 308–319.
37. Kelly, J.; Kljun, N.; Olsson, P.-O.; Mihai, L.; Liljeblad, B.; Weslien, P.; Klemedtsson, L.; Eklundh, L. Challenges and Best Practices
for Deriving Temperature Data from an Uncalibrated UAV Thermal Infrared Camera. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 567. [CrossRef]
38. Meola, C. (Ed.) Origin and theory of infrared thermography. In Infrared Thermography Recent Advances and Future Trends; Bentham
eBooks: Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 2012; pp. 3–28.
39. Lin, D.; Maas, H.-G.; Westfeld, P.; Budzier, H.; Gerlach, G. An advanced radiometric calibration approach for uncooled thermal
cameras. Photogramm. Rec. 2018, 33, 30–48. [CrossRef]
40. Budzier, H.; Gerlach, G. Calibration of uncooled thermal infrared cameras. J. Sens. Sens. Syst. 2015, 4, 187–197. [CrossRef]
41. Nugent, P.W.; Shaw, J.A.; Pust, N.J. Correcting for focal-plane-array temperature dependence in microbolometer infrared cameras
lacking thermal stabilization. Opt. Eng. 2013, 52, 061304. [CrossRef]
42. Ribeiro-Gomes, K.; Hernández-López, D.; Ortega, J.F.; Ballesteros, R.; Poblete, T.; Moreno, M.A. Uncooled Thermal Camera
Calibration and Optimization of the Photogrammetry Process for UAV Applications in Agriculture. Sensors 2017, 17, 2173.
[CrossRef]
43. Chengpeng, D.; Wei, L.; Yaohong, C.; Qingsheng, X.; Bo, Y.; Zuofeng, Z. Multiple background sampling adaptive non-uniform
correction algorithm. Acta Opt. Sin. 2016, 36, 1020001. [CrossRef]
44. Zeng, Q.; Qin, H.; Yan, X.; Zhou, H. Fourier spectrum guidance for stripe noise removal in thermal infrared imagery. IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett. 2019, 17, 1072–1076. [CrossRef]
45. Cao, Y.; Tisse, C.-L. Shutterless solution for simultaneous focal plane array temperature estimation and nonuniformity correction
in uncooled long-wave infrared camera. Appl. Opt. 2013, 52, 6266–6271. [CrossRef]
46. Liang, K.; Yang, C.; Peng, L.; Zhou, B. Nonuniformity correction based on focal plane array temperature in uncooled long-wave
infrared cameras without a shutter. Appl. Opt. 2017, 56, 884–889. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Tempelhahn, A.; Budzier, H.; Krause, V.; Gerlach, G. Shutter-less calibration of uncooled infrared cameras. J. Sens. Sens. Syst.
2016, 5, 9–16. [CrossRef]
48. Sagan, V.; Maimaitijiang, M.; Sidike, P.; Eblimit, K.; Peterson, K.T.; Hartling, S.; Esposito, F.; Khanal, K.; Newcomb, M.; Pauli, D.;
et al. UAV-based high resolution thermal imaging for vegetation monitoring, and plant phenotyping using ICI 8640 P, FLIR Vue
Pro R 640, and thermomap cameras. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 330. [CrossRef]
49. Abràmoff, M.D.; Magalhaes, P.J.; Ram, S.J. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int. 2004, 11, 36–42.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8466 20 of 20

50. Smigaj, M.; Gaulton, R.; Suarez, J.C.; Barr, S. Use of Miniature Thermal Cameras for Detection of Physiological Stress in Conifers.
Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 957. [CrossRef]
51. Wolf, A.; Pezoa, J.E.; Figueroa, M. Modeling and compensating temperature-dependent non-uniformity noise in IR microbolome-
ter cameras. Sensors 2016, 16, 1121. [CrossRef]
52. Mudau, A.E.; Willers, C.J.; Griffith, D.; Le Roux, F.P.J. Non-uniformity correction and bad pixel replacement on LWIR and MWIR
images. In Proceedings of the 2011 Saudi International Electronics, Communications and Photonics Conference (SIECPC), Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, 24–26 April 2011; pp. 1–5.
53. Liu, C.; Sui, X.; Gu, G.; Chen, Q. Shutterless non-uniformity correction for the long-term stability of an uncooled long-wave
infrared camera. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2018, 29, 025402. [CrossRef]
54. Chrzanowski, K. Influence of object-system distance on accuracy of remote temperature measurement with IR systems. Infrared
Phys. Technol. 1995, 36, 703–713. [CrossRef]
55. Zhang, Y.-C.; Chen, Y.-M.; Fu, X.-B.; Luo, C. A method for reducing the influence of measuring distance on infrared thermal
imager temperature measurement accuracy. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 100, 1095–1101. [CrossRef]
56. Chrzanowski, K. Influence of measurement conditions and system parameters on accuracy of remote temperature measurement
with dualspectral IR systems. Infrared Phys. Technol. 1996, 37, 295–306. [CrossRef]
57. Tmušić, G.; Manfreda, S.; Aasen, H.; James, M.R.; Gonçalves, G.; Ben-Dor, E.; Brook, A.; Polinova, M.; Arranz, J.J.; Mészáros, J.;
et al. Current practices in UAS-based environmental monitoring. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1001. [CrossRef]
58. Goldman, D.B. Vignette and exposure calibration and compensation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010, 32, 2276–2288.
[CrossRef]
59. Aasen, H.; Honkavaara, E.; Lucieer, A.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J. Quantitative remote sensing at ultra-high resolution with UAV
Spectroscopy: A review of sensor technology, measurement procedures, and data correction workflows. Remote Sens. 2018,
10, 1091. [CrossRef]
60. Meier, F.; Scherer, D.; Richters, J.; Christen, A. Atmospheric correction of thermal-infrared imagery of the 3-D urban environment
acquired in oblique viewing geometry. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2011, 4, 909–922. [CrossRef]
61. Chun, L.; Baomin, Z.; Shengrong, F. Research on vignetting in thermal imaging system. Infrared Laser Eng. 2000, 29, 13–16.