Night Vision monoculars

[andrew]

Having looked long and hard at all the night vision monoculars around, I am interested in the opinions of owners and users of those devices. A just retired Australian army marksman has lauded the use of one in conjunction with a leupold spotters scope. While it will be may be impossible to get a military spec NV here for the time being, I am keen to hear what anyone has to say about models that are on the market now. These range in price a lot, but I am really interested in only gen 2 and gen 3, mainly because of range, and picture quality of course. Intention is to use one WITHOUT any additional IR light source.

[Dion]

Hey Andrew

Wish I was an owner or user of one more so with a FLIR than anything else. That being said you might find it hard to find anyone on the forum that does have one or experience with one apart from some American guys that pop their head in once in a while.

Have you tried heading over to a night vision Forum such as this one http://www.nightvisionforums.com/phpBB3/index.php

Might have the answers you are looking for.

Regards Dion

[topender]

Yeah what Dion said,
i currently have a basic Bushnell Night Watch, this ok for up to 20 mtrs distance, i can pick up a rat visualy at 20 mtrs in total darkness...just, but does not come anywhere near the quality of a gen1 or 2, and yes i would "kill" for a FLIR...but then my partner would "kill" me

[andrew]

Thanks for the comments guys. I realise that these are not likely to be in general use due to the price. There is a bewildering array of models out their from many countries and manufacturers and I just threw the query out there hoping that someone might have had a rich uncle...

BTW, The best I have found so far, with backup service available in Oz, is the Newcom NVS14-3XT - they are on sale by a WA NEWCOM distributor. Only a cool $9500, though there is a 3HD version at only $7000, lol! Both have the range and image quality for pictures when mounted to a 35mm camera or videorecorder.

It seems useless to get something that only sees our friends when they are on top of you - so to speak. I really wanted to get one that operated well without extra IR illumination, which they can see, so that it would be possible to observe without alerting them. That does not come cheap but when you factor in the cost of multiple expeditions, it may not be that expensive in the scheme of things. That is my approach and I am sticking with it.

I really wanted to bring them in close to a target area in view of a normal colour camera and flash with remote triggering. That requires careful observation. I have a few technical problems to investigate and solve yet. This is a long term plan so I am not rushing. I also wanted to have some off board conversations with you more experienced folk and run many, many questions past you on their behaviour. Let me know if that is OK. I have always found that dumb questions and careful planning are a lot cheaper than multiple dumb mistakes.
Andrew

[Dion]

Hey Andrew

One thing I have learnt is in regards to their behaviour is this. Each one is different with their personalities just like you or I, except a lot smarter. They know their terrain, in the dark they know what we can see and what we can’t, they are smart and will defiantly test you out and will sometimes play if they know you are no harm to them.

The majority of them usually stay clear of humans making sure they have a certain distance between us and them for a short getaway if need be. Some will be brisk and come straight into your area, showing off there masculinity, having said that it’s not really your area at all it theirs. Others, they stay just far away as to not be seen, at the same time watching, they love to watch humans, rarely do they make themselves known, some will, and it comes back to this personality type. Laughingly they are all different there is no set rule as to handle a Yowie as I keep saying they are just like you or I, different.

And because their personalities differ one rule won’t work with another, sometimes it a matter of trial and error that’s the best advice I can give, they are unpredictable.

Having said all that I am by no means an expert just something I have learnt over the years from witnesses, others more knowledgeable, reading lots of reports and listening to audio witness interviews.

[andrew]

Thanks Dion. The type of behavioural traits I am really interested in concerns their hunting and feeding habits and specifically how their eyesight ability determines that. Bear with me for a second. Human primate eyesight is usually regarded as being in the 400nm to 700nm visible wavelength range, but we know that some humans can see down to 380nm in the ultraviolet and up to 820nm in the IR range. The big question is whether our friends can see in the IR range as well, AND importantly how far into that range. We know that they shy away from IR light sources and most of the usual ones operate at approx 820, 850 and 930nm, mainly the first two. That means that their eyesight might be not be dissimilar to ours in wavelength but they may have a reflective layer, but better developed than we do. And yes we do have that ability a little as the redeye in camera shots shows us. The really big question is whether they can "see" in the really high range closer to 1000nm. We know that eyesight is adaptive through primate species and different sorts have different abilities. If yowies have adapted to "see" at say 940nm then that would be significant because it is the peak wavelength of the IR emitted by humans and other warm blooded animals. If that is the case they can "see" their prey in total darkness, no star, no moon, no skylight at all. The prey would "glow" like a thermal camera image to them. If they cannot, then they just have good light gathering eyes, probably better sensitivity to the higher IR (say 850nm) and the reflective layer (tapetum lucidum) to ampilify that.

