Thermal Drone Deer Recovery

[Catscratch]

Lol. Stating he oversells a system that's has many problems is a compliment!

 

[yoderjac]

Lol. Stating he oversells a system that's has many problems is a compliment!

No, an honest assessment. Look at the long cudde thread. The complement was commending him for his help to folks having issues. He has clearly been a great help to many. He is an asset to folks who have invested in buying cuddelink.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Could use a thermal drone to detect deer as they walk by a known Cuddelink cam to see if they work good.

 

[yoderjac]

Could use a thermal drone to detect deer as they walk by a known Cuddelink cam to see if they work good.

I realize that is tongue in cheek, but there were actually some fairly good experiments done years ago along that line and the results were amazing. The were done by one of the camera review sites; can't recall which one.

In the first experiment, they simply mounted various cameras on a fence like structure next to each other. They then walked in front of the fence at a steady pace When they got past the cameras, they went a few yards further, turned around, and walked past again. I can't recall if the increments were 5 yards or 10 yards. When they were done, they posted all the pics for comparison. It kind of gives you an idea of both detection range, trigger time, and recovery time combined. The differences between cameras were significant. Few cameras got a picture at every yardage with the subject centered. Some cameras never triggered on some walk-bys. Some triggered so slowly that the subject was at the edge of the frame. Some were even slower and triggered after the subject passed by.

In another interesting experiment, they took a few of the best performing cameras and mounted them on posts right next to each other in the field. They left them out there for some period and then compared picture count. The did review the pictures and calculated the false alarm rate as well. Since the cameras were right next to each other and on solid posts, one would expect the picture counts and false alarm rates to be similar between cameras but they were not. There was a big difference between cameras.

This was done over 15 years ago and the specific results for cameras and brands would not be useful now, but the large variation between results probably still holds.

It goes to show how with game cams you don't know what you are missing unless you have ground truth.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Natty Bumppo]

I realize that is tongue in cheek, but there were actually some fairly good experiments done years ago along that line and the results were amazing. The were done by one of the camera review sites; can't recall which one.

In the first experiment, they simply mounted various cameras on a fence like structure next to each other. They then walked in front of the fence at a steady pace When they got past the cameras, they went a few yards further, turned around, and walked past again. I can't recall if the increments were 5 yards or 10 yards. When they were done, they posted all the pics for comparison. It kind of gives you an idea of both detection range, trigger time, and recovery time combined. The differences between cameras were significant. Few cameras got a picture at every yardage with the subject centered. Some cameras never triggered on some walk-bys. Some triggered so slowly that the subject was at the edge of the frame. Some were even slower and triggered after the subject passed by.

In another interesting experiment, they took a few of the best performing cameras and mounted them on posts right next to each other in the field. They left them out there for some period and then compared picture count. The did review the pictures and calculated the false alarm rate as well. Since the cameras were right next to each other and on solid posts, one would expect the picture counts and false alarm rates to be similar between cameras but they were not. There was a big difference between cameras.

This was done over 15 years ago and the specific results for cameras and brands would not be useful now, but the large variation between results probably still holds.

It goes to show how with game cams you don't know what you are missing unless you have ground truth.

Thanks,

Jack

Yes, those kinds of experiments are useful. Just a few days ago I watched a recent Youtube video by an amateur researcher who placed 5 cell cams on the same post on performed a series of experiments just as you described. I have never used a cell cam before but thinking about trying my first one.

In the end, he came down to the Tactacam Reveal X and the Spypoint Flex, ultimately picking the Spypoint.

I am going to pick one up and give it a try. For $100 and 100 free photos a month, it would be hard to go wrong.

 

[Catscratch]

Yes, those kinds of experiments are useful. Just a few days ago I watched a recent Youtube video by an amateur researcher who placed 5 cell cams on the same post on performed a series of experiments just as you described. I have never used a cell cam before but thinking about trying my first one.

In the end, he came down to the Tactacam Reveal X and the Spypoint Flex, ultimately picking the Spypoint.

