High Country BF News

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, bipedalist said:

Forgot to add, good luck with the there hiflier. I have had great fun with mine. Even helped me in my roof repair and lak detection. About the most interesting thing I've picked up with mine is a scalded woodrat high-tailing it across a creek (looked like something out of a cartoon-wish I was set up for recording ) and what looked like a biped leaning over on a Clackamas river bank that was a deer with it's legs lined up in concert with one another. The last one was notable because Thom Powell was with me that night 

 

Thanks, bp, looking forward to using it. I wouldn't have bothered normally but since even this low end model has image and video capability I thought it worth the investment. Found a new one with a decent discount.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Can you mount the FLIR to a rifle?

 

It's certainly not the quality of the one in the video you posted with the coyotes. I guess it could be mounted on a rifle but I don't think there's anyway to figure in the gun sight? So maybe a homemade bracket? But without  some careful alignment and maybe finding a way to add a crosshairs I wouldn't trust it: https://www.flir.com/products/scout-tk/

 

Then of course there are these: https://www.flir.com/browse/home--outdoor/riflescopes/ but I didn't look at any prices.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by hiflier

[hiflier]

One thing that everyone should know. When researching the FLIR TK Scout and the TK Ocean I noticed differences in their spec sheets. The Scout specs said its size was 6" x 2" x 2"and the Ocean was 4" x 1.5" x 1.5. Also, their viewing ranges were different by 30 yards with the Scout being 100yds. and the Ocean 130 yds. Of course their colors were different as well. I found nothing on the web with these comparisons outside of the FLIR site or any other that showed anything other than FLIR's specs for both units.

 

I got a hold of a tech at FLIR and asked about these differences and the response was that the only difference between the two devices was the color. He said everything else was identical and that the spec sheets had typos. So, both units are "5.9" in length and about 2" in the largest diameter and all other features are the same one to another. Color is the ONLY difference between the two, thought you'd like to know.

[wiiawiwb]

Hiflier...congrats on the FLIR. It will revolutionize your sasquatching endeavors. Opens up night-time observation and opportunity unimaginable before.  You have recording capability too which is great to watch at home.

 

I got a thermal last year and can't say enough good things about them. It also acts as camp security so that no person or creature is going to sneak up on you in the dark of night miles away from humanity.

 

Finally,  with a thermal, it will be nearly impossible for someone to hoax you. It's a great investment.

Edited April 25, 2019 by wiiawiwb

[hiflier]

Thank you, w., like others including yourself I weighed options along with cost vs. need very carefully over time. Size was also important as well as what you said, being able to capture subjects in a permanent record. And sure the night time stuff is great but I also wanted it for daytime stuff too. Animals are well suited for camouflage and often times something could be around in the woods and blend in so well that I'd never see it. Tools like this have practical uses too as Norseman has mentioned over the years in finding hot spots after fires. Locating heat loss for friends and family since oil prices are taking an upward trend is a real world use that would help a device like this pay for itself over time. Lots a of plusses, very few if any minuses. The only drawback is it is necessary that the unit be shipped back to the factory for its battery replacement. Not a show stopper as far as I'm concerned. And the camera's software can be updated on line. Pretty cool all the way around plus it's back by a company we all know that not going out of business tomorrow 

 

So yeah, weighed a bunch of things. It should be here today just in time for the Spring season with its cooler temperatures.  

Edited April 25, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

21 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Thanks, bp, looking forward to using it. I wouldn't have bothered normally but since even this low end model has image and video capability I thought it worth the investment. Found a new one with a decent discount.

 

 

It's certainly not the quality of the one in the video you posted with the coyotes. I guess it could be mounted on a rifle but I don't think there's anyway to figure in the gun sight? So maybe a homemade bracket? But without  some careful alignment and maybe finding a way to add a crosshairs I wouldn't trust it: https://www.flir.com/products/scout-tk/

 

Then of course there are these: https://www.flir.com/browse/home--outdoor/riflescopes/ but I didn't look at any prices.

 

 

I think it lacks a reticule and a mounting rail.

 

It would be good for tracking though.

[hiflier]

Yes, good for tracking. In that regard I suspect that if I pick something up, day or night, there's still a good chance I wouldn't see it outside of its thermal signature. These devices read surface temperature as we all know so very dense foliage can still hide a target. But if it moves around then this thing should pick up a warm body even in the small air spaces in the foliage. In other words I wouldn't need to have something completely in the open to detect it. Rarely have I seen anything in the open and when I do it isn't for long. Late fall, winter and early Spring would be the best times to see things at a distance. Here's my thinking as far as BF: If there's a dead BF body out there with  dark hair  it will be warmed more than its surroundings because it is dark and so absorbs more of the Sun's heat. If my thinking is correct then the body on the ground would show up as a warmer signature in the thermal field. So, warmer by solar ray absorption. Does that make sense?

Edited April 25, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

I was talking more along the lines of blood, scat, urine, etc. Our fire dept. scope could even detect hand prints.

[hiflier]

Good to know, thanks. If there are temperature differences in anything like what you mentioned than this device will/should pick them up. It'll be interesting to see how much I learn by just using it. Thinking in temperature ranges can open up many possibilities beyond simply looking for animals. Got the device charging up as I write this. Can't wait to put it through its paces. 

[SWWASAS]

I have wondered if LIDAR would be good for regional scanning from an aircraft or ridgeline.    It seems like if it was on a ridge scanning a valley anything moving against the stationary forest background would be readily evident.  

[hiflier]

Interesting idea. It's mostly for scanning stationary objects but lately there has been a lot of push for moving targets. I saw a LIDAR unit going somewhere for less than $250 but don't know if is any good.

[SWWASAS]

Problem being that using it for some uncommon use would require a lot of expensive engineering work to get it to work with moving objects.     I get these ideas but while I am a techie of sorts,   the projects are beyond my capabilities with electronics.   

Edited April 25, 2019 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

You're a clever guy from what I've seen. But I agree, it might take special algorithms to work in the field trying to pick something out of a bunch of moving objects. Thinking of trees going by from an airplane with deer running through them. From the reference perspective of a pilot, as well as LIDAR everything is moving so it would have to come down to being able to detect different rates of the relative speed of things on the ground- stationary or not. 

[SWWASAS]

If it is moving like it is in an airplane that makes things much more difficult.     The problem is far simpler if the LIDAR is stationary.    Another approach I have mentioned before,   is use astronomy techniques of image stacking of images made with a electronic camera mounted on a telescope.      In astronomy it works by taking multiple images of a star field over time.     If anything in the fixed star field moves,   it really stands out as a moving object in the star field.  Planets, comets, and asteroids have been found this way.   Terrestrial use would be to mount a fixed telescope on some ridge looking at a patch of forest.   Take images for a long period of time at regular intervals.    Playing the images back like a movie would readily show any movement in the woods.  

 

I contacted Celestron, the telescope company and discussed this project with one of their engineers.     They recommended what equipment they thought would work.      I did not tell them it was for BF research but did say it was to conduct a wildlife survey.   If anyone is interested in the project I can get the information to you.    Using off the shelf gear it would cost less than $500.   

Edited April 25, 2019 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

That would be interesting to see. There are video programs that might be able to accommodate a Plotwatcher's timed images and turn them into videos? One is called "muvee". A much better one is "Lightworks" which is a professional grade program. They're both free. I have "Lightworks" and it's a very powerful and versatile software.

[SWWASAS]

The cameras come with the software for stacking so there is not a lot that needs to be done to get it to work.    Exposure,  intervals,  etc needs to be worked out.    The camera feeds a notebook computer.    Unlike a plot watcher these cameras are designed for low light conditions and might be able to work in the PNW twilight of the summer nights and more than likely during fuller moon phases.     For those that do not live in Northern latitudes,   summer nights in at least Washington and other Northern states, it never gets dark.    There is a period of time in which it is twilight to the North between sunset and the sunrise.