104 replies to this topic

[Insanity]

Insanity, on 30 November 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

The average trigger time from the 21 models they tested was 1.7 seconds.

Correction, average trigger speed of 40 models was 1.27 seconds.

[QuiteContrary]

Photos of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

Now trail cam  images of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

It is such a consistent part of the bigfoot story I can't label it as unlucky happenstance or blame equipment.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 01 December 2012 - 02:45 AM.

[Sakari]

QuiteContrary, on 01 December 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Photos of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

Now trail cam  images of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

It is such a consistent part of the bigfoot story I can't label it as unlucky happenstance or blame equipment.

Isn't it odd that trail cam pictures of every other thing turn out clear?.....Even very rare animals?








Please take the time to go to linked site and take a look.......................

Quote

Last week I stumbled across a neat new web site from the Smithsonian Institution called Smithsonian WILD. It features a collection of more than 200,000 photos taken by researches using trail cameras to study wildlife populations in nine different locations around the world. The site is the brainchild of William McShea, a senior research science at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., who designed it to “showcase the exciting research conducted by the Smithsonian Institution and its collaborators around the world, and to highlight the incredible diversity of wildlife that exists in a range of habitats across the globe.” When I called him up to ask if we could run a selection of the photos on our site, he was more than happy to oblige. “Hunters are driving the market for trail cam technology, and and that has translated into direct benefits for our research,” he said. “You can run as many as you like.” What follows are our picks for the 100 best shots from their collection. Enjoy! -- Nate Matthews, Online Editor, fieldandstream.com

Project Description:
Location: Amazon Rainforest
Arabela River, Peru
2008
Cameras Used: Reconyx RC55
Number of Camera Stations: 23
Objectives: This camera survey had two objectives: 1) To inventory medium to large-sized mammal species in a previously unstudied region of the Peruvian Amazon, and 2) To investigate the impact of oil exploration on carnivore movement and activity, with a particular focus on the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis).

Species: Ocelot & Armadillo
Species Description: The ocelot, also known as the Dwarf Leopard, McKenney's Wildcat, Jaguatirica (in Brazil), Jaguarete (in Paraguay and Argentina), Tigrillo (in Ecuador, Colombia and Peru), Cunaguaro (in Venezuela), or Manigordo (in Costa Rica and Panama) is a wild cat distributed over South and Central America and Mexico, but has been reported as far north as Texas and in Trinidad, in the Caribbean. North of Mexico, it is found regularly only in the extreme southern part of Texas, although there are rare sightings in Southern Arizona.

Lots of cool, rare pics here.......    http://siwild.si.edu/index.cfm

[Insanity]

I see the camera model is Reconyx RC55, which had among the fastest trigger time (0.16s) and recovery time (1s) and when it manufactured cost around $550.
The cheaper ones, like the Wildview, cost $90, and the one most recent Wildview review had a trigger time of 1.378s and a recovery of 60s.

Not all cameras perform the same, and this is why I said it would be best if we knew what model camera was used, as that could help understand why the picture is of less then ideal quality.

[Sakari]

Insanity, on 01 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

I see the camera model is Reconyx RC55, which had among the fastest trigger time (0.16s) and recovery time (1s) and when it manufactured cost around $550.
The cheaper ones, like the Wildview, cost $90, and the one most recent Wildview review had a trigger time of 1.378s and a recovery of 60s.

Not all cameras perform the same, and this is why I said it would be best if we knew what model camera was used, as that could help understand why the picture is of less then ideal quality.

It is less then ideal because it is a IR shot. And the clothing under the Gillie suit showing through the spaces shows up white. And the person in the gillie suit moved in to get the shot, and was not moving slow.I am sure the other pictures from the burst clearly show this. They probably had to try quite a few times, and pick out from a bunch of pictures to get one that was not obvious.



These 2 pictures are from a Maultrie ( higher end )....Both IR shots.


 MDGC0017.JPG   49.05K   12 downloads


Deer above was a dark brown, and was not moving real fast, but moving. If that had been say, a person coming into a shot to act like a creature grabbing apples, he would be moving faster, and have more blur. Not to mention a loose gillie suit that all ready waves around like a flag when you move.


 MDGC0001.JPG   51.5K   12 downloads


That sweat shirt is navy blue, damn near black. A picture with me in a Bigfoot costume did the same. And the costume is brown.