I am going to pick one up and give it a try. For $100 and 100 free photos a month, it would be hard to go wrong.

Which one are you going to get; the Tactacam or the Spypoint?

 

[yoderjac]

Yes, those kinds of experiments are useful. Just a few days ago I watched a recent Youtube video by an amateur researcher who placed 5 cell cams on the same post on performed a series of experiments just as you described. I have never used a cell cam before but thinking about trying my first one.

In the end, he came down to the Tactacam Reveal X and the Spypoint Flex, ultimately picking the Spypoint.

I am going to pick one up and give it a try. For $100 and 100 free photos a month, it would be hard to go wrong.

I'm not big on cell cams for two reasons. First is the recurring cost. Second is the fact that most decimate the pictures and send thumbnails to reduce the data use. Beyond that, I have no need for near-realtime pictures. My pictures are collect up on the computer that controls the base radio for free. Every couple weeks I collect and analyze them. Pictures come to that computer in near-realtime. I've been on that computer when pictures come in. I've never taken any action based on a picture coming in. I can't see paying for it.

The system I'm using does offer a cell base, I just couldn't see buying one. If I had an internet connection on that base computer I could also just email them automatically when they come in. I'm just to cheap to pay for internet access for that.

I do understand that some guys use systems different than I do and cell cams may be a good fit for them. If you are just looking to see what is out there, decimated pictures may be "good enough". It does mean that you can get pictures without taking the time to travel to each camera and swap SD cards. But the benefit does depend on battery life as swapping SD cards is not a big deal if you have to go to the cam to change batteries.

Putting cells cams on a sing post stacked vertically doesn't make sense to me as their vertical position would influence the detection zone. I think they need to be more side to side so they can each be set to optimize their individual detection zones.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bszweda]

I wish I could get one of those Ukraine drones that drops grenades so I could find bedded coyotes, and give them a nice wake up call. Look at this device https://pro-tracker.com/product/transmitter-3-pack/

 

[yoderjac]

I wish I could get one of those Ukraine drones that drops grenades so I could find bedded coyotes, and give them a nice wake up call. Look at this device https://pro-tracker.com/product/transmitter-3-pack/

Different technology, but similar devices were available back when I started bowhunting. The device went inside the arrow shaft. You used a penetration limiter to keep the arrow from passing through the deer. Never tired one. It made the arrow much heavier and back then, with slow bows, you really didn't wan a steeper ballistic curve.

Another technology that was being hocked back then was a quick acting neurological poison of some kind. Thee was a rubber sleeve that went over the arrow shaft and was rolled forward with the poison in it. When you shot the deer, no matter where you shot it, the rubber sleeve would unroll and deliver the poison. I don't think this one ever made it to market. I can't imagine hunters wanting to eat a deer after poisoning it.

In some ways, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I'm no "techie" - and this is just me. I like the challenge of deer hunting. I like to read the signs deer leave, take wind into account, food sources, best cover, etc. , and do my own blood tracking. Despite all the "tech stuff" that's out there, I still want a 1-on-1 hunt with the deer - on its terms. I could never use a gadget to zero in on a deer - coyote, yes. The drones for RECOVERING a hit deer would be OK to me, to avoid a deer being lost & wasted. In areas of high coyote populations, it might be smart to use a drone so the yotes don't get to your deer first and chew it up.

Like many innovations ....... in the field - or the corporate office - someone will come up with ways to cheat the system for THEIR benefit. Time will show how the drones and other gadgets are being used. New laws may need to be put on the books.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Which one are you going to get; the Tactacam or the Spypoint?

Going to try the Spypoint Flex...only because of the feature of picking whatever provider is getting the best reception at that location. I have sketchy service in the mountains where I'm at. That feature I think will be helpful. Otherwise I think I would have gone with the Tactacam.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

I'm not big on cell cams for two reasons. First is the recurring cost. Second is the fact that most decimate the pictures and send thumbnails to reduce the data use. Beyond that, I have no need for near-realtime pictures. My pictures are collect up on the computer that controls the base radio for free. Every couple weeks I collect and analyze them. Pictures come to that computer in near-realtime. I've been on that computer when pictures come in. I've never taken any action based on a picture coming in. I can't see paying for it.

The system I'm using does offer a cell base, I just couldn't see buying one. If I had an internet connection on that base computer I could also just email them automatically when they come in. I'm just to cheap to pay for internet access for that.

I do understand that some guys use systems different than I do and cell cams may be a good fit for them. If you are just looking to see what is out there, decimated pictures may be "good enough". It does mean that you can get pictures without taking the time to travel to each camera and swap SD cards. But the benefit does depend on battery life as swapping SD cards is not a big deal if you have to go to the cam to change batteries.

Putting cells cams on a sing post stacked vertically doesn't make sense to me as their vertical position would influence the detection zone. I think they need to be more side to side so they can each be set to optimize their individual detection zones.

Thanks,

Jack

Yeah, to be honest Jack. I have little idea what you're talking about. I have absolutely no knowledge about the various camera technologies that exist beyond the normal motion activated cell cams with SD cards. I have no need for real time pics. I do have a small handful of remote sites that are deep in Northern big woods that I want to be able to gather info from. These are sites that are tough to get to or virtually in the buck's bedroom.

With my existing cameras I usually just wait until a day of hard rain to go in and collect cards. But some of these sites are in remote spruce swamps, and getting to them takes a while and almost certainly signals my coming and going to the deer.

Thought it would be neat to try one of these cameras to reduce my visits to collect cards and to get some good intel on bucks using these remote sites. It did not fail to occur to me though that the limiting factor might now be battery life.

Do you think a cell cam is a good way to go? Or would you recommend a different system?

The guy in the video I watched had the 5 cams all grouped together on a piece of plywood. Some side by side. Some stacked. Not sure if 12" vertically is going to make or break the results.

 

[yoderjac]

Yeah, to be honest Jack. I have little idea what you're talking about. I have absolutely no knowledge about the various camera technologies that exist beyond the normal motion activated cell cams with SD cards. I have no need for real time pics. I do have a small handful of remote sites that are deep in Northern big woods that I want to be able to gather info from. These are sites that are tough to get to or virtually in the buck's bedroom.

With my existing cameras I usually just wait until a day of hard rain to go in and collect cards. But some of these sites are in remote spruce swamps, and getting to them takes a while and almost certainly signals my coming and going to the deer.

Thought it would be neat to try one of these cameras to reduce my visits to collect cards and to get some good intel on bucks using these remote sites. It did not fail to occur to me though that the limiting factor might now be battery life.

Do you think a cell cam is a good way to go? Or would you recommend a different system?

The guy in the video I watched had the 5 cams all grouped together on a piece of plywood. Some side by side. Some stacked. Not sure if 12" vertically is going to make or break the results.

Oh, got it now. I was envisioning 5 cams stacked vertically.

What works best is specific to what you are trying to accomplish. I'm loath to make a recommendation on any specific system. Each system has pros and cons. You really need to evaluate what works for you. The first thing I would do, if you are considering a cell system is to make sure of a few things:

1) is the resolution of the pictures sent sufficient for your purposes. For many, it may be. Folks using bait to get pics can position a camera for close pictures. The same may be true on a tight mountain trail. On an open field, young deer are often closer to the camera with mature bucks on the fringe of the flash, so higher resolution pics may be more important.

2) Probably the next important thing is to make sure you will have signal. That is pretty simple, just take your cell phone to the location and look at signal strength.

3) Talk to others with that specific camera and see what kind of battery life they get. Keep in mind that it was only be an approximation. If you are under a canopy, solar may not help with that. Cell is different than 900 mhz but the same principle holds true. The weaker the signal strength, the more dropped packets and retransmission required, meaning more battery consumption. When you talk to others about battery life, don't just ask about how long in time they last, ask how many pictures. You may get many fewer or many more pictures over the same time span than they do. Transmitting data takes more power than just taking a pic.

Separate from cell vs non-cell, consider what impact camera avoidance may have on your application. Camera avoidance occurs when something about the camera causes concern for deer. While individual deer each have their own personalities, mature bucks seem to be the most concerned. They don't turn tail and run. They just learn quickly to avoid triggering the camera. In a field situation, for example, with a visible flash, with photoshop touchup, you may see mature bucks on the very fringe of the flash when a camera is triggered by other deer. They still feed in that field, they just keep younger deer between them and the concern. Some cameras have dual lenses. That is one lens for daytime and one for night. Many less expensive cameras have a single lens. They mechanically flip a filter over the lens for daytime pictures and remove it for tight. This creates a slight noise when the filter moves. Different cameras that use this design may handle it differently. Some check the day/night sensor and adjust it for each picture (movement with each pic). Others move it twice a day, the first night and first day pic. This noise can act as a visible flash.

Flash visibility is a function of wavelength (frequency), intensity, and duration. Not all cameras sold as black flash or invisible flash truly are. If you take it in a dark closet and you can perceive something, so can a deer. Less expensive cameras don't have tight coordination between the flash and picture. They ramp up the LEDs leave them on, take a pic, and ramp them down. That increases the duration of the flash. A better designed camera quickly ramps up, take a picture, and ramps down. In that infra-red range, you don't have as many light photons stimulating the image sensor. Cheap cameras use lower quality image sensors and the compensate by leaving the shutter open longer to get more photons. The result, in addition to a longer duration flash, is motion blur on any movement in the pic.

Again, if you are just using them for hunting, lost data may not be that important to you, but there is nothing more frustrating than checking a camera only to find out it failed shortly after putting it out. This has more to do with quality control in production. That is one nice feature of any kind of wireless including cell. If you can't talk to a camera, you know it and can go check it. This isn't always a camera failure. For example, a quick growing plant could grow into the PIR FOV and trigger a false alarm picture each time the wind blows. Better designed systems are better at differentiating between false alarms and animals.

So, I can't tell you which system to get. I can just talk about the things that generally differentiate camera to help you decide what works best in your situation.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Mtyhunter]

Yeah, to be honest Jack. I have little idea what you're talking about. I have absolutely no knowledge about the various camera technologies that exist beyond the normal motion activated cell cams with SD cards. I have no need for real time pics. I do have a small handful of remote sites that are deep in Northern big woods that I want to be able to gather info from. These are sites that are tough to get to or virtually in the buck's bedroom.

With my existing cameras I usually just wait until a day of hard rain to go in and collect cards. But some of these sites are in remote spruce swamps, and getting to them takes a while and almost certainly signals my coming and going to the deer.

Thought it would be neat to try one of these cameras to reduce my visits to collect cards and to get some good intel on bucks using these remote sites. It did not fail to occur to me though that the limiting factor might now be battery life.

Do you think a cell cam is a good way to go? Or would you recommend a different system?

The guy in the video I watched had the 5 cams all grouped together on a piece of plywood. Some side by side. Some stacked. Not sure if 12" vertically is going to make or break the results.

There are alot of things to consider in regards to getting into a cell cam. Starts with reception. No reception, nothing else matters. Note that: even if no cell service, all the pics still go to the home unit, so i can still check pics without actually going into my hunting area, which is my #1 reason for having the system in the first place. I only have experience w/ the cuddelink system, and as I've said in numerous posts, I'm a fan for sure, and would highly recommend for many reasons. My son and a couple of others on my lease have tried spypoint and tactacam over the last 5 years, and both ended up glitchy after the first year, with various issues. None of them are still in use today. Maybe they're upgraded now and are better, Idk. They all bought cuddelink cams to hook up to my network in the last 2 years to try them out, and haven't had any issues. We're all going to buy more cams from cuddeback when they come out this spring. Note that I don't have any play with Cuddeback, I've just bought the product and used it for 5 years for hunting purposes. All things considered, the system does exactly what I need it to do, and while a little pricey, I'd do it all over again for sure.

