[Peter C.]

Originally Posted by curunir

You're right, I must have looked at the views counter.

...which, I've just noticed, has now passed the magic 10**6 mark. The power of modern media...

[salar53]

Originally Posted by Peter C.

...which, I've just noticed, has now passed the magic 10**6 mark. The power of modern media...

And the power of a modern video camera, perhaps. Have a look at this and the preceding posts.

11-5-09. Two days ago, I obtained footage that is a quantum level better than previous footage. This morning, I obtained footage that is a few additional quantum levels better, confirms what I have been saying about flap style and flap rate, and illustrates the advantage of observing from the tops of tall trees.

11-6-09. I'm not yet ready to post this footage, but one frame appears above. Other frames show much more detail and key characteristics of the bird, but this frame gives an indication why Audubon said, "The flight of this bird is graceful in the extreme."

Michael Collins is sure he has got the bird and I hope he has. What do the avid birders here think?
The doubters?
The optimistic?
The experts?

[Microtus]

Originally Posted by salar53

Michael Collins is sure he has got the bird and I hope he has. What do the avid birders here think?
The doubters?
The optimistic?
The experts?

I'm sorry, but I don't see a woodpecker.

[nickderry]

got to say, that latest clip is the best thing yet - let's hope that this other footage that's better really is better!

http://www.fishcrow.com/1stclip3nov09b.mp4

for best results, save and view in quicktime.

[dave_in_michigan]

Originally Posted by nickderry

got to say, that latest clip is the best thing yet - let's hope that this other footage that's better really is better!

http://www.fishcrow.com/1stclip3nov09b.mp4

for best results, save and view in quicktime.

A couple animated gifs made from that clip; slow-mo, then frame by frame:





Edit: click to view

[KCFoggin]

The second gif gives a much better look.

[dave_in_michigan]

Here are frames 3, 4, 5 from that sequence:



I interpret all three of these to be views of the top side of wing (bird banking left?). I don't think frame 3 can be the underside of the left wing, because it can't move that far between frame 3 and 4 (assuming frame 4 is top of both wings). I would say frame 3 has left wing straight at camera, and we're seeing top side of right wing only.

Here are 13 and 14, which I interpret the same way. I think we're seeing the top side of right wing in frame 13:

[dave_in_michigan]

One more before I go rake leaves; here's a 400% enlargment of frame 8 (click for full size):



Please note; these are extracted frames, enlarged, and there may be significant artifacts from all those manipulations. Nevertheless, here it is.

Enjoy.

[salar53]

I think I see a great big enormous honking white bill on Mike's "gliding" clip! And to my eyes there also seems to be a suggestion of a white dorsal stripe.
Double click on Michael Collins' interesting clip and see what you think.

http://www.fishcrow.com/2ndclip3nov09.mp4

[cyberthrush]

Originally Posted by salar53

I think I see a great big enormous honking white bill on Mike's "gliding" clip! And to my eyes there also seems to be a suggestion of a white dorsal stripe.
Double click on Michael Collins' interesting clip and see what you think.

http://www.fishcrow.com/2ndclip3nov09.mp4

I think I know which frames you're referring to Salar, but I believe the consensus will be that this particular bird is NOT an IBWO (not even a woodpecker), and that white streak is NOT the bill. Keep in mind the clips are potentially all separate birds, so the ID of this bird doesn't bear on the other clips.
And you ARE thinking along the right lines though: I've been saying that if one could find that long white honkin' beak on one of these clips it would go a long way to moving the identification along. Basing ID on the plumage appearance alone is going to be difficult.

[seanofford]

Originally Posted by salar53

I think I see a great big enormous honking white bill on Mike's "gliding" clip! And to my eyes there also seems to be a suggestion of a white dorsal stripe.
Double click on Michael Collins' interesting clip and see what you think.

http://www.fishcrow.com/2ndclip3nov09.mp4

Has the clip been taken down? I get a yahoo error message.
Sean

[birdboybowley]

Use the link in Microtus' post and scroll down to the bottom and the link to the clips is there. Interesting stuff....I think the longer clip (5th Nov) is better as it shows the secondaries appearing to be white....

