Hi Folks-
A thought occurred to me (don't panic!)...

A trailcam makes a flash when triggered. Some are visible, some IR. The jury is still out on whether or not a BF can see the shorter wavelength IR or not.

Just for a second, let's assume BF can see the IR flash (and obviously the visible flash). This flash is abrupt, and can startle any animal. So, would we have better luck if we used our trailcams in video mode, and instead of a "flash", we made the illuminators ramp up slowly over 15-20 seconds? If our cams are placed high, looking down, this might not be so annoying to an animal.

Any thoughts?

Most of the time when I've caught an image it's a passing animal. I really like the idea of video, but the animals I have gotten on my cam would not be there in 15 - 20 seconds, they'd be out of the frame. I'm not saying you've got a bad idea, but I don't think you're likely to have more images of animals, probably fewer and fewer than what we've got now is a whole lot of nothing.

One of the things I don't understand is why the flash is so important, in how it's done. So what if you scare the holy hell out of the animal, since the reason for the cam is to get it's picture. I really don't care if I get a picture of bigfoot calmly eating some berries or scared sh*tless because the camera flashed on him. It's still a picture of a bigfoot.

Good points...
My idea was to ramp up the light so as not to disturb the animal during the 30-seconds of video the cam shoots. A snapshot is ok, but video is MUCH BETTER. But the problem (as you mentioned) is that most animals are caught passing by. If the cam was pointed at a bait station, there is a possibility that my idea could get a decent video instead of a blobsquatch. And I think that a light source overhead would be less disturbing than one in their plane of view (sort of like moonlight).

I also think a less startling light source might make return visits more likely. A flash might spook them permanently.

A great idea would be to have a camera with two lens that shoots video and take photos simultaneously. The video is always terrible resolution, but added with a decent res photo or two could provide a lot better results than the current cameras. (when looking at photos, such as the jacobs photo for example video wouldve been excellent to clarify what is seen) I'm not sure what the average "hang time" (lol?) would be for animals in the view of most trail cams but its probably a very brief window of opportunity.

Yes, after the "Kentucky Bigfoot" fiasco I set my cams to shoot 20 second videos spaced at 1 minute apart instead of flash stills. Those targeting wild game? Not so important. Those hoping for the big guy? A close-up vid is the next best thing to a body.

I agree that video is much better than photos in this day and age, what units is everyone using these days? I am in the process of gathering new gear and updating my old equipment. What kind of resolution are the trail cams available in now? I am familiar with the grainy videos, but hoping they have come along with better units...

The Bushnell Trophy Cam seems to be one of the hottest things out right now, I had to wait a month to get my hands on a couple. The thing is tiny, yet they claim up to a year of battery life depending on your settings. The video mode is awesome, very quick trigger time, and the resolution is OK, 5 mega pixel. Mine have been up on a ridge for 2 weeks now, can't wait to get back up there to see what I have.

Nice, might have to get a couple... That would be great if the battery lasted that long- much better than the old clunkers I've been using!

That's one I've had my eye on Hogsback. Bushnell makes some good products so I'll be interested in hearing what kind of quality you get from your first try with them. Please keep us posted.

I've thought about a trail cam, that, instead of having just one movement sensor, have several focused beam sensors in a swath covering 120 degrees in front of the camera. Lets say, something is moving from left to right, approaching from the left, it sets of the first sensor on the far left, then the next, in sequence. As the first 2 go off, the video recording starts, as the first 2 validated a movement toward the center of view. Or, the picture camera warms up as the second sensor goes off. When the very middle sensor goes off,,,,,,,,,<snap>,,,,,,,a picture is taken. Validation of movement toward the center, time to warm up the camera. Send me 10% if someone uses this idea.

hi, yes here's a couple...

I have a bushnell trophy cam and it is excellent. It has an IR flash which is not as bright as regular flash but is still visible.

One of the things about video mode is that the red beam triggered by motion/temperature flickers rapidly. .. not good. I think the trick is to go high resolution photos but shooting multiple frames quickly from a single trigger to give you near video. From what I have read the reconyx ro 60 and ro60hr can do this. The other consideration is to also use so called “black flash” which is IR that is not visible to deer…jury’s out on whether or not BF can see it…those reconyx units have this also.

so black flash coupled with near video high resolution stills is where I’m heading. The data says that deer avoidance behaviour pretty much goes away with the black flash so I’m hoping it will pay off. gerry

Grazhoppr, where have you been??? Look at TrailMaster PIR triggers. They monitor 150 degrees. You can send me ny 10% anytime....................
( you do not get to snatch the pebble on this one by a long shot )

<<< calling my lawyer

gerryg, I think you mean the RC60 and RC60HO. For 6 months I have studied all the trail cameras, both consumer brands and home brews. After weighing the pros and cons I finally narrowed it down to the Bushnell Trophy Cam or Reconyx RC60HO based on trigger speed and the best bang for the buck. After agonizing over which one to buy for awhile I decided to get both. So I bought two Bushnell's and one Reconyx RC60HO. Now don't get me wrong, the Reconyx is by far the better trail camera. But since evaluating both cameras I have come to the conclusion that both trail cams have their strengths and weaknesses and are apples and oranges and that in the end they really compliment each other.

All that being typed brings me to this. If you are headed to the Reconyx because of high resolution then you will be sorely disappointed. The Reconyx has many strengths but image quality is not one of them. The camera is only a 3.1 megapixel and the daytime images are good and the night time images are only fair IMO. The Reconyx does have a high quality setting for images but if it is selected flash illumination is reduced which sucks IMO.

That said though, don't let the above mentioned image quality dissuade you from the Reconyx. It's strengths are well worth the price of admission.

Dang, XS...
You plunked down some COIN for those cams...
You must not be married...

Sure am Spazmo, my wife and I have been together for forty five years now.
As for spending all that coin, there are a lot of hobbies that cost a lot more.
Hate to even think about all the money I put in my astronomy equipment over
the years. The way I see it, trail cams are cheap fun even at the price I paid.

Xsceptic,

yes you're right about those model numbers...was suffering from post flight spellling disorder

...and thanks for the feedback on those units. You'd think they could go with 5 MP these days. When I first read your post my gut reaction was to just pass on those cameras until they bring up the resolution in a later release...but that darn black flash is calling out to me. I really think that is the way to go for our situation. I know the home brew guys get great resolution but they are using P&S digital cams, like sony s600 and canon sure shots as the basis for their kit. I would be curious to see if anyone has done a diy black flash with a nice camera behind it?..anyway really appreciate the feedback as your the first BF'er I've seen report performance on the reconyx. The deer hunters seem to love them but their situation is a bit different.

I know the HO firmware upgrade to increase the sensing distance from 35 to 50 ft on the RC60 was well received and they seem to be dedicated to making the product better. They will even retrofit an RC60 if you send it in. You never know they may come out with a similar fix for resolution. Bottom line, in spite of the resolution quality I'm going to go with your parting advice and give them a try. In the meanwhile I have almost four weeks of shots waiting for me in my bushnell I need to go pick up, and a new Wild Game Innovations IR4 to try out, gerry

Uh oh...
My wife just bought me my first telescope. It's a Celestron NexStar 6SE. I just bought all the extra doo-dads for it too, like the GPS, the eyepiece and filter kit, the power tank, the NexImage PC imager, and a bunch of other stuff. Any thoughts on this setup?

Yeah, you can look up a BF's nose from another county with that setup.

They probably could use a 5MP camera but that would sacrifice some speed. I could not find anything about how or if these cameras buffer and then write the processed data to the SD (or in the case of the Reconyx) CF cards. However, the facts are it takes more time to write 5 MP worth of data vs 3.1 MP. If you take the Reconyx RC45 for example it boast a speed of 1/10 of a second, however it's only processing 1.4 MP worth of data and the RC60 series has a speed of 1/5 of a second at 3.1 MP.

As I said before the reason this camera rocks is not because of image resolution but all the available settings and that it is so fast with (and this is BIG) NO DELAY between triggers. For example, with the Bushnell the maximum number of single photos taken is 3, then there is a 6 to 10 second delay before it will trigger another 3 images. With the Reconyx it will continue to take pictures as long as the sensor detects movement regardless of the number of images selected (up to 10) per trigger. This capability alone makes the Reconyx well worth the price IMO.

As for the covert part, I'd be remiss if I did not mention this. It's not as covert as boasted. It's true that the camera emits no red glow to humans and perhaps even to animals. But as Catmando suggested to me animals do notice the camera and the reason he believes (and I agree) is they hear it. Here are three photos of a cat who was walking by, notice in photo 1 of 3 he is just walking not looking at the camera. However in photo 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 he is looking directly at this covert camera. Did the cat see a flash or did it hear it? It does not really matter which gave the camera away, the fact is the camera was targeted by the cat. Not so covert after all me thinks.

Now does all this covert stuff (or red glow) matter in relation to trying to capture a BF on a trail camera. I really doubt it, in order for a BF to have become camera shy I think they would have to have had an experience with them in order to know to avoid them. Given the vastness of the wilderness in the US and number of cameras out there to cover such a vast amount of area the chances of a BF having had an encounter with a trail cam is remote statistically. And the chances of anyone getting a BF on their trail cam is even more remote given the fact that any one individual usually only has a few cams. I think I once calculated that I needed approx. 28,000 (at 985 sq. ft. coverage) of the Bushnell Trophy Cameras to cover one sq. mile. That figure staggered my mind considering there is 1,421 sq. miles of raw forest land just in my county alone. Fat chance!

Here's a thought though, given those kind of numbers. Anyone willing to trust a slow to wakeup, slow trigger speed trail cam to capture the image of a lifetime? Whoa!




Congrats Spazmo, for visual and planetary imaging that's a dandy setup. Even some of the brighter DSO will be within reach. The fainter DSO will be difficult. Keep in mind that visual use takes time to learn. Over time you will learn to use averted vision and other techniques to bring out subtle detail on the planets. One of my favorites are the double stars and red giants.
Also, remember that all cats are gray in the dark. So don't expect to see color except in a few stellar marvels. I also suggest that you make cloudynights*com your source for everything you will need to learn. You will soon notice that it is like no other forum.

WHOOHOO! Thanks for the link XS!
I've already been amazed looking at Jupiter with the stock eyepiece. WOW.
The eyepiece kit has arrived, I'm just itchin' to use that 4mm...
OK, back to the topic.

Did I just hijack my own thread?

I wonder though if the flash, seen or heard, makes much difference. Do you think it's likely the cat, or any other animal, now feels threatened by what they saw or heard? Also, bottom line is you got the shot, several, showing the cat walking and then looking at the camera. Would a shot of a bigfoot walking by not looking at the camera in the first shot and then looking at it in the next two be any less monumental than a set of three photos in which the bigfoot did not know it's picture was taken? I am apt to think if there is such an animal it will be less important if the animal knows it's picture was taken than if the picture is taken at all. I'd rather have three pictures of a bigfoot with it looking at the camera than not, and don't know if it makes much difference how well the camera works in "stealth" mode. I also wonder if the camera isn't shooting bullets, throwing acid in it's eyes or otherwise creating some other "hazardous" situation, the animal is likely to walk by again if it's path goes from point a to point b and your camera happens to be along that path. An animal may or may not walk by a camera in the middle of nowhere, but if the camera is on a game trail (bigfoot's path to a food source for example) I think you'd get multiple photos on different days/weeks, etc. Works with other animals anyway, that you tend to get animals over and over as opposed to once and they never come into the picture path of the camera.

Bad news for trailcams, folks...

I recently became privy to some technical info (at work) that possibly has some direct influence on the use of trailcams in the field.

In the attempt to "go green", many facilities have changed all the light switches to "proximity sensors" so that the lights come on when someone enters the room, and turn off again at some predetermined time later. These sensors are the same type used in trailcams, they are passive infrared detectors.

Our facility, as well as many others, use wireless microphones for a variety of reasons. In our particular facility we don not normally use the mics in rooms with these sensors. However, one of our audio engineers works at several different facilities. In one case, they had the need to have the wireless mics work in just about any room in their building. This engineer kept noticing a high pitched whine from the mics when the mic wearer went into certain spaces.
Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the proximity sensors were causing this interference. The sensors were romoved, and the interference was eliminated.

I asked him if the whine was audible in the rooms, and he said no (and this is also true in my facility). However, the sensors were sending out some form of high frequency disturbance that was strong enough (and at the right frequency) to cause the mic diaphrams to "whine". While it is still possible that the interference is RF related, and that the mic transmitter was picking it up, this is unlikely as these mics are highly advanced, digital, and brand new.

Also, the sensors were the only thing in the facility that caused this disturbance. The mic transmitters are encased in a metal housing and heavily sheilded to supress any stray RF signals, and we normally have zero interference issues, even in a room where there are more than 3 dozen wireless devices running at the same time.

The bottom line is that these "passive" sensors could very well be the reason for trailcam destruction and avoidance, and could be alerting animals to their presence. This should not be taken as proof, but should help shed some light on the issue. Unfortunately, at this time I have no suggestions as to a possible solution.

Hmmm, hard to say what the reasons for that oscillation were...

It's possible that it was a digital polling thing caused by the system rather than the sensor. It's also possible that the sensors in the mode in which they were used, had elements connected as a balanced bridge which tended to oscillate about the balance position, this might have been a component misselection problem and oscillation tendencies would be damped rapidly in someone else's design. Or it could have been intereaction with other systems, for instance the flourescent lighting or room fans or computer monitors, that were putting out an IR energy pulse oscillation that the sensor was merely picking up and amplifying.

It's also possible that the mics themselves had more to do with it than the sensors, in that the frequency that they worked on or their IF injected a signal into the PIR sensors that happened to be a harmonic of some oscillation mode.

Or maybe someone thought the PIR sensors were great places to stick bugs..... but I guess they needn't have bothered if the organization itself went and stuck mics on people.

Anyway, hard to say whether this issue would extend to game camera sensors or not, can't see it myself.