Camera

A Think Tank of Techniques and Technology.
Post Reply
User avatar
hillbilly
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:35 am
Position: Believer
Location: Blue Mountains

Camera

Unread post by hillbilly » Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:15 am

I have used day/ night trail cameras for nearly ten years, and gone through a half a dozen of them, and my FLIR scout just this year with no luck. It has been mentioned a million times that they are sensitive to the IR detectors, which I agree with.
I was thinking I might get a camera set on time lapse only. So no infa red detections. Has anybody tried this? My concern is the night flash, which is supposed to be virtually invisible, might be a deterrent.
And, has anyone used Black Flash Cameras?

Pertys80
Silver Status
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 1:29 pm

Re: Camera

Unread post by Pertys80 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:11 pm

hillbilly wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:15 am
I have used day/ night trail cameras for nearly ten years, and gone through a half a dozen of them, and my FLIR scout just this year with no luck. It has been mentioned a million times that they are sensitive to the IR detectors, which I agree with.
I was thinking I might get a camera set on time lapse only. So no infa red detections. Has anybody tried this? My concern is the night flash, which is supposed to be virtually invisible, might be a deterrent.
And, has anyone used Black Flash Cameras?
I think time lapse has its place for Cryptids, more so than IR trail cams..
I think Rusty222 used plot watchers with some success, maybe insulating them some way from Sound and EMF might help more..(Just as I'm eyeing up this stuff here at work.. lol)
20180904_120627.jpg
I have a 950NM (No Glow) Trail cam, caught nothing extraordinary yet.. I once captured a dog that didn't seem to notice the flash so maybe a little better perhaps..
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Rusty2
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:30 pm
Position: Believer
Location: East Coast

Re: Camera

Unread post by Rusty2 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:49 pm

I think they can see the "no glow/black ir" . I got an unfriendly reaction the first time I deployed them .
The problem is all cameras have eyes/lenses . They know the cameras are watching .
It's documented in a book called Field and Labratory Methods in Primatology , "pointing a big eye at primates can make them uneasy"

User avatar
hillbilly
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:35 am
Position: Believer
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Camera

Unread post by hillbilly » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:56 pm

Thanks. I have some hollow logs which I refused to use as firewood, which I will try to hide camera in. The "no glow" flash will still be visible, but the camera will be less conspicuous.

ripperton

Re: Camera

Unread post by ripperton » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:51 am

Ive just discovered that my trail cam is basically useless.
The motion sensor reaction time is sometimes so slow and insensitive
that things can get in and out of the camera scope without triggering the camera.
If you are going to use a camera you would need to have it recording 24/7.
Ive got a series of clips where branches move between one clip and the next.
And a fox slowly moving through the scope simply disappears and does not
re-trigger the camera immediately while its still in scope.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
hillbilly
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:35 am
Position: Believer
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Camera

Unread post by hillbilly » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:24 am

There are trail cameras that you can set a time between shots, and alter the sensitivity of the sensors. I have mine set at around 15 seconds between shots, so if there is a fox or wallaby loitering in the area, I wont have lots of shots of the same animal. Sensitivity is set to medium. Its also got a video mode but I usually only take stills, to conserve battery power. 8 aa batteries last a few months.

User avatar
Dion
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: Camera

Unread post by Dion » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:07 am

I posted this up somewhere else but for all you others you may wish to see this Sony's iso capability.

Pretty awesome. (thumb up)

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

User formally known as chewy

MW83
Bronze Status
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:55 pm
Position: Crypto Enthusiast
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Camera

Unread post by MW83 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:29 pm

I saw this for sale on the JB hifi website and thought that it would be the ideal camera to attach to a backpack to film whatever is going on behind you:

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/cameras/camer ... ra/883110/


User avatar
Searcher
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:18 pm

Re: Camera

Unread post by Searcher » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm

Dion wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:07 am
I posted this up somewhere else but for all you others you may wish to see this Sony's iso capability.

Pretty awesome. (thumb up)
I'm gobsmacked at the capabilities of that Sony camera!!

It literally turns night into day. (cool) Night stalking Yowies and the likes... BEWARE! The cover of darkness is gone forever.

User avatar
Dion
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: Camera

Unread post by Dion » Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:15 pm

Searcher wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm
I'm gobsmacked at the capabilities of that Sony camera!!

It literally turns night into day. (cool) Night stalking Yowies and the likes... BEWARE! The cover of darkness is gone forever.
Its pretty awesome Searcher glad you agree.

Now if someone could just invent a game trail camera with those Sony specs and motion detection. #gamechanger
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

User formally known as chewy

Yowie Chaser

Re: Camera

Unread post by Yowie Chaser » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:55 am

Hey guys, Yowie Chaser,

I have an idea about this, i dont have a cam yet because of all the storeys i hear how they dont work.
But i think i have a way to stop any problems of these cameras being detected by Mr hairy.
I want to try it 1st so i wont give away clues on how to do it. but just think of a different way to set it up.
Deep thinking guys dont just go out to your favourite spot wrap a camera around a tree. You will also need some other things.