[emupilot]

Mike's November 5th video is now out. I've only looked at it briefly, but it does look alot better than the November 3rd video.

[Sidewinder]

Dave, I like what you've done to make the Nov 3 clip 1 images easier to view. My concern is that the white goes all the way to the wingtips. Perhaps Mike has decided it can't be an IBWO; I'm not seeing this particular clip now that he's moved the clips to a separate page.

Can you also make the Nov 5 video easier for us to view? Without a distance reference, I don't think there is any realism to estimating wing length from the video, which Mike implies he'd like to do. The white patches look great, but Red-headed Woodpecker needs to be ruled out. It's difficult to make out whether white is present or absent on the belly (difficult angle); on my screen, the belly appears to be lighter in color than the tail. A juvenile Red-headed would have less contrast between the belly and dark portions of the wings; here is a nice image to consider. As emupilot pointed out at Cyberthrush's blog, here, the extent of white on the wings might be helpful (but not conclusive for me). Cyberthrush thinks some white on the rump might be visible, but I suspect contrast on the belly would be easier to decipher. Body proportions and flight jizz could be useful, too (but beyond me). Seems to me this bird can be identified. Will be interesting to learn what folks think.

Bill Pulliam has already weighed in at his blog, here, expressing cautious uncertainty at this point.

Great effort, Mike!

[emupilot]

The back lighting makes it tricky - just because we can't see the following features doesn't mean they aren't there:

IBWO: white wing linings (a couple frames when the bird is banking in the beginning might be showing this, but I can't be sure)

RHWO: red head (tried cranking up the saturation to no avail on that one), white belly, white rump (although angle might not be good enough to see a white rump if it is there)

It seems like there are a few things to work with like length of white compared to length of wing and wing length/width ratio. Hopefully some estimate of size can be made which would obviously be immensely helpful. I'm content to let the experts figure this out, but like Sidewinder I am hopeful that there is enough information to make a positive ID.

Mad props to Mike for spending an insane amount of time sitting high in trees in the middle of the swamp and for being so forthcoming with his data.

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Dave, I like what you've done to make the Nov 3 clip 1 images easier to view. My concern is that the white goes all the way to the wingtips. Perhaps Mike has decided it can't be an IBWO; I'm not seeing this particular clip now that he's moved the clips to a separate page.

Can you also make the Nov 5 video easier for us to view? Without a distance reference, I don't think there is any realism to estimating wing length from the video, which Mike implies he'd like to do. The white patches look great, but Red-headed Woodpecker needs to be ruled out. It's difficult to make out whether white is present or absent on the belly (difficult angle); on my screen, the belly appears to be lighter in color than the tail. A juvenile Red-headed would have less contrast between the belly and dark portions of the wings; here is a nice image to consider. As emupilot pointed out at Cyberthrush's blog, here, the extent of white on the wings might be helpful (but not conclusive for me). Cyberthrush thinks some white on the rump might be visible, but I suspect contrast on the belly would be easier to decipher. Body proportions and flight jizz could be useful, too (but beyond me). Seems to me this bird can be identified. Will be interesting to learn what folks think.

Bill Pulliam has already weighed in at his blog, here, expressing cautious uncertainty at this point.

Great effort, Mike!

[hodologica]

I'm actually an experienced yet poor birder, but for some reason I feel like sounding off. The one bird seems to have too much white towards the apex. Like Sidewinder said. The line between black and white is supposed to go straight across according to images I looked up. Yet I don't know what bird this could be.

The second bird just doesn't seem to have nearly enough neck/head/bill. When I look at it I'm like, "yo, where's the front end of this candidate IBWO at?"

[Jon K.]