Where is all this leading? Well if they cannot actually "see" a "glowing" prey, then they MIGHT not be able to see at 930nm, which is the highest usual led IR light source available at the moment. Some of the IR lasers also emit in this high end range. What that means is that we "might" be able to use a light source that NV can detect but they cannot. That means we can illuminate them and get better night pictures and not alert them. All just a theory but worth looking into.

So that is one of the many questions I have and where I am going with the behaviour questions. It really is about their own day to day feeding and similar behaviours. We need to understand that behaviour if we are to get the real evidence we all seek.

Andrew

[andrew]

Dion, I forgot a part of that. If they can see the glow of warm blooded prey then they presumably can see each other at night - assuming they are warm blooded, which seems the case, and operate at near human body temperature. If that is the case then they may not need to communicate audibly when close to each other in total darkness to be able to see where the others are in a group situation. This leads me to think that they may have a limit to their IR sensing ability. Just a thought.

BTW, cats can see up to about 860nm when it is a bright source, and they are superb night hunters as we know because of big light gathering eyes with the tapetum layer and not because their prey "glows".

The adaption of being able to see your prey "glow" is probably pushing the bounds when it comes to primate eyesight, ancient or not. For that reason, I am looking for an IR illuminator in the high wavelength (930nm or higher) range so it can be tested on moonless, overcast nights.

[Dion]

Hey again Andrew

Thanks for all that information on eyesight wavelength and night vision, I’m afraid I don’t know much on that so really can’t comment. But from what I know Sasquatch or Bigfoot are able to detect Night Vision equipment, there are plenty of guys from the states who use 4 gen equipment and have no luck, either they are doing it wrong or Sasquatch is too smart. If they are using 4 gen then my best bet is you are not going to be able to use 2 gen or even 3 gen gear.

If 3 gen gear is going to cost upwards of $7000 then I would be forking out on a good FLIR system something that can record.

It’s just my personal preference in gear as Thermal imaging has been getting some good results from what I know. I don’t think they are able to detect it “as much”.

I agree with you that their pray may seem to “glow” I believe their eyesight to be very powerful and may be in a totally different spectrum to ours.

My first ever post on this forum was about the possibility of them to be able to see Aura’s, I’m sure we have all heard of the Aura before a colourful spectrum that seems to radiate from the body. If they can see this spectrum then their pray would “glow”. Whether or not they can well who’s to know.

We can only speculate but we do know that they can sense the IR spectrum. It seems to be proven time and time again.

My best bet get a FLIR

[andrew]

Hi Dion
I never disregard any possibility. All we can do is test. The FLIR is a passive temperature measuring device and flir.com have some at under $3000 which look good. The i7 models stores 5000 images and seems sensitive enough and in the right spectrum. The only problem is that the LCD display glows and they would see that at night without a shield of some sort. Nor do I know over what distance they would be effective in resolving a useful image. They are really designed for close work but who wants to get that personal with them. I agree there is a place for FLIR but long range observation images are best resolved with NV and visible colour pictures. In other words we need a combination. As I see it, a thermal image does not show much other than there is a hot body there, it's shape and maybe some of it's features eg face or other hot spots. Where they would be useful is to tell that there is something hiding behind a bush etc. That could be used to direct a NV camera onto their location.

The only problem with what I was talking about in the earlier posts is that the common NV Image Intensifier Tubes in the goggles etc are only sensitive up to 930nm and the response roll off is pretty sharp. In other words you can't see diddly squat above that. I can get a 100mW IR laser to run at pretty much any wavelength just below that, which might work. Can only test it.

Andrew

[Mike Williams]

Hi Andrew..interesting topic.

Bear with me for a second. Human primate eyesight is usually regarded as being in the 400nm to 700nm visible wavelength range, but we know that some humans can see down to 380nm in the ultraviolet and up to 820nm in the IR range. The big question is whether our friends can see in the IR range as well,

Most animals can perceive radiation in the lower ired, actinic ired that is.

