• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises (1 Viewer)

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Post #77 reiterates what I and others have suggested. Another pop up visionary that follows the same style in what is written as others before him ; so, so obvious as is the denials of not being one and the same on many occasions. Though I felt supportive of the efforts involved at one time, I now wonder about the reasons behind the many attempts here on BF. It is almost akin to The Flat Earth Society.
 

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
Hi John,



Well, the "peer-review" argument again. Mike's math, as shown above, is built on a gaping hole, and as that didn't lead to a rejection of his article, the peer review process was obviously flawed from a scientific point of view.

That might be not entirely accidental ...



I don't think Mike ever responded to that :)

Regards,

Henning
He does not need to respond to you, and your reasoning and writing is weak, and apparently you don't even know it. Math is not a complete explainer of biological systems. How's that for clarity and brevity?
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Antarctica
Hi "John",

He does not need to respond to you, and your reasoning and writing is weak, and apparently you don't even know it. Math is not a complete explainer of biological systems. How's that for clarity and brevity?

Mike doesn't need respond to me. However, if you don't respond to criticism, that will not help your cause. In fact, it looks a lot like dodging, and Mike really has a great amount of practice with that. He's about as good at giving a straight answer as the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker is at giving a clear picture in a video! :)

Clarity and brevity ... well done on the latter. On the former though ... you mixed up two different points, so no cigar for that.

1) My remark that Mike hadn't answered referred to Jacana's statement that can be summarized that all Mike's "scientific" articles were found in "pay-to-publish" journals.
2) My remark that Mike's math is built on a gaping hole addresses Mike's argument that flap rates prove something mathematically. That's not a biology question, that's a math question.

The connection between these two statements is that obviously, a pay-to-publish article has great chances of passing the "peer-review" process even if it has gaping holes in it.

Let me put it quite clearly: What is needed is really pretty simple. These birds (if around) MUST BE nesting and daily roosting and foraging. Find a nesthole, roosthole, or foraging site, stake it out with a human or automatic remote camera, and get the required photo/video (not easy, but shouldn't take decades). End... of... debate… Individual sighting claims, audio data, and blurry or distant flight videos, will NOT do it… though yes, we can easily spend another 25 years gathering/debating that level of evidence.

Regards,

Henning
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Let me put it quite clearly: What is needed is really pretty simple. These birds (if around) MUST BE nesting and daily roosting and foraging. Find a nesthole, roosthole, or foraging site, stake it out with a human or automatic remote camera, and get the required photo/video (not easy, but shouldn't take decades). End... of... debate… Individual sighting claims, audio data, and blurry or distant flight videos, will NOT do it… though yes, we can easily spend another 25 years gathering/debating that level of evidence.

Regards,

Henning
This directly from cyberthrush's blog? If so, should be acknowledged.
 

YuShan

hikingbirdman.com
United Kingdom
My prediction: within this decade, convincing clear video footage of an IB will emerge.

It will be an animation generated by artificial intelligence, indistinguishable from real. There will be endless discussions whether the footage is real or a deep fake. Only decades later will a birder/ professional animator admit on his deathbed that he had faked the whole thing.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
Last edited:

raymie

Well-known member
United States
My prediction: within this decade, convincing clear video footage of an IB will emerge.

It will be an animation generated by artificial intelligence, indistinguishable from real. There will be endless discussions whether the footage is real or a deep fake. Only decades later will a birder/ professional animator admit on his deathbed that he had faked the whole thing.
Don't give people ideas!
 

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
My prediction: within this decade, convincing clear video footage of an IB will emerge.

It will be an animation generated by artificial intelligence, indistinguishable from real. There will be endless discussions whether the footage is real or a deep fake. Only decades later will a birder/ professional animator admit on his deathbed that he had faked the whole thing.
Bottom line, most us here admire all the tenacity of those involved and I personally will eat my lucky undepants when you guys get, as surely ou must, a definitive, frame filling shot of an IBWP.
Andy-- here is an image taken today, testing a Scopecam Lite, videocam that will run all day on an Anker Power Core 10000mAh, loop recording. Distant stop sign, not close one, is at 226 meters with good resolution. This will be head-mounted and five or more should be deployed this search season in an area with recent IB evidence. The search technique now resembles turkey-hunting closely. See Mission Ivorybill on Facebook. And deepfakes can be convincing by image (not really but granted), but can also be easily traced to origin, thus will never be that successful.
 