My point on this, a gillie suits material is not reflective, most clothes are. A gillie suit has a lot of large openings in it, it is meant to be used when standing still. These openings reveal what is underneath, especially to a IR camera....


This guy below is wearing a lower end gillie suit for the shot. He is also closer to the camera, and not moving. I am having doubts this pic is even a trail cam, but you get the point.You can search and see the many different models, and makes, and prices. I wish I had access to one, and I would duplicate the pic in question.

Edited by Sakari, 01 December 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[Insanity]

As you stated, and I agree with, the night mode or IR pictures tend to be of lower quality as the shutter speeds are often longer increasing motion blur, and the IR flash may white out the target.  I do agree that a very high end, and expensive camera, can take remarkable pictures.  Unfortunately it is unlikely that many of the cameras used by the public are of that quality, simply due to cost.  Strapping a $500 device to a tree and leaving it outside for days does obviously risk it getting damaged, or if a poacher happens to see it, being stolen is almost guaranteed.

The Moultrie models are rated above average, but still have trigger times of over 1.5s and the recovery time was several seconds to 30s.  They cost anywhere from $130 to $170.

Looking at TrailCamPro's reviews again by price, the 3 models under a $100 all state that their night time photos were either horrible, or dark, grainy and hardly discernible.  We could probably agree many night trail cameras pictures match that.

The fact is though is that not all of the available trail cameras perform the same, some are obviously much better then others, and likewise are more expensive.  The cost of the higher performance ones probably limits the number of them being used.

What we could probably agree on is that if you are serious about using a trail camera in any field research, spend the money so you get good results.

[Sakari]

Insanity, on 01 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

As you stated, and I agree with, the night mode or IR pictures tend to be of lower quality as the shutter speeds are often longer increasing motion blur, and the IR flash may white out the target.  I do agree that a very high end, and expensive camera, can take remarkable pictures. Unfortunately it is unlikely that many of the cameras used by the public are of that quality, simply due to cost.  Strapping a $500 device to a tree and leaving it outside for days does obviously risk it getting damaged, or if a poacher happens to see it, being stolen is almost guaranteed.

The Moultrie models are rated above average, but still have trigger times of over 1.5s and the recovery time was several seconds to 30s.  They cost anywhere from $130 to $170.

Looking at TrailCamPro's reviews again by price, the 3 models under a $100 all state that their night time photos were either horrible, or dark, grainy and hardly discernible.  We could probably agree many night trail cameras pictures match that.

The fact is though is that not all of the available trail cameras perform the same, some are obviously much better then others, and likewise are more expensive.  The cost of the higher performance ones probably limits the number of them being used.

What we could probably agree on is that if you are serious about using a trail camera in any field research, spend the money so you get good results.

I have not been arguing with you at all

Not sure if you have trail cams, or are just researching them.

I have 2, and know many people that use them. Just trying to help out with first hand accounts.

Most of the people I know using them, and their friends use the higher end models. $300.00 and up. Lock box's are cheap, and keep the cameras safe. They are left out all over the place, for weeks, even months. To track Elk and Bear mostly, not used much it seems for Deer. Probablly because there are so many around.( only refering to friends and co workers ).

Quite a few people are going, or have gone to " satelite " trail cams. No need to go out and check a sd card, pictures are sent through satelite phone, to your computer at home.

Anyway, my experience is most, if not all trail cams used out there are the higher priced ones. Hunters do not like to use cheap equipment, and they want it to work well. Same as you do not see many people using cheaper cell phones over iphones and the like.
And I have been teased quite a bit about my cameras, although they both take the same quality shots from what I have seen....



I was also trying to show how ( to me, and others at least ) that is a person in a ghillie suit.




Here is a topic that may interest you. I made it over 2 years ago, it is still active.....



http://www.unexplain...pic=183599&st=0

Edited by Sakari, 01 December 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[Insanity]

I had not thought we were arguing, debating maybe.
I do not own one myself, but have been considering it, hence research.  My father owns one, as my folks currently live where using one is useful, and between us its been used frequently.  Mostly deer and turkeys.

I had came in when I saw one poster questioning why a trail camera wouldn't have more pictures and why they would be of low quality and thought to explain why they would.

[Sakari]

Insanity, on 01 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I had not thought we were arguing, debating maybe.
I do not own one myself, but have been considering it, hence research.  My father owns one, as my folks currently live where using one is useful, and between us its been used frequently.  Mostly deer and turkeys.

