BSK
Well-Known Member
Another advantage I've found with video over still images is blurred motion at night (on black-flash cams). Often with a still camera, a buck will come to a scrape, and although I've set the camera to maximum number of pictures per trigger, the buck is thrashing his antlers through the overhanging limb and all of the images only show a blur for his antlers. I can't identify which buck it is. Looking at video, frame by frame, sees the same thing. Every frame blurred from motion. But when watching the video in motion, the human mind has a way of being able to "see" what is not apparent in the still frames. I can quickly identify which buck it is, even though no single frame is clear. I have no idea how the human mind is able to do this, but I've noticed it repeatedly. Even a buck flashing through the camera set-up so fast he's a blur, I can still identify who he is in video playback, yet the single frames are worthless.
Now would I intentionally run just a pre-season baited photo census with video? Probably not. The storage space required would be massive. And it takes FOREVER to go through all the videos. But for a season-long inventory of bucks using trails, scrapes and food plots, video is well worth it.
Now would I intentionally run just a pre-season baited photo census with video? Probably not. The storage space required would be massive. And it takes FOREVER to go through all the videos. But for a season-long inventory of bucks using trails, scrapes and food plots, video is well worth it.