Field Tech Talk

[SWWASAS]

I agree with the problem of drone noise.   If BF hears or sees anything man made he likely ducks behind cover.  The way to get a quiet drone is have one with wings like the military drones.      Have a large gear driven slow turning propeller and there is little propeller noise.   Of course it cannot hover as it needs to keep moving to provide lift.     One advantage of wings is it takes less energy (battery drain) to keep a winged aircraft airborne than quad drones who use a lot of energy just to keep in the air.      So flight times of a winged drone would be several times that of a quad-copter type of drone.     

[norseman]

2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

I've seen the DJI Phantom 4 on YT.  I am not crazy about any drone for squatching given how loud they are. Having said that, if they find a way to make them nearly silent, count me in. Then they would be absolutely invaluable.

 

Otherwise, they're a nonstarter for me.

 

 

 

Completely depends on your altitude.

 

If your high enough you cannot hear anything.

 

And the phantom 4 has a target track mode. It could illuminate a target for the duration of the battery.

[wiiawiwb]

How high before it can not be heard? One other thought we probably don't have an answer to...can a sasquatch hear better than us?  It's other senses seem to be more acute than ours so if it can hear better than humans the drone might need to go much higher.

Edited November 29, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[norseman]

Im guessing but I would say 800 ft? Bout the time you cant see it anymore?

 

And even lower its more quiet than other man made sounds like jets, cars and trains.

 

Dunno, but it seems to me that a Bigfoot that hides every time it hears a manmade sound would never get anything done. Unless he lives in Alaska or Siberia.

[MIB]

I wouldn't expect a sasquatch to have suffered the same hearing damage a human does from lawn mowers, chain saws, jack hammers, blow dryers, loud stereos, etc., so if the innate capability is close, the sasquatch will likely retain more of their innate ability.    (That's a guess.)

 

Sometimes it is not just how acute the sense is, but how much attention we pay ... the role of distractions, etc.

 

I guess a serious question SHOULD be whether the drone can be flown high enough to avoid being heard yet still be able to illuminate a subject ("target") on the ground.  

 

MIB

[norseman]

I dont think a lume cube would do the job. It would take a custom rig.

 

But then the noise wouldnt be the issue. The giant beam of bright light would be.

 

 

[NathanFooter]

 Drones offer an advantage, when outfitted with a thermal camera you can locate a subject that is observing from a strategic vantage point.

 

 We had a situation this year out in the field where we had a subject knocking and whooping around 250 yards across the logging road from our camp at 8:30 pm back in Aug.  The forest in this area is very thin and tall so downward visibility is fair.   

 

 In the past few years we have noted a few events that suggested they came to the edge of an expansive grassy marsh to knock and vocalize.  One such instance after a long series of knocks we actually had objects thrown ( chunks of wood and rocks ) at my SUV and fellow researchers tent.

 

 If we had such equipment with us during these events we could have had fantastic video.

 

 

[norseman]

This one is ridiculous!

 

 

[SWWASAS]

21 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 Drones offer an advantage, when outfitted with a thermal camera you can locate a subject that is observing from a strategic vantage point.

 

 We had a situation this year out in the field where we had a subject knocking and whooping around 250 yards across the logging road from our camp at 8:30 pm back in Aug.  The forest in this area is very thin and tall so downward visibility is fair.   

 

 In the past few years we have noted a few events that suggested they came to the edge of an expansive grassy marsh to knock and vocalize.  One such instance after a long series of knocks we actually had objects thrown ( chunks of wood and rocks ) at my SUV and fellow researchers tent.

 

 If we had such equipment with us during these events we could have had fantastic video.

 

 

If you had FLIR video in those events you would have been here arguing that it was not a human, because of the inherent low resolution of IR images.   While you would have had full confidence what you encountered was authentic at the time,  you cannot begin to prove anything with IR images.    The image quality is so poor that even comparison of image size is not very compelling.     Every IR image I have seen presented gets immediate blow back from the stable of skeptics who will not even accept the P/G film.   which is orders of magnitude better than IR.     Other than just knowing something is out there,   I find it hard to justify spending a lot on IR equipment.   Certainly the cost of the best image quality gear is way up there and out of the  reach of most of us.    The drones with strong visible lights certainly are capable of good quality images.    But BF is going to duck and hide with that kind of light at night.     It might even damage their eyes if they are as light sensitive as I think they are.   On the other hand,   UV lights can be virtually invisible to the human eye, and UV cameras are as capable of high resolution images as they are with visible light.     Perhaps a drone with UV lights might be more acceptable to a prowling BF,    if they are blind to UV like we are.   Certainy any images captured would be capable of being very high resolution.    

Edited November 30, 2017 by SWWASAS

[gigantor]

^^^ agree 100%. Drones are a great idea until you actually attempt to use one, a civilian version anyway.

 

The flight time of a drone (available to the public) is no more than 30 minutes. Lets assume the camera/resolution is up to the task. Think about that.

 

1) You'd have to be real close to a BF

 

2) You would have to realize you're real close to a BF

 

3) You would have to deploy the drone and fly it around until you find the BF

 

4) Once you spot the BF, you would have to place the drone in a situation to get good footage

 

The short story is, unless you have a long duration drone that can loiter for extended periods of time like a predator, it's just not practical.