Attachments

  • Scopecam Lite, 226m stop sign, FOV.jpg
    Scopecam Lite, 226m stop sign, FOV.jpg
    578.9 KB · Views: 43

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
Andy-- here is an image taken today, testing a Scopecam Lite, videocam that will run all day on an Anker Power Core 10000mAh, loop recording. Distant stop sign, not close one, is at 226 meters with good resolution. This will be head-mounted and five or more should be deployed this search season in an area with recent IB evidence. The search technique now resembles turkey-hunting closely. See Mission Ivorybill on Facebook. And deepfakes can be convincing by image (not really but granted), but can also be easily traced to origin, thus will never be that successful.
And by the way, this was Mike Collins' thread. I am just supporting his efforts.
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Antarctica
Hi John,

Andy-- here is an image taken today, testing a Scopecam Lite, videocam that will run all day on an Anker Power Core 10000mAh, loop recording. Distant stop sign, not close one, is at 226 meters with good resolution. This will be head-mounted and five or more should be deployed this search season in an area with recent IB evidence. The search technique now resembles turkey-hunting closely. See Mission Ivorybill on Facebook. And deepfakes can be convincing by image (not really but granted), but can also be easily traced to origin, thus will never be that successful.

There's a 4K version of the RunCam Scope Cam too. [Edit:] In 4K mode, it only runs at 30 fps compared to 60 fps in 1080 mode[Edit End], but I think more detail will probably be more important than a greater frame rate.

I'm not sure it will be possible to aim a camera with a tele lens reliably with a head-mounted setup. An alternative option might be to mount the camera to the binoculars instead ... not quite as "always on", but I imagine this will result in better image quality.

Here is an example of such a mount:


(Obviously, it requires binoculars with a tripod adapter screw in the bridge.)

Regards,

Henning
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Hi John,



There's a 4K version of the RunCam Scope Cam too. [Edit:] In 4K mode, it only runs at 30 fps compared to 60 fps in 1080 mode[Edit End], but I think more detail will probably be more important than a greater frame rate.

I'm not sure it will be possible to aim a camera with a tele lens reliably with a head-mounted setup. An alternative option might be to mount the camera to the binoculars instead ... not quite as "always on", but I imagine this will result in better image quality.

Here is an example of such a mount:


(Obviously, it requires binoculars with a tripod adapter screw in the bridge.)

Regards,

Henning
It probably will with practice - the main issue being that people are designed to a large extent to move their eyes rather than their heads. Test, fix, repeat must be the attitude, and it doesn't really matter what subject is used for that.

The lens ought to be wider angle than a camera telephoto and rely on capturing sufficient pixels to allow enlargement rather than going all-out for zoom. It's a very much better idea than the kayak paddle mount that was briefly touted on one or other of the IBWO threads previously!

John
 

Mike Crawley

Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
Supporter
England
It would be great to see some of the trial footage from this head/camera setup to give us a feel for the difficulty in obtaining compelling footage.
Some practice footage shot in woodland of common species would be excellent practice for the observers too.
 

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
Hi John,



There's a 4K version of the RunCam Scope Cam too. [Edit:] In 4K mode, it only runs at 30 fps compared to 60 fps in 1080 mode[Edit End], but I think more detail will probably be more important than a greater frame rate.

I'm not sure it will be possible to aim a camera with a tele lens reliably with a head-mounted setup. An alternative option might be to mount the camera to the binoculars instead ... not quite as "always on", but I imagine this will result in better image quality.

Here is an example of such a mount:


(Obviously, it requires binoculars with a tripod adapter screw in the bridge.)

Regards,

Henning
Even if you view all the "claims" as only that, it's clear the bird is too fast, far, and rare to get binocs on it easily. I am concerned with the somewhat narrow field of view, but we will see if we can address that somehow. Thanks.
 

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
It probably will with practice - the main issue being that people are designed to a large extent to move their eyes rather than their heads. Test, fix, repeat must be the attitude, and it doesn't really matter what subject is used for that.

The lens ought to be wider angle than a camera telephoto and rely on capturing sufficient pixels to allow enlargement rather than going all-out for zoom. It's a very much better idea than the kayak paddle mount that was briefly touted on one or other of the IBWO threads previously!

John
It builds on the kayak paddle idea, which was an important step. Mike was the first to state that video should be used rather than stills.
 

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
It would be great to see some of the trial footage from this head/camera setup to give us a feel for the difficulty in obtaining compelling footage.
Some practice footage shot in woodland of common species would be excellent practice for the observers too.
I am planning to test it in that manner, with a lifesize IB cardboard flexible model.
 

Mike Crawley

Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
Supporter
England
I am planning to test it in that manner, with a lifesize IB cardboard flexible model.
Hmm, personally I’d rather practice with moving (living) birds to get a feel for how easily you can get a view (any view) of a bird.
Birds moving through your garden, gradually moving onto common birds in local woodland before getting into genuinely difficult subjects
Surely, getting a good view of a cutout/model isn't the point of the exercise.
 

400+birder

Well-known member
United States
Hmm, personally I’d rather practice with moving (living) birds to get a feel for how easily you can get a view (any view) of a bird.
Birds moving through your garden, gradually moving onto common birds in local woodland before getting into genuinely difficult subjects
Surely, getting a good view of a cutout/model isn't the point of the exercise.
It's a size and black-white pattern thing. Around here in the woods, nothing else compares. I will post results. I especially want to try peripheral vision reaction, and then head-turning with FOV. I agree that live birds, in the proper format, are a better test.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top