I had came in when I saw one poster questioning why a trail camera wouldn't have more pictures and why they would be of low quality and thought to explain why they would.

You should get one, or two. It is like Christmas going out to get the SD card.......Kind of fades over time though, if you saw link, I just kept getting the same Deer. Although occasionally, you get a nice shot...

Moultrie's prices sure have gone down in just a few years.....Have not paid attention to that.....Good cams.

[Insanity]

Sakari, on 01 December 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

You should get one, or two. It is like Christmas going out to get the SD card.......Kind of fades over time though, if you saw link, I just kept getting the same Deer. Although occasionally, you get a nice shot...

Moultrie's prices sure have gone down in just a few years.....Have not paid attention to that.....Good cams.

I seen that one study you referred to had 23 of the Reconyx, that be a way to go, except then it be almost $13k.
From what I've seen the cellular ones only work on certain networks, and sending a picture across brings the recovery time to a full minute.  Not sure if that hampers any burst mode or not.

Ironically I am not far from where one of the samples reportedly used in Ketchum's report came from, the blueberry bagel one.  The place is in the Manistee National Forest, has some 800 sq mi of broken forest.

[Sakari]

Insanity, on 01 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

I seen that one study you referred to had 23 of the Reconyx, that be a way to go, except then it be almost $13k.
From what I've seen the cellular ones only work on certain networks, and sending a picture across brings the recovery time to a full minute.  Not sure if that hampers any burst mode or not.

Ironically I am not far from where one of the samples reportedly used in Ketchum's report came from, the blueberry bagel one.  The place is in the Manistee National Forest, has some 800 sq mi of broken forest.

I should send you mine to use there. Have not used them in a year....Wife would kill me though.

[QuiteContrary]

Sakari, on 01 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

This guy below is wearing a lower end gillie suit for the shot. He is also closer to the camera, and not moving. I am having doubts this pic is even a trail cam, but you get the point.You can search and see the many different models, and makes, and prices. I wish I had access to one, and I would duplicate the pic in question.

Nice!!!

But shucks! I really liked the Mama and Baby theory.

[Insanity]

In the best interest of any investigations, original photos should never be cropped or altered.
Interesting to note that from sources that do not have cropped photos of these, the one of the photos with the coyote was taken on 8/30/10, and the one showing the supposed Sasquatch was taken on 9/2/10.  Correct me if I am wrong, but the story seems to be that the coyote was scared off by the approaching Sasquatch?

*edit* the date is in agreement with the story, but the time seems off.

Specifically the time of the Sasquatch was 9/2/010 at 5:55pm.  It was supposed to have been taken at night, correct? My Redshift astronomy software shows that the sun was definitely above the horizon at 5:55pm and would not have set until around 7:25pm.  Why the need for night mode on this then?  Either the date/time was not programed correctly, or the story is not accurate.  Not correctly recording the date/time is a major mistake to make in any investigation.

Edited by Insanity, 01 December 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[Sakari]

Insanity, on 01 December 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

In the best interest of any investigations, original photos should never be cropped or altered.
Interesting to note that from sources that do not have cropped photos of these, the one of the photos with the coyote was taken on 8/30/10, and the one showing the supposed Sasquatch was taken on 9/2/10.  Correct me if I am wrong, but the story seems to be that the coyote was scared off by the approaching Sasquatch?

*edit* the date is in agreement with the story, but the time seems off.

Specifically the time of the Sasquatch was 9/2/010 at 5:55pm.  It was supposed to have been taken at night, correct? My Redshift astronomy software shows that the sun was definitely above the horizon at 5:55pm and would not have set until around 7:25pm.  Why the need for night mode on this then?  Either the date/time was not programed correctly, or the story is not accurate.  Not correctly recording the date/time is a major mistake to make in any investigation.

When this originally came out, that was mentioned....The person that made the hoax claimed the time was not reset on the camera....Battery change or something. I know on two that I know of, if not reset when changing batteries, it starts at the year 2005, and 12 noon I believe.

I am sticking with the Ghillie suit, to me it is very obvious........God, I wish I had a ghillie suit....

[QuiteContrary]

Here is the clip where they talk to the guy and get the background from him.

top video labeled "Here's 5-minute clip of the episode"

http://www.thebigfoo...-episode-2.html

Edited by QuiteContrary, 01 December 2012 - 06:51 PM.