We know that they shy away from IR light sources and most of the usual ones operate at approx 820, 850 and 930nm, mainly the first two.

Most animals can perceive actinic radiation and animals that appear to move around a lot at night would probably have a greater ability of course.

That means that their eyesight might be not be dissimilar to ours in wavelength but they may have a reflective layer, but better developed than we do. And yes we do have that ability a little as the redeye in camera shots shows us.

Yes, and we can perceive the ired led from a tv remote control.

The really big question is whether they can "see" in the really high range closer to 1000nm.

Yes, unknown factor

We know that eyesight is adaptive through primate species and different sorts have different abilities. If yowies have adapted to "see" at say 940nm then that would be significant because it is the peak wavelength of the IR emitted by humans and other warm blooded animals. If that is the case they can "see" their prey in total darkness, no star, no moon, no skylight at all.

I used to shoot ired film, no flash, which peaked at 900nano..in pitch dark, it does not pick up ir emitted from anything .
Another 4 angstrom/40 nano ability will not allow anything to pick up thermal signatures.
You would have to get a thermal device to pick up thermal signatures.

The prey would "glow" like a thermal camera image to them.

That would require an wavelength reception of up and over at least 1000 nanometers.

If they cannot, then they just have good light gathering eyes, probably better sensitivity to the higher IR (say 850nm) and the reflective layer (tapetum lucidum) to ampilify that.

Exactly..

Where is all this leading? Well if they cannot actually "see" a "glowing" prey, then they MIGHT not be able to see at 930nm, which is the highest usual led IR light source available at the moment. Some of the IR lasers also emit in this high end range. What that means is that we "might" be able to use a light source that NV can detect but they cannot.

Maybe, but the energy of the radiation is lower the further into the ir you go, perhaps the answer would be UV/UV cameras.?

That means we can illuminate them and get better night pictures and not alert them. All just a theory but worth looking into.

Or. just use high end thermal cameras.

The only problem is that the LCD display glows and they would see that at night without a shield of some sort.

Thats why you have to place a covering device over the output, or, do we what we have done in the past.
A damn black sheet over the head of the operator.

Nor do I know over what distance they would be effective in resolving a useful image.

We have had "alright" resolution of cows at about 1000 metres.
Obviously if you were trying to "prove" the morphology/movement of an animal was interesting you would have to be very close.
The paradox is, a real thermal video of a "yowie"/"Bigfoot" etc would probably look like a man in a gorilla suit..or just a large man.
This video was shot by us a few years ago chasing wacky reports on a farm in sth oz at about 120 metres.
The thermal had a video out and we input that straight into a video camera.Really primitive but did the job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgaLgb1MVas
It was "the dazzler", pretending to be a yowie.
I use to play around with ired film about 15 years ago and still own a variety of ired/uv transmittance lenses.
We have also played around with one of the first versions of thermal camera which looked like a tv studio camera, as well as more modern versions with video output.
Not had the chance yet of getting my grubby little hands on thermal with sd/hard drive video recording ability .

Mike

[Dion]

Hey Andrew

Yeah I see where you’re coming from it might be worth a shot I’m not trying to discourage people from having a go at trying to use this kind of equipment, I’m sure there are ways and methods to get around it. Like instances where you know something is there not far from you and you just turn the IR device on and startle whatever it is, but if you using the IR device for your own night vision to get around I don’t think it would work you may as well have a torch on. It may be a factor where people just aren’t smart enough to match a Yowie or Sasquatch when using the IR equipment that’s why they get no results.

We are treading a fine line because we don’t know what range of the spectrum they can see and what they can’t, it has been proven that they can see or sense IR and avoid it like the plague.

As far as I know and correct me if I’m wrong IR throws a faint light beam out, but with something such as a FLIR it just picks up heat signatures acting as a sponge so to speak without throwing out any light source and giving away your position. In this fashion a Yowie doesn’t have an IR light source on him which would be the equivalent of what I believe to be a low powered torch being shone. When you’re dealing with a nocturnal primate such as a yowie with night vision superior to ours I have come to the conclusion they can detect this light beam in an IR source.