 

[NathanFooter]

6 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

If you had FLIR video in those events you would have been here arguing that it was not a human, because of the inherent low resolution of IR images.   While you would have had full confidence what you encountered was authentic at the time,  you cannot begin to prove anything with IR images.    The image quality is so poor that even comparison of image size is not very compelling.     Every IR image I have seen presented gets immediate blow back from the stable of skeptics who will not even accept the P/G film.   which is orders of magnitude better than IR.     Other than just knowing something is out there,   I find it hard to justify spending a lot on IR equipment.   Certainly the cost of the best image quality gear is way up there and out of the  reach of most of us.    The drones with strong visible lights certainly are capable of good quality images.    But BF is going to duck and hide with that kind of light at night.     It might even damage their eyes if they are as light sensitive as I think they are.   On the other hand,   UV lights can be virtually invisible to the human eye, and UV cameras are as capable of high resolution images as they are with visible light.     Perhaps a drone with UV lights might be more acceptable to a prowling BF,    if they are blind to UV like we are.   Certainy any images captured would be capable of being very high resolution.    

 

 640X512 resolution  is not going to fall short for providing detailed information of subject size and true proportions. I have tested units at this resolution.

 

  All of the thermal footage ( 320x240 or less ) that we have has been out of focus or distant with nothing in shot for size perspective

 

 If you read my post a few pages back it points out several ways that thermal cannot be held to the same short comings.

 

 Many give debate over the PG film simply because extended gloves,  shoulder pads and a long list of other reasons.

 

 There is no debate as to what is and is not part of a subject on thermal when in focus.

[norseman]

47 minutes ago, gigantor said:

^^^ agree 100%. Drones are a great idea until you actually attempt to use one, a civilian version anyway.

 

The flight time of a drone (available to the public) is no more than 30 minutes. Lets assume the camera/resolution is up to the task. Think about that.

 

1) You'd have to be real close to a BF

 

2) You would have to realize you're real close to a BF

 

3) You would have to deploy the drone and fly it around until you find the BF

 

4) Once you spot the BF, you would have to place the drone in a situation to get good footage

 

The short story is, unless you have a long duration drone that can loiter for extended periods of time like a predator, it's just not practical.

 

 

I think that is why the falcon project wanted to use a blimp.

 

But try this on for size. My drone tracks targets on the ground. BobbyO always advocates using a camp setting to draw them in close. Nathan reports this works as well. Send the drone up after activity starts with a light. It would take no time for my drone to canvas a 200 yard perimeter around camp. Faster than something can flee on foot. And how far can Bigfoot throw rocks? If that drone sees a ground target it will track it for roughly 1/2 hour while illuminating it. As you know my goal isn’t to film it. I need to test my theory out on a mundane animal like a deer and see how well it tracks it through the forest at night. It will certainly identify and track my cows and horses during the day.

Active track.

 

 

Distance test.

 

 

[SWWASAS]

Once you use night illumination on a BF from a drone I do not think it will come back.     So you basically have one shot to learn what you are going to learn from the experiment.      If camp surveillance and photographs are a goal,  then perhaps it might be worth the risk of driving them away.   That sort of depends on what you want to learn.    Certainly those that shine a powerful flashlight at a BF at night, usually get an angry response and the BF leave and don't come back.     I found from experimenting with normal DSLR cameras and telephoto lenses,  using my airplane, that above 300 feet,    the resulting photographs did not show much.     I did not have a cooperating BF but did use some cattle to see how things worked with larger animals.     You have to be low to get good photography.    A mature forest has trees over 100 feet tall in the PNW.    So you have a pretty narrow zone of altitude with which to fly, avoid trees, and still get useful photography be it drone or airplane.  

 

Too much of what we do is not well thought out.   We have to take what little we know about BF behavior,   examine a tool like a drone,    and determine the best use for it.    If repeated contacts in a camp situation are a goal,  then perhaps things like drones with lights might not be the best route to take.     One experimental use for a drone might be experiments with IR, or UV light to see which BF seems to see or not see.      Just that knowledge would be very useful to all in the future.     

 

I did note in the Phantom 4 active follow test video one possible violation of FAA drone rules.     You cannot fly over pedestrians.     The maker of the video abruptly cut the video when pedestrians walked across the street in front of the car.   After the first airliner hits a drone,   or some drone crashes into a crowd of people,  there is going to be a crack down with serious jail time for those that violate the rules.     There have been several very close calls with airliners already.        

[SWWASAS]

13 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 640X512 resolution  is not going to fall short for providing detailed information of subject size and true proportions. I have tested units at this resolution.

 

  All of the thermal footage ( 320x240 or less ) that we have has been out of focus or distant with nothing in shot for size perspective

 

 If you read my post a few pages back it points out several ways that thermal cannot be held to the same short comings.

 

 Many give debate over the PG film simply because extended gloves,  shoulder pads and a long list of other reasons.

 

 There is no debate as to what is and is not part of a subject on thermal when in focus.

I base my prediction of how a FLIR video will be interpreted by skeptics is based entirely by past experience on this forum.   I have been a member a long time.     Nothing short of being eaten by a BF will convince some of the people here.    You may be quite comfortable with interpretation of results but don't expect a celebratory parade by many forum members.     Don't misunderstand my reservations,   I do wish you luck getting something.    The flack directed at those who have posted FLIR video has caused more than one member to quit the forum in disgust.    Some members are sitting on and not posting photographs just for that reason.   

Edited December 1, 2017 by SWWASAS

[wiiawiwb]

For me, and what i want to do, a drone is not the answer, at least not now. I want to be able to come back many times to several locations I have and use the thermal to see if there is continued activity.

 

Not interested in proving anything to anyone but it would be quite something to have it on thermal even if the "object" is not considered proof by anyone else.

 

The other reason I would not want a drone is the potential for financial loss. Where I go is backpacking to secluded ponds and it is usually windy. I highly doubt I'd do well with a joystick(s). With my luck, or lack of skill, I'd have the drone and thermal at the bottom of the pond or atop a very tall pine tree. A man's gotta know his limitations.