 

[yoderjac]

There are alot of things to consider in regards to getting into a cell cam. Starts with reception. No reception, nothing else matters. Note that: even if no cell service, all the pics still go to the home unit, so i can still check pics without actually going into my hunting area, which is my #1 reason for having the system in the first place. I only have experience w/ the cuddelink system, and as I've said in numerous posts, I'm a fan for sure, and would highly recommend for many reasons. My son and a couple of others on my lease have tried spypoint and tactacam over the last 5 years, and both ended up glitchy after the first year, with various issues. None of them are still in use today. Maybe they're upgraded now and are better, Idk. They all bought cuddelink cams to hook up to my network in the last 2 years to try them out, and haven't had any issues. We're all going to buy more cams from cuddeback when they come out this spring. Note that I don't have any play with Cuddeback, I've just bought the product and used it for 5 years for hunting purposes. All things considered, the system does exactly what I need it to do, and while a little pricey, I'd do it all over again for sure.

Just to be clear for folks new to this, we are talking about 2 different things here. One is a cell cam. That has a cell phone embedded and sends pictures directly through the cellular network. The second is a private network system like BEC or cuddeback. They use the unlicensed part of the 900 mhz spectrum to send pictures from camera to some kind of a base without the public cellular network. They have packet radios in them. Transmission distances can be from a few hundred yards to over a mile depending on the radio, antenna configuration, and environment. They transmit the pictures to some kind of base. BEC has the option of using a camera as a base, a PC as a base, or a cellular interface as a base. I'm not sure what options the Cuddelink system has these days. As I recall, they had promised all of them at one point. Once pictures arrive at the base, it depends on your configuration what happens. With BEC if you use a camera as a base pics get stored on a SD card. If you have a cell base, it can be configured to upload the pictures to a web site or send them with email. If you use a PC base, they get stored on the computer disk and can be configured to automatically be emailed or uploaded to a servers provided the PC is connected to the internet.

Cell cams may or may not share an account, but each camera connects to the public cell network. With a private network system pictures are transmitted to a base (sometimes via another camera in the network) and may or may not have that base connected to the public cell network for further transmission.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[bwoods11]

Just to be clear for folks new to this, we are talking about 2 different things here. One is a cell cam. That has a cell phone embedded and sends pictures directly through the cellular network. The second is a private network system like BEC or cuddeback. They use the unlicensed part of the 900 mhz spectrum to send pictures from camera to some kind of a base without the public cellular network. They have packet radios in them. Transmission distances can be from a few hundred yards to over a mile depending on the radio, antenna configuration, and environment. They transmit the pictures to some kind of base. BEC has the option of using a camera as a base, a PC as a base, or a cellular interface as a base. I'm not sure what options the Cuddelink system has these days. As I recall, they had promised all of them at one point. Once pictures arrive at the base, it depends on your configuration what happens. With BEC if you use a camera as a base pics get stored on a SD card. If you have a cell base, it can be configured to upload the pictures to a web site or send them with email. If you use a PC base, they get stored on the computer disk and can be configured to automatically be emailed or uploaded to a servers provided the PC is connected to the internet.

Cell cams may or may not share an account, but each camera connects to the public cell network. With a private network system pictures are transmitted to a base (sometimes via another camera in the network) and may or may not have that base connected to the public cell network for further transmission.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

View attachment 48859

Hopefully it is the complexity of the subject matter rather than the obliqueness of my explanation.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Oh, got it now. I was envisioning 5 cams stacked vertically.

What works best is specific to what you are trying to accomplish. I'm loath to make a recommendation on any specific system. Each system has pros and cons. You really need to evaluate what works for you. The first thing I would do, if you are considering a cell system is to make sure of a few things:

1) is the resolution of the pictures sent sufficient for your purposes. For many, it may be. Folks using bait to get pics can position a camera for close pictures. The same may be true on a tight mountain trail. On an open field, young deer are often closer to the camera with mature bucks on the fringe of the flash, so higher resolution pics may be more important.