I have my doubts just from the countless people in the states and here mind you that have tried NV gear with no results.

Having said all that I wouldn’t mind a piece of NV equipment for the collection.

Regards Dion

[Mike Williams]

Hey Dion

As far as I know and correct me if I’m wrong IR throws a faint light beam out

A starlight is a passive device, but..some models have/require a ired energy source be used with the viewer to enhance the objects in front of the viewer .
They do this by just hitting objects with more radiation than they were "generating" anyway.
The ired emitting device would then be throwing out a beam of ired radiation, some of which, we can perceive.

but with something such as a FLIR it just picks up heat signatures acting as a sponge so to speak without throwing out any light source and giving away your position.

Bingo..
As long as you are covering the output/head of the operator..another downside is...gross loss of night vision of one eye..

Mike

[andrew]

Hi Dion

As far as I know and correct me if I’m wrong IR throws a faint light beam out

NV gear works by gathering star and moonlight and amplifying it 35000 or so times and coverting it into the visible range for us. They ARE passive devices on their own, but the animal etc can be illuminated by IR illuminators (sometimes built in) to brighten things up. In other words you do NOT have to send out IR which they can see, provided there is sufficient sky light. However, they might see the green glow from the internal screen which is why the eyepiece is closely moulded to the eyesocket. The FLIR is also passive but with the same screen light problem. The point is that there should be no need to send out a startling beam of IR, but if we do, it should be at a wavelength they CANNOT see but the NV can. That is what I am trying to work on and test. The NV devices however are limited in their IR response to 930nm - at least the ones I have looked at so far.

It all hinges on whether Yowies can see light in the 900 to 930 range. If they can't, we are home and hosed. I can build a diffused 100mW laser light somehere in that range that will be like a spotlight.

I have looked into the IR torches that are commonly used in the US and they all seem to operate in the low 800nm to 860 range. What I am really hoping to test is that yowie eyesight ability is poor, if not non existent, above that so we can use it to our advantage. Only time and testing will prove that. The reason that the IR doesn't seem successful in the examples I have looked at, is that they are using light that yowies/Bigfoot can see. I'd be a bit annoyed if someone started flashing spotlights in my eyes too.
Andrew

[Dion]

Hey Mike, Andrew

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Well Andrew you may be in luck if you find the right wavelength to operate in. Maybe the guys that have been getting no luck with using IR equipment have been using IR gear with illuminators that’s why they have been getting no results. Who’s to know what sort of Gear they use and practices they put in place for IR detection they may be doing it all wrong. I know a lot of the IR gear I have been looking at usually has some form of an illuminator that’s why I thought they all sent out a faint light source.

Finding a Yowie as a test subject for IR wavelength is going to be another matter altogether.

I would hate to spend all that money on IR gear only to find it’s useless, I have never had IR gear out in the Field personally to say it does or doesn’t work. I learn from the stories and mistakes of others who say IR gear just doesn’t cut it, if some of the models they are using don’t send out a light source then you have to wonder why they aren’t getting results.

In a previous post I said they seem to know what we can see and what we can’t I think it’s because of their superior night vision they observe us so closely (they like to watch) they know which direction we are standing in the dark, what draws our attention, our body language, etc, they have an attention to detail and a good sixth sense. I think that’s why they are always one step ahead.

Not to say they can’t be caught out, as I believe in circumstances they can be.

Anyways best of luck if you do end up purchasing an IR device, just seems like a lot of money for some trial and error, but if money is no option then go for it, me I’d stick with a FLIR at least you can almost be guaranteed of getting results.

[andrew]

Hey Yes - first catch your yowie - lol! Thanks for the thoughtful words.

Don't get the idea here that I want to dash out and squander money on a trial and error basis. Hence all the careful methodical research first. I have three options - NV, FLIR and camera's or a combination. I intend to do a lot of questioning of suppliers of the gear first. I don't think there are commercial IR laser illuminators out there at the right wavelength but I can access the diodes and make one. That would not cost too much, though the diodes themselves are about $360 each for decent power.

I am going start with the assumption that they are flesh and blood with probably similar eyesight characteristics to existing large primates and slowly work out the best strategy. Hell, if worse comes to worst, I can always use the gear to get rid of my growing rabbit problem.

