Modifying a trail camera’s flash.

Peplin Creek

5 year old buck +
This maybe a stupid question... you know what, it’s definitely a stupid question.... so here it goes...

Has anyone modified a camera’s flash more specifically the casing to reduce the red glow of a camera? I noticed some brands have tinted glass for red glow now. I am wondering if there is some type of film that could break up the red blob perhaps. I’m guessing anything that’s used for modification would lower flash range.

Anyone attempt something like this before?
 
This maybe a stupid question... you know what, it’s definitely a stupid question.... so here it goes...

Has anyone modified a camera’s flash more specifically the casing to reduce the red glow of a camera? I noticed some brands have tinted glass for red glow now. I am wondering if there is some type of film that could break up the red blob perhaps. I’m guessing anything that’s used for modification would lower flash range.

Anyone attempt something like this before?

Pep,

This is the way many black flash cameras are made in the early days. Some have all the light produced in the low-no visibility spectrum but many produce significant light in the visible spectrum. They simply then apply a filter film over the flash that filters out the visible wavelengths. This reduces the amount of "red glow" but is pretty inefficient. The light that is produced but filtered out is energy lost.

Visibility of a flash has three major factors, wavelength, intensity, and duration. All of these play a role in visibility and how/if deer react. Most cheap cameras are very poorly timed. LEDs slowly ramp up to full intensity, hold it for a bit and ramp down. The shutter triggers during the high intensity period. More expensive cameras are much better synchronized. The LEDs turn on for a very short duration and a well timed shutter is actuated. The wavelengths in the near IR spectrum are hard for humans and deer to detect, but brightness (intensity) plays a role in detection. Brightness, of course, affects flash range ( as well as wavelength to some degree). The light produced by the flash is reflected off the subject and collected by a sensor (often CMOS). That sensor has to be responsive to the wavelengths used.

So, in a well designed black flash camera, all of these things are coordinated. I've played around with a lot of things, even using remote black flash extenders. You are right that you will likely reduce the flash range (and significantly) with a DIY filter.

I'm using older technology, but higher end cams. Most are black flash but I still have a few "red blob" cameras. With these higher end cams, the red-blob is very short duration unlike the inexpensive ones but is clearly visible. I don't have any issues with red-blob scaring deer or anything like that. The only issue I have with them is a data bias issue, so I can't use them for survey work. Basically what happens is that mature bucks learn not to trigger them. They just stay far enough away to feel safe. They keep younger deer between them and the camera. So, I often get pictures of a young deer with a mature buck on the far fringe of the flash where you can't make out much of him. With the black flash cameras, this does not happen. There is no age or sex bias introduced.

One note. All of my cameras are wireless and in permanent locations with solar panels so they run 24/7/365 for many months without human intervention. They also are a dual lens design. This means no moving lens filter or anything else mechanical that can make noise. So, the only difference is the flash.

If flash avoidance is an issue with your application, you will be much better off buying a well designed black flash camera rather than trying to add a filter to a red blob camera.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Thanks Jack, my findings have been similar to yours. I just recently went through my storage and found a bunch of old cameras. Wondering if their was a way to get new use out of them. I had some old moultries in the m-80xt line that were awesome cams expect for deer being able to pick them out. I swear they could hear the charge of the IR right before the flash and look. Some of those cam’s flashes more than once too. Solid picture quality though. Perhaps maybe mounting them high 8ft range could work and try to get it out of their initial sight line?
 
So far I've tried tape and a black garbage bag. I thought the garbage would work but those dang IR lights shine right through it when it takes a picture. bummer though because it didn't seem to lose any IR quality from what I could tell.
 
Thanks Jack, my findings have been similar to yours. I just recently went through my storage and found a bunch of old cameras. Wondering if their was a way to get new use out of them. I had some old moultries in the m-80xt line that were awesome cams expect for deer being able to pick them out. I swear they could hear the charge of the IR right before the flash and look. Some of those cam’s flashes more than once too. Solid picture quality though. Perhaps maybe mounting them high 8ft range could work and try to get it out of their initial sight line?

They are probably hearing the mechanical filter that moves in the moultries prior to the flash and picture. After the filter swings, the flash occurs. So, the deer are probably looking in that direction based on sound. A trash bag is probably not the right kind of filter. They make plastic filters that are designed to block certain wavelengths. The reason quality was not reduced much is because the amount of light was not reduced much.

If you monitor rubs or scrapes, hanging red blob high pointing down works pretty well.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Mount them 6ft or higher deer picking them up goes way down but the detection range does also


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't find 6' high enough to resolve camera avoidance for a red blob camera. That is still in the normal field of vision for deer. I've found that mounting them at 10' or so over a point-source works. With a point-source (say a rub or a scrape). While the detection zone is reduced, that works to your advantage since you are monitoring a specific spot. With the camera mounted in the right location, any flash is well above the deer. When they don't see the source of the light, just the light, it does not seem to cause avoidance. There are all kinds of mounts one can use depending on the specific camera. I like the ball and socket type that let you move the cam on all axes. It is inconvenient to deal with a camera that you need a ladder to reach. One option if you are using a wireless camera is to put an external battery on the ground and make a long cable so it can be changed without reaching the camera.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Years ago I read an article where a guy used auto window tinting to reduce the red glow of his game cameras. Based his comments it worked well. You can buy different levels tint on amazon. If I remember correctly he put multiple sheets of tint and it did not affect the picture quality. I believe you have to buy a role of tint and a application liquid.
 
Years ago I read an article where a guy used auto window tinting to reduce the red glow of his game cameras. Based his comments it worked well. You can buy different levels tint on amazon. If I remember correctly he put multiple sheets of tint and it did not affect the picture quality. I believe you have to buy a role of tint and a application liquid.

The effect on picture quality would be very camera and setup specific. Tint will reduce the amount of light produced by the flash. How much is a function of the tint itself. How that impacts picture quality is a function of the sensitivity of the image sensor. Flashes produce much more light than the amount reflected to the image sensor by the target animal. So, if the flash is much brighter than needed, pictures of deer close to the camera my not be degraded. If the flash is well balanced with the camera, even close pictures will be degraded somewhat. I have not seen any camera where adding tint will not reduce the flash range.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Top