OT. Tracking an object.
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
Don't know what happened with my last post, laptop went a bit strange
on me... Here is what I meant to say:
*********************************************************************
Sorry this reply is a little on and off topic. But the fact that is
would be a really cool thing to get up and running I'm sure makes up
for it. (Also it is to interface with a Stamp!)
Derek,
Yes the unit does look cool. $110 is a bit much but thats only $1 a
bird if you shoot 110 of them!!! Bargin!
On a more humane note, we have a huge greenhouse complex on this side
of the pond that had a major problem with seagulls pecking holes in
the roof. They contacted a local university and they recorded the
distress calls of the birds. This noise, played over loud speakers
was enough to scare the seagulls away. They found that they only had
to play the sound about 5-6 times a day to keep them away. Might be
an option?
My personal choice would be to just shoot the little bu**ers, far
more satisfying!
Rodent:
Good point about the contrast, I hadn't thought of that. The thing
that I noticed about this unit is that you can turn off colour bands
and select the targeting on the modified information.(If I read the
info correctly..) If you were to turn off the red band, that would
drop the infrared from the sky and the sky would just disapear. The
reverse would occour with the pigeon in that it would stand out like
a sore thumb. There would be a bit of infrared from the bird but no
where near as much as from the sky. This would bump up the contrast,
wouldn't it?
Might work, what do you think??
A small point about the firing of a cat on to the roof to scare them
away would pose a small problem. You would then end up a cat meowing
its head off also stuck on the roof! What do you do then, fire a
doberman up there to scare the cat away.... This train of thought
could get silly!!!
Happy tracking,
Andy....
--- In basicstamps@yahoogroups.com, Rodent <daweasel@s...> wrote:
> They CMU cams require a good light level to work properly, and the
target
> needs to contrast the background pretty well. Not sure if it would
work for
> tracking sky-rats, but they are cool for other stuff. A more humane
approach
> (and less dangerous for humans) would be to squirt water at the
targets. (Or
> possibly launch a cat on the roof?)
>
> One shopping mall I went to in North Carolina had a large, open
atrium with
> lots of perching places. They had some sort of noisemaker that
clicked and
> emitted some ultrasonic tones to keep the birds away -- seemed to
work
> pretty well. I think the Super Wal-Mart down the street needs to
look into
> this.
>
> > WOW! Thanks! That's awesome. Watching those demo videos almost
> > gave me chills! It looked like a little cyborg monster, keeping
an
> > eye on its prey. Definitely much more smooth in tracking than my
> > crude-and-jumpy setup.
> >
> > Now, to justify blowing $110 on one of those modules! [noparse]:)[/noparse]
>
on me... Here is what I meant to say:
*********************************************************************
Sorry this reply is a little on and off topic. But the fact that is
would be a really cool thing to get up and running I'm sure makes up
for it. (Also it is to interface with a Stamp!)
Derek,
Yes the unit does look cool. $110 is a bit much but thats only $1 a
bird if you shoot 110 of them!!! Bargin!
On a more humane note, we have a huge greenhouse complex on this side
of the pond that had a major problem with seagulls pecking holes in
the roof. They contacted a local university and they recorded the
distress calls of the birds. This noise, played over loud speakers
was enough to scare the seagulls away. They found that they only had
to play the sound about 5-6 times a day to keep them away. Might be
an option?
My personal choice would be to just shoot the little bu**ers, far
more satisfying!
Rodent:
Good point about the contrast, I hadn't thought of that. The thing
that I noticed about this unit is that you can turn off colour bands
and select the targeting on the modified information.(If I read the
info correctly..) If you were to turn off the red band, that would
drop the infrared from the sky and the sky would just disapear. The
reverse would occour with the pigeon in that it would stand out like
a sore thumb. There would be a bit of infrared from the bird but no
where near as much as from the sky. This would bump up the contrast,
wouldn't it?
Might work, what do you think??
A small point about the firing of a cat on to the roof to scare them
away would pose a small problem. You would then end up a cat meowing
its head off also stuck on the roof! What do you do then, fire a
doberman up there to scare the cat away.... This train of thought
could get silly!!!
Happy tracking,
Andy....
--- In basicstamps@yahoogroups.com, Rodent <daweasel@s...> wrote:
> They CMU cams require a good light level to work properly, and the
target
> needs to contrast the background pretty well. Not sure if it would
work for
> tracking sky-rats, but they are cool for other stuff. A more humane
approach
> (and less dangerous for humans) would be to squirt water at the
targets. (Or
> possibly launch a cat on the roof?)
>
> One shopping mall I went to in North Carolina had a large, open
atrium with
> lots of perching places. They had some sort of noisemaker that
clicked and
> emitted some ultrasonic tones to keep the birds away -- seemed to
work
> pretty well. I think the Super Wal-Mart down the street needs to
look into
> this.
>
> > WOW! Thanks! That's awesome. Watching those demo videos almost
> > gave me chills! It looked like a little cyborg monster, keeping
an
> > eye on its prey. Definitely much more smooth in tracking than my
> > crude-and-jumpy setup.
> >
> > Now, to justify blowing $110 on one of those modules! [noparse]:)[/noparse]
>