[NoPolys]

Andrew;

A couple of considerations for you to add to the mix.

1. If you choose to use a night vision device, it cannot be left unattended. They are great in the night; if left on during the day, they get broke very quickly.

2. If you choose to use Thermal Imaging, currently, the units available do not have resolution sufficient enough at distance (approx. 10meter+ range) to resolve anything more than a well defined "something" in the dark.

3. If you choose to be "active" as in adding an energy source, the startle effect of the lights going on are sufficient enough for some animals to be spooked enough to run off. This has been well documented in coyote and wolf research. Not an exact match on taxa, but close enough to make one ponder.

4. If you choose to use a passive light amplification be aware of the need for noise and scent reduction on your part if your plan includes hiding, tracking or movement in the dark. Also, be aware of the design of any amplification units you plan to use. as an example, a few years ago there were some great NVD headsets available from a certain Middle Eastern country, made for use in tanks. They could not focus past about 1.5 meters and were designed in a way that made it close to impossible to add any magnification.

I'm certain you get the drift of what I am saying, design your most common search parameters, then find the equipment to match and adapt as required from there.

Additionally, if I may add, don't get too hung up on the equipment, if you go looking, it seems if they want to find you it will happen. Pay more attention to the probabilities and statistical history of the area you choose to search within. Australia is a very large area, and they seem to be a bit thinly spread.

Cheers
Nopolys

[Mike Williams]

John...

[Dion]

Aren't we all doing that mike

[NoPolys]

LOL.... I have a life dangit !!! I just can't remember where I put it last night when I went to sleep !!!

Cheers

[andrew]

Thanks for the thoughts.

1. If you choose to use a night vision device, it cannot be left unattended. They are great in the night; if left on during the day, they get broke very quickly.

They consume too much power anyway. No point really using them unless you are there to track the target.

2. If you choose to use Thermal Imaging, currently, the units available do not have resolution sufficient enough at distance (approx. 10meter+ range) to resolve anything more than a well defined "something" in the dark.

Technology has moved on a lot and many units now have "zoom" features to improve the resolution so that objects can be analysed at quite a distance. Not a big fan of thermal at the moment though other than for preliminary detection of a large animal

3. If you choose to be "active" as in adding an energy source, the startle effect of the lights going on are sufficient enough for some animals to be spooked enough to run off. This has been well documented in coyote and wolf research. Not an exact match on taxa, but close enough to make one ponder.

That is why I am looking at the high end of the near IR - upwards of 900 to 1000nm, well past the usual wavelength of standard IR illuminators and beyond wavelengths that we know startle them. Their eyesight ability will be limited but the question is at what wavelength. BTW modified standard digital cameras are useful at those wavelengths once the IR filters are replaced by visible filters. Practical range extends to 1000nm. I am working on the theory that their IR ability does not extend that far. It will work ,or it will not. Can't know until it is tested and NO ONE seems to have done that!

4. If you choose to use a passive light amplification be aware of the need for noise and scent reduction on your part if your plan includes hiding, tracking or movement in the dark. Also, be aware of the design of any amplification units you plan to use. as an example, a few years ago there were some great NVD headsets available from a certain Middle Eastern country, made for use in tanks. They could not focus past about 1.5 meters and were designed in a way that made it close to impossible to add any magnification.

No intention or desire to get that close personally. Also the practical range for reasonably priced good NV is now out to 300m or more.

Additionally, if I may add, don't get too hung up on the equipment, if you go looking, it seems if they want to find you it will happen. Pay more attention to the probabilities and statistical history of the area you choose to search within. Australia is a very large area, and they seem to be a bit thinly spread.

The initial areas are picked out and obviously others will be chosen in due course
Andrew

[andrew]

John...

Ditto

[NoPolys]

Andrew;

Sounds like you have spent some effort looking at the available options. One of the more "fun" parts of this process we find ourselves in is the opportunity to spend money .....

All the best in your efforts, and I look forward to seeing some of your results in the future!

Cheers

NoPolys

[andrew]

How true! The trick is to always resist the urge to buy the latest "toys for the boys". My venerable mother always said that the only difference between men and boys was the price of their toys.

I'll keep the board up to date IF anything looks promising.

Cheers
Andrew

[Mike Williams]

Can't know until it is tested and NO ONE seems to have done that!

Hi Andrew....
How do you know what has, or has not, been done in these fringe areas regarding equipment/testing etc.
Did you find anything you could use in "The Yowie" by Cropper & Healy.
http://web.mac.com/yowieman/Site/Home.html
Have you contacted the authors.?
You must have contacted loads of researchers so far and purchased a hell of a lot of books on weird stuff..?


Mike

[andrew]

Can't know until it is tested and NO ONE seems to have done that!

Hi Andrew....
How do you know what has, or has not, been done in these fringe areas regarding equipment/testing etc.
Did you find anything you could use in "The Yowie" by Cropper & Healy.
http://web.mac.com/yowieman/Site/Home.html
Have you contacted the authors.?
You must have contacted loads of researchers so far and purchased a hell of a lot of books on weird stuff..?

Firstly, I have researched as far as I can all the available IR illuminators available to public, especially the latest versions. Ditto on sensors. I have found no IR sources that extend above 900nm (unless they have wide bandwidths) probably because most common CMOS and CCD image sensors that can detect IR have poor sensitivity above that. Also, narrow bandwidth lasers light sources that operate in that region, or above, have been until recently, very expensive. Not that they are that cheap even now. Now a big range is available to match the wavelengths I am delving into. There have been big advances in this field in the last five years. I note btw that "The Yowie" was published in 2006 which dates the technology at that time. However, I should take up your question and talk with the authors and may well do so in time.

As for buying heaps of books - any book with an ISBN published in this country has to lodged with the NLA - which has two copies of "The Yowie" btw. I live close to Canberra and use the facility a lot. I try really hard not to reinvent the wheel which is why all the extensive research first. I welcome all constructive input.

Why do I get the feeling I am copping flak here? I am reminded that if we always do what we have always done, we will get get what we have always got. I am just pushing the bounds of technology here a bit beyond what most have access to, and certainly beyond what has been tried before - so far as I have found. I have done cutting edge electronic research and this is no different, except for the application.

Cheers
Andrew

[Rusty2]

Hey Andrew , lots of high end technology talk here .
May I just say Andrew , before you go and BLOW all ya dough , NOTHING wil replace low tech (camera/video) gear and elbow grease , ie hiking walking searching researching .
I have recently gone through the lets buy everything stage and can tell you that these creatures are a lot smarter than we give them credit . "I" think of them as humans with high range hearing and sight , highly advanced bush awareness not to mention other "possible" abilities .
If you think your gunna sneak up on them , AT NIGHT , then think again . I'm not having a shot at you mate , but may I suggest you get out in the field , ALOT . It's only then that you will realise what an uphill battle it is to even detect them . Use your senses while your out there , they are the best on the market .
Like I said mate , I've recently spent a small fortune on "high tech" gear and most of it has been useless .
Apart from a camera and a video , the best 2 things I ever bought was a voice activated recorder and a microscope .

Have a good think about it mate before you buy something you'll regret .

Good luck ! Rusty2..............

[Mike Williams]

Love your work Rusty..!!

I note btw that "The Yowie" was published in 2006 which dates the technology at that time.

It certainly may have in regards to non ired equipment.
My question about "The Yowie" was related to your high tech search for the beasty.
I just guessed that the very first port of call would have been buying this book to ascertain distances in encounters/type of habitats reported/duration of sightings/previous work with game cameras/witness reactions/hot spots/ideas about the origin of the beasties etc..
All very basic questions...which would give someone a good grounding in yowie "lore"..
I gather you have not purchased it ...yet..

However, I should take up your question and talk with the authors and may well do so in time.

I try really hard not to reinvent the wheel which is why all the extensive research first. I welcome all constructive input.

I am glad you welcome constructive input..!
I asked you how you knew what had been or not had been done by other researchers in these fringe fields…
You didn't answer..
So you may be "reinventing the wheel'..but you will never know.
You have the "extensive" research around the wrong way…
Why not start with the phenomena itself..and actually ask what other people have done..and find out the problems they have encountered whilst trying to find/record these beasties..?

Why do I get the feeling I am copping flak here?

Not sure whose post you are referring to.
I am just politely asking you questions…and making some "constructive input" into your own very interesting thoughts.!
The same way I sent you some "constructive input" by PM to you several weeks ago..