Clearly white trailing edges on upper and lower surfaces. But I will let the experts judge, I have learned better . . . .

[hodologica]

I actually find it odd that the latter bird would even be discussed -- I guess it's the white. But that is really a squat little bird. It's nothing long, rakish, or elegant; it is not nearly as elegant as a crow even. It is apparently built with a neckless taper from head to body. It doesn't have a body "axis", just a hunk of body that hardly projects beyond the wings.

The earlier bird is a lot more "scary" as a possible IBWO.

[hodologica]

Hmm. The bird I dissed above was Nov 5... I agree with Sidewinder that a particular Nov 3 bird (I think there are more than one of those) was the most interesting -- and that is the one he's taken down!

Unlike taken-down bird, long-glide bird and hawk-flushed bird don't show large, definite whites. At least not to an idiot birder like me. (One needs nice definite whites I think, since glare is a possible cause of vague whites.) I don't see how any dim, distant shot of an IBWO is ever going to stand without showing excellent wing whites.

Now, of course, to his credit, I think some of these birds were posted as merely interesting, without any strong claims about them at all.

[dave_in_michigan]

Mike mentions a possibility that the Nov 5th bird might be a Red Headed Woodpecker.

I think frames like this one look pretty darn exciting, though:


Especially the long slender aspect ratio of the wings, and the white at the rear of the wings spreading very broadly, looking like it might extend right into the primaries. Later frames with more of a side view show the wings a bit broader though. And I agree that the tail and head look too short. [Needs analysis by more knowledgable people than me!]

Getting a scale would help, but I don't see any way to do it with this clip.

Respect and thanks to Mike for all his efforts and for sharing the raw data with us.

[Docmartin]

I don't think I'm the first person to say this... but anyway - much as though I'm pretty convinced that the Ivorybill is extinct, I think if there are any individuals left, i really hope Mike Collins is the one who documents them. He does deserve the reward for perseverance over and above the call of duty. Wish there were more of him out there.

That said, after a quick look at the new clips I'm struggling to see anything too exciting. Will have a proper look tho.

[James Blake]

Originally Posted by Docmartin

I don't think I'm the first person to say this... but anyway - much as though I'm pretty convinced that the Ivorybill is extinct, I think if there are any individuals left, i really hope Mike Collins is the one who documents them. He does deserve the reward for perseverance over and above the call of duty. Wish there were more of him out there.

That said, after a quick look at the new clips I'm struggling to see anything too exciting. Will have a proper look tho.

Hi Doc

Look forward to what you have to say. As you're one of the more level-headed IBWO commentators, I'm sure many people would also be interested in your thoughts about Bill Pulliam's lengthy account of chasing possible double knocks in Tennessee.

cheers
James

[emupilot]

Mike's November 8th blog entry has changed, and how he says he would be very surprised if the November 5th bird were a Red-headed. I thought he was being uncharacteristically deferential with his now deleted post, but obviously he is still proceeding in a collaborative spirit. Regardless, the video is worth more analysis for reasons Dave in Michigan suggests - there's no harm in seeing where that leads.

Originally Posted by dave_in_michigan

Mike mentions a possibility that the Nov 5th bird might be a Red Headed Woodpecker.

I think frames like this one look pretty darn exciting, though:
Attachment 227486

Especially the long slender aspect ratio of the wings, and the white at the rear of the wings spreading very broadly, looking like it might extend right into the primaries. Later frames with more of a side view show the wings a bit broader though. And I agree that the tail and head look too short. [Needs analysis by more knowledgable people than me!]

Getting a scale would help, but I don't see any way to do it with this clip.

Respect and thanks to Mike for all his efforts and for sharing the raw data with us.

[dave_in_michigan]

OK, here are some animated gifs again. These are from Mike's Nov5 video. The crops are centered on the bird, so any slight undulations in flight are completely removed (so caution advised regarding flight characteristics).

[dave_in_michigan]

click for full size: