Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ajciani

Camera Placement And Choices

Recommended Posts

VAfooter
Moderator

I've been thinking on the idea of placement and think atleast two cameras should be set at 90 deg. from each other watching the same spot,

I always thought that if you could afford it, placing two cameras basically facing each other (or nearly so). With all the trailcam photos that show "something", but not quite getting enough to ID, or something messing with the camera, that might be the answer. If the flash problem can be figured out, then this could be a workable solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Moderator

Yah, but you got to stay within the export/import specifications (ITAR) when you start talking nv/thermal too.

I think that would probably be more an issue for U.S. exports. If the Chinese will sell it to you and it is not illegal, I doubt that the Feds care about it (munitions and weapons excluded).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajciani

The Chinese have even made portable DVRs that will record to SD card, trigger on motion, and only consume a few Watts. Unfortunately, the products appear and disappear like UFOs, and I have never seen any that record in a resolution better than SIF (352x240).

There was one unit that could trigger an external alarm relay, which could in-turn be connected to the external trigger of a camera (with some wiring). So if it saw something moving, a (D)SLR camera set on the same area could snap a high-res pic. Most SLRs don't eat up too much power. I suspect a large (150 A*hr) storage battery could keep the setup running for a week. If there was a solar panel to recharge the battery, a smaller one could be used, and everything left for a long time.

A few things on making your own IR illuminators:

1) IR LEDs (the 850 nm ones), only glow red if they are over driven. If you can control the voltage well, then supplying the LED with a forward bias of less than 1.70 V should eliminate the red glow, as red requires about 1.75 volts. However, most LEDs are over-driven, to push more current through and get more output. If have also noticed that there are 1 Watt IR LEDs on the market now, for about $1 a piece. And then there's this SolarForce product.

2) I previously mentioned that the Congo Blue (Lee #181 or Rosco #382) and Primary Red (Lee #106 or Rosco #80). Another set I have seen suggested is to use 2 layers of Roscolux #19 (fire), 1 layer Roscolux #83 (medium blue), and 1 layer Roscolux #90 (dark yellow-green), but I think 2 - #382 and 1 - #80 should be equivalent and allow more IR to pass.

3) You could find surplus army IR illuminators.

4) I haven't tried this yet, but if anyone does stained glass work and has an IR capable camera they could test some glasses. I think the cathedral black plate glass may be IR transparent. If it is, you could make replacement glass for windows, lighting fixtures and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

I always thought that if you could afford it, placing two cameras basically facing each other (or nearly so). With all the trailcam photos that show "something", but not quite getting enough to ID, or something messing with the camera, that might be the answer. If the flash problem can be figured out, then this could be a workable solution.

Yes I was thinking that if you had an animal approach a food offering then you are attempting to predict a spot where it will be, using two cameras which had a view of the subject with an angle differing by 90 deg. would establish it's size because distance to each camera could then be triangulated. You wouldn't have a scenario where a small animal could be misinterpreted to be large. This would also eliminate the possibility that an animal could approach either camera and the food offering straight on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Moderator

Yes I was thinking that if you had an animal approach a food offering then you are attempting to predict a spot where it will be, using two cameras which had a view of the subject with an angle differing by 90 deg. would establish it's size because distance to each camera could then be triangulated. You wouldn't have a scenario where a small animal could be misinterpreted to be large. This would also eliminate the possibility that an animal could approach either camera and the food offering straight on.

My thought was that with the number of reports where the camera was messed with from behind, another camera pointing at it could catch the culpret. But then maybe that just scares whatever away without messing with either one. I agree that your idea would certainly help to establish size and probably ID the animal 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Carl

Since you are fortunate enough to know the general vicinity in which they're purported to be living, it would be a great idea to find the nearest or most primary water source of that region and camera trap it. They have to drink too, and it might be a surefire destination on their nightly haunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajciani

The problem with camera trapping water sources is that they tend to be big, and often have multiple land owners adjoining them. It could still be done, perhaps where those sources are more limited, but in those areas, bigfoots tend to be more limited as well.

I was out in the field today, to see if some possible stick structures had been altered, and as I was staring out through the forest, I just kind of thought, "going out to search for bigfoots is absolutely futile." That is, unless you have a very good idea as to where they are, and even then, they set themselves up to evade. The forest, even a small one (1/2 mile x 1/2 mile) is huge. I found the ubiquitous deer, but there are 30 of those in every square mile. With bigfoots, there might be one in 20 square miles, but it doesn't matter if there's four in every square mile: they hide.

Basically, getting a picture of a bigfoot will be either:

  1. Completely fortuitous.
  2. The result of working with a bigfoot family group.
  3. The result of good baiting and camera trapping of that bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

I find that the confluence of small mtn. streams with game trails is one possible intersection point for camera trapping/baiting.

Of course, the ubiquitous raccoons are everywhere and have to be contended with in that environment.

Large bodies of water would certainly be difficult to trap except for impoundments perhaps where feeder streams entered from multiple differing watersheds.

Large culvert systems such as mentioned in the hair trap/wildlife survey thread are good where streams head under interstates or major roadways if you can find them remote enough not to garner alot of attention from DOT workers, fisherman, etc.

This makes me wonder about the sightings that may have occurred near covered reservoirs of people who use gravity fed water systems in the more backwooded areas? Anybody familiar with how they may have been tampered with by BF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×