I am reminded that if we always do what we have always done, we will get get what we have always got.

Yes…but if you have no idea what "we" have done/tried or found..and the problems involved..etc..ergo...

I am just pushing the bounds of technology here a bit beyond what most have access to, and certainly beyond what has been tried before - so far as I have found.

Found..?
I am quite sure you think you are doing this..but unless you talk to people here and overseas..and read a few books..and talk to a few researchers and witnesses..then you will never know if you are really pushing any form of boundaries..

I have done cutting edge electronic research and this is no different, except for the application.

And I am sure you have..but the "problems" are different..its just that you don't know it yet.
I mean no offence in any of this and wish you the best of luck in your own research..!!

all the best

peace..

Mike

[Dion]

I have to agree with Rusty here

We/I are not having a go at you Andrew, and please don’t think your copping flak. It’s just a discussion, just trying to point out some things and point you in the right direction, you can take it or leave it, just trying to help.

I want to point out some impressions I have got from you in this thread. You sound very knowledgeable in all things IR and I can tell you have done your homework and are defiantly more knowledgeable than me when it comes to IR wavelength. That’s great.

But….. many…. many, people have bought top end IR gear and had no results, I admire your enthusiasm that’s for sure but that slowly dissipates once you have been in the field trying and trying again to get that evidence with no luck.

Yowies are real having had an encounter myself. You have to remember that we are not dealing with a lost tribe of gorilla’s that could easily be photographed, or caught on camera, but highly intelligent primates that are fully aware of humans and there capabilities to destroy their very habitat, thus staying away at all costs, their probably just as smart as humans if not more, having said that even us humans are primates to a certain degree. We think we know everything and have a full grasp of what is known in this universe how wrong we are.

Anyway I just wanted to let you know it isn’t easy, it’s not as simple as going out there and finding a Yowie as a test subject for your IR wavelength as I have said before.

A lot of people have spent many hours in the bush with all types of equipment with no results.

Think of it as looking for a needle in a haystack.

Regards Dion


BTW thanks for starting the thread its been a good discussion.

[NoPolys]

Andrew;

Like you say, there is no reason to re-invent the wheel here. Many of the ideas you are having have been tried, several even met with limited success. The primary reason you haven't seen these efforts in print are perhaps legion but, bottom line, no publisher in their right mind would invest in this or most other "fringe" areas of study. That leaves a "frangible body corporate information base" that leads to self publishing or boards like this one where information can be more informally shared, discussed and evaluated.

A case in point and a bit more specifically, Dean a long while back talked about how an active IR source seemed to be ineffective in the countryside for our hairy friends. This was said on the Youtube channel and was cause for several critical responses..... and guess what!! A few years later there are scientific papers being published in peer reviewed journals substantiating his ideas. Granted, he was speaking directly to the 830->900nm equipment then available, but, due to Dean and his willingness to think out of the box as well as allowing this site to exist, many of the folks here have been able to forward the field's fund of knowledge in a positive manner.

You have talked about some serious equipment both active and passive that perhaps has not been fully field tested in the latest generational evolution. I for one believe you should consider moving ahead in the direction you determine will yield the best result. At the same time, I am a bit more......... reserved (ok ok cheap) and will keep moving in another direction that may not give the same high level result, but perhaps a result that is "good enough". The "good enough" paradigm to me works because no matter how many minutes of 1080P video in 1024 color you produce, it will not be considered hard evidence at this point. We, as "amateurs", can only hope to gain credibilty when we can show by good record keeping and consistent success using best practice methods that there might be something to this whole crypto-animal thing. At that point, the scientific community may become involved and then....... what we have from all the different reporters might be called something like.....
proto-evidence.......

All the above to say, doin it cheaper or more expensively isn't the real issue, it's the how it's done that will make the difference...... maybe..... kinda.... sorta...

(back to mostly lurk mode now)

Cheers
NoPolys

[andrew]

Thanks for all the great responses. Please don't lose sight of the scope of what I am attempting here, which is purely a technical issue. As I have said on several occasions, my ideas will either work or not. If they do then that opens opportunities for better image capture, camera triggering etc. The other issues you have all raised are all vitally important and I take it all in. It just seems to me that the technologies employed to date have obvious limitations and I want to try something different. One small step at a time....
Andrew