2) Probably the next important thing is to make sure you will have signal. That is pretty simple, just take your cell phone to the location and look at signal strength.

3) Talk to others with that specific camera and see what kind of battery life they get. Keep in mind that it was only be an approximation. If you are under a canopy, solar may not help with that. Cell is different than 900 mhz but the same principle holds true. The weaker the signal strength, the more dropped packets and retransmission required, meaning more battery consumption. When you talk to others about battery life, don't just ask about how long in time they last, ask how many pictures. You may get many fewer or many more pictures over the same time span than they do. Transmitting data takes more power than just taking a pic.

Separate from cell vs non-cell, consider what impact camera avoidance may have on your application. Camera avoidance occurs when something about the camera causes concern for deer. While individual deer each have their own personalities, mature bucks seem to be the most concerned. They don't turn tail and run. They just learn quickly to avoid triggering the camera. In a field situation, for example, with a visible flash, with photoshop touchup, you may see mature bucks on the very fringe of the flash when a camera is triggered by other deer. They still feed in that field, they just keep younger deer between them and the concern. Some cameras have dual lenses. That is one lens for daytime and one for night. Many less expensive cameras have a single lens. They mechanically flip a filter over the lens for daytime pictures and remove it for tight. This creates a slight noise when the filter moves. Different cameras that use this design may handle it differently. Some check the day/night sensor and adjust it for each picture (movement with each pic). Others move it twice a day, the first night and first day pic. This noise can act as a visible flash.

Flash visibility is a function of wavelength (frequency), intensity, and duration. Not all cameras sold as black flash or invisible flash truly are. If you take it in a dark closet and you can perceive something, so can a deer. Less expensive cameras don't have tight coordination between the flash and picture. They ramp up the LEDs leave them on, take a pic, and ramp them down. That increases the duration of the flash. A better designed camera quickly ramps up, take a picture, and ramps down. In that infra-red range, you don't have as many light photons stimulating the image sensor. Cheap cameras use lower quality image sensors and the compensate by leaving the shutter open longer to get more photons. The result, in addition to a longer duration flash, is motion blur on any movement in the pic.

Again, if you are just using them for hunting, lost data may not be that important to you, but there is nothing more frustrating than checking a camera only to find out it failed shortly after putting it out. This has more to do with quality control in production. That is one nice feature of any kind of wireless including cell. If you can't talk to a camera, you know it and can go check it. This isn't always a camera failure. For example, a quick growing plant could grow into the PIR FOV and trigger a false alarm picture each time the wind blows. Better designed systems are better at differentiating between false alarms and animals.

So, I can't tell you which system to get. I can just talk about the things that generally differentiate camera to help you decide what works best in your situation.

Thanks,

Jack

Thanks Jack. Appreciate you taking the time to respond. Very helpful.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

There are alot of things to consider in regards to getting into a cell cam. Starts with reception. No reception, nothing else matters. Note that: even if no cell service, all the pics still go to the home unit, so i can still check pics without actually going into my hunting area, which is my #1 reason for having the system in the first place. I only have experience w/ the cuddelink system, and as I've said in numerous posts, I'm a fan for sure, and would highly recommend for many reasons. My son and a couple of others on my lease have tried spypoint and tactacam over the last 5 years, and both ended up glitchy after the first year, with various issues. None of them are still in use today. Maybe they're upgraded now and are better, Idk. They all bought cuddelink cams to hook up to my network in the last 2 years to try them out, and haven't had any issues. We're all going to buy more cams from cuddeback when they come out this spring. Note that I don't have any play with Cuddeback, I've just bought the product and used it for 5 years for hunting purposes. All things considered, the system does exactly what I need it to do, and while a little pricey, I'd do it all over again for sure.

Thanks Adam. Very helpful. Got some research to do.

 

[omicron1792]

In my experience, antlers do not show up on thermal scopes unless they have velvet.

Man. My new thermal can pick out how many nose hairs they have.