Good Luck

Yowieman27
Approved Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:25 pm
Position: Yowie Chaser
Location: South Australia

Re: Camera

Unread post by Yowieman27 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:29 pm

Does anyone think carrying a gopro around would be good for footage and sounds?

User avatar
Slats
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Facebook Profile Page: https://www.facebook.com/WestOzYowieResearch/
Location: Perth
Contact:

Re: Camera

Unread post by Slats » Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:05 am

Yowieman27 wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:29 pm
Does anyone think carrying a gopro around would be good for footage and sounds?
Hi Yowieman27
Any camera would be better than no camera. However, something that can zoom and if need be manually focused would be a great advantage. Having said that the likely hood of capturing something is still very low. I've get better "action" when my camera is away in my bag. In relation to sounds, yes having something recording is a great benefit to capture sounds, having something with an external microphone is better as they are more sensitive and can pick up feint sounds a little better.
I use a camcorder to film my expeditions and I also use an audio recorder during my expeditions with a lavelier microphone attached to my backpacks shoulder strap. Not only does it serve as an audio log, I have been able to get sounds from the recording when I've not been filming.

Cheers Slats

AL Pitman
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Kungala nsw

Re: Camera

Unread post by AL Pitman » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:44 pm

I will not pretend to know squat about cameras but if Yowies identify the lens of a camera as an eye why not try one of those dome type concealment covers as are commonly used in walkways or shopping centres ?
Maybe the hairies won't perceive that as an eye ?????
IF YOU DO NOT LOOK YOU WILL NOT SEE

AL PITMAN

AL Pitman
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Kungala nsw

Re: Camera

Unread post by AL Pitman » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:46 pm

IF YOU DO NOT LOOK YOU WILL NOT SEE

AL PITMAN

User avatar
Slats
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Facebook Profile Page: https://www.facebook.com/WestOzYowieResearch/
Location: Perth
Contact:

Re: Camera

Unread post by Slats » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:03 pm

Hey Al
Unless you make something, those cameras require a pretty hardcore set up like what Rusty has. They 'big eye' theory is borrowed from primatology and great apes and we are only speculating that it crosses over.
I think it's more avoid the human stuff to be honest there is EMF shielding fabric you can get for cameras even for yourself, but in self funded research it's a cost to potential reward sort of thing.

Cheers Slats

AL Pitman
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Kungala nsw

Re: Camera

Unread post by AL Pitman » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:34 am

I understand Slats CHEERS
I know they are there pictures or not .
I think the culture needs some adjustment .
Make the sceptics prove that they don't exist and make them prove that they are not flesh and blood .
What hard evidence can they produce for their claim ??
IF YOU DO NOT LOOK YOU WILL NOT SEE

AL PITMAN

User avatar
Slats
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Facebook Profile Page: https://www.facebook.com/WestOzYowieResearch/
Location: Perth
Contact:

Re: Camera

Unread post by Slats » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:57 am

Haha
Absolutely, I was talking to an interdimensional believer the other day. I said that most of the theoretical physicists believe it would probably be impossible to perceive the higher dimensions they "theorise" about.
Well did I get a long winded answer, that didn't really answer anything.

User avatar
JohnnyAnonymous
Approved Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Camera

Unread post by JohnnyAnonymous » Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:28 am

I've had a theory now for years that no one seems to want to try with the argument that it would be too difficult for someone to do. I'd like to add that I think this would work best and tried with the no glow Trail-cams. I also think that now with the lighter-weight tree ladders (for deer hunters, etc) that this is more possible than what it was 6-10 years ago.

It revolves around the idea that our bipedal target is more prone to look forward rather than upward (visually on plane with the horizon). My idea is simple enough to climb a good height on a a tree and aim the camera at an downward angle. This (might) take care of the possible lense appearing to look like an eye (which might encourage the fight or flight urge), and also the Ir would not be triggered unless the subject was more directly below the camera.

With it being up at a higher altitude say perhaps 25 feet or more (depending on your cameras FOV and IR strength obviously) your also eliminating the smaller targets that are going to 'false' trigger the camera. With the sensor not pointing at tree branches (and other), you'll not have those false triggers and a card full of useless shots. With the smaller cameras able to now stay observant for up to 6 months on 8 AA batteries, once placed, you could leave it undisturbed for a lengthy time (which would not draw attention to your camera-base).

Also with it up substantially higher, your chance of detection should drop, (as I believe they are very observant of their environment, leaves, branches on ground, rocks, etc). Also if they did observe it and tried to take it down, this would lend more proof that a smaller animal didnt (the process of elimination). And if they climb a tree to take down the camera, you have a greater percentage of possible prints and hair samples to collect. This also would be a discouragement to that other animal "Man" from seeing and possibly stealing the camera (to much work for most thieves).

This idea came from a number of years ago when I was shown footage of a (supposed) Sasquatch walking below a birds nest of eagles that had a camera above the birds (which also included the ground below).

The other idea I had was a hollowed out tree stump with 3 cut out holes for the camera lense (in a triangular fashion to cover more area). The holes would be covered with Womens hose (thats what they're called here in the USA). It's sheer enough to shoot through yet even up close, you can barely see anything beyond it.

We used to use (back in the old days of photography) 'womens hose' as means to soften the picture up. This would be something of course that would translate over in this case too, but if it captures the target, I'll take soft-focus versus Blurry-BlobSquatch.

AnyWho... A few thoughts that I thought I'd toss into the mix here,
Johnny
Remember No Matter Where You Go, There You Are!

User avatar
Slats
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Facebook Profile Page: https://www.facebook.com/WestOzYowieResearch/
Location: Perth
Contact:

Re: Camera

Unread post by Slats » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:54 pm

JohnnyAnonymous wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:28 am
I've had a theory now for years that no one seems to want to try with the argument that it would be too difficult for someone to do. I'd like to add that I think this would work best and tried with the no glow Trail-cams. I also think that now with the lighter-weight tree ladders (for deer hunters, etc) that this is more possible than what it was 6-10 years ago.

It revolves around the idea that our bipedal target is more prone to look forward rather than upward (visually on plane with the horizon). My idea is simple enough to climb a good height on a a tree and aim the camera at an downward angle. This (might) take care of the possible lense appearing to look like an eye (which might encourage the fight or flight urge), and also the Ir would not be triggered unless the subject was more directly below the camera.

With it being up at a higher altitude say perhaps 25 feet or more (depending on your cameras FOV and IR strength obviously) your also eliminating the smaller targets that are going to 'false' trigger the camera. With the sensor not pointing at tree branches (and other), you'll not have those false triggers and a card full of useless shots. With the smaller cameras able to now stay observant for up to 6 months on 8 AA batteries, once placed, you could leave it undisturbed for a lengthy time (which would not draw attention to your camera-base).

Also with it up substantially higher, your chance of detection should drop, (as I believe they are very observant of their environment, leaves, branches on ground, rocks, etc). Also if they did observe it and tried to take it down, this would lend more proof that a smaller animal didnt (the process of elimination). And if they climb a tree to take down the camera, you have a greater percentage of possible prints and hair samples to collect. This also would be a discouragement to that other animal "Man" from seeing and possibly stealing the camera (to much work for most thieves).

This idea came from a number of years ago when I was shown footage of a (supposed) Sasquatch walking below a birds nest of eagles that had a camera above the birds (which also included the ground below).

The other idea I had was a hollowed out tree stump with 3 cut out holes for the camera lense (in a triangular fashion to cover more area). The holes would be covered with Womens hose (thats what they're called here in the USA). It's sheer enough to shoot through yet even up close, you can barely see anything beyond it.

We used to use (back in the old days of photography) 'womens hose' as means to soften the picture up. This would be something of course that would translate over in this case too, but if it captures the target, I'll take soft-focus versus Blurry-BlobSquatch.

AnyWho... A few thoughts that I thought I'd toss into the mix here,
Johnny
Hey Johnny
The three camera idea has been trailed by Rusty222.
He had a 12 camera setup, I think, several time lapse cameras and a cctv setup and an audio recorder array aswell. He has captured some of the most impressive audio to come out of Australia and has even managed to calculate distance and direction to the subject and direction of travel etc. But unfortunately nothing definitive by way of video.

The trail camera idea is a good one and has been mentioned before, by who I can't remember, it's definitely worth a try and I'll give it a go myself next time I'm out. I think the women's hose, or stockings as we call them, might not work as well depending on the set up. Particularly at night with low light or IR cameras and for trail cameras it would block the sensor.

But everything is worth a try

Cheers Nick

User avatar
JohnnyAnonymous
Approved Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Camera

Unread post by JohnnyAnonymous » Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:32 pm

Appreciate the comments.

You might think differently about the Hosiery covering the tree-stumps openings. They are there to simply mask the lens from being seen, they do not envelope or cover the camera. Think of it as more as a silk window covering a hole (that the camera just happens to be behind). Hope I described that part better.

I've played with the women's hose before for photo and video shots and it only lightly mutes (or what they call 'soft-focus'). It still allows for the IR or thermal to do it's job without flaring out or blooming (exposure wise). You just need to stretch it slightly and the soft-focus diminishes exponentially. Light colored hose works best (not the dark hose).

I'm curious to see what type of results you have. By chance if youyou recall the thread name of where they were doing the discussion... please shoot me a PM message.

Johnny
Remember No Matter Where You Go, There You Are!

Post Reply