Deep Tech: Hacking Trail Camera Firmware 3 – Business Considerations
The reason that most Trail Cameras are not already customizable comes down to the business models and financial interests of the various entities involved in making a complex embedded, consumer product like a trail camera. For example, take a look closer look at the packaging from a typical Browning Trail camera, shown below. How is the “Prometheus Group” related to “Browning”? Why are the cameras manufactured in Philippines? And what does any of this have to do with custom firmware? Answers to these questions, and more below.
I have had no communication with any of the companies mentioned, so the rest of this post is speculation. I am happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better.
Note that in this post, I will use Browning cameras to illustrate the various business relationships. This is only because I am most familiar with these cameras. I suspect much of this speculation applies to other trail camera manufacturers (and, likely, other kinds of consumer electronics).
This post is part of a multi-part series. See Deep Tech: Hacking Trail Camera Firmware 1 — Overview for context and pointer to other posts in this series.
Browning
In the case of Browning Trail Cameras, the Browning company itself has surprisingly little involvement. The packaging for a “Browning” trail camera tells the story. The camera is actually made and sold by another company, the “Prometheus Group” which licenses the Browning Trademark from the much more widely known Browning company. Thus, Browning’s business model is one of trademark royalty, with a focus on obtaining the highest licensing fees possible. As such, it is in Browning wants their licensees (e.g. Prometheus) build and sell a high quality products. These products should only improve upon (and certainly does not tarnish) the Browning brand. Browning may provide branding related collateral. This might include drawings of logos, specification of fonts and color palettes, etc. This to insure to consistency across their portfolio of internally developed and externally licensed products. But their interest largely stops there.
The Prometheus Group
Prometheus, the “maker” of the trail camera is, I believe, primarily focused on the marketing, distribution, and after-market support. I believe that there is actually very little technical development done by Prometheus itself. Instead, Prometheus subcontracts the technical aspects of the hardware and firmware to companies which specialize in embedded system development. These companies (or divisions within larger companies) provide the technical specification required for another contractor that specializes in volume manufacturing and consumer packaging. The Prometheus Group’s technical contributions to their camera are likely focused on specifying the requirements and the user interface seen by their customers.
Prometheus Group likely pays their technical contractors per development effort. When they want to introduce a new camera model, they negotiate a price with this vendor, or vendors who will develop the hardware and firmware. This engagement is likely one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the development effort for Browning, as they have to define and manage a bunch of new features, keep them consistent and differentiated across their product lines, and communicate requirements and development costs clearly with their technical contractors.
For all these reasons, they don’t want to do it very often, and certainly not for small feature enhancements within a the product life of a given camera.
Technical Contractors
Technical Contractors are responsible for designing the hardware (circuit boards, enclosure, packaging) as well as firmware. It’s possible that hardware and software could be done by separate companies. However, for an embedded product like a trail camera, where there are opportunities to implement functions either in hardware, or software, it is more likely that there is a single company.
Prometheus, in this example, has an interest in the stability, robustness, and availability of the camera design. In contrast, they may not have a lot of interest in the internal workings. Indeed, it is in the interest of the Technical Contractors to limit the technical details they release to a bare minimum so that Prometheus remains dependent on them for future development.
At the same time, the technical contractors are likely prohibited, by contract, to offer after market firmware to the the end-customers. This is fine, as these company’s whole business model is based on a smiler number of larger “business to business” work items. This is easier, in many respects, than dealing directly with a large number of consumers.
Prometheus likely pays a negotiated rate for software development, and thus seeks to bundle a set of new features for the lifetime of a camera model. This in order to amortize the development cost over as many units as possible. Small scale customization, adopted by a small part of the market is not nearly as cost-effective.
Volume Manufacturer
Once the firmware and hardware have been developed, the next task is to make and distribute 1000’s of these units at the lowest cost possible. Volume manufacturers specialize in this, relying on well-developed ecosystems for sourcing the parts that appear in the camera’s BOM (Bill of Materials).
The volume manufacturer reduces cost by tooling up to manufacture a single product. The fewer hardware changes, and firmware images, the better.
The Prometheus group likely negotiates with the volume manufacturer on the cost and coverage of any quality control. For example, the hardware design includes a number of test points. These test points can be automatically probed after board fabrication to insure that the board is functioning at some basic level. When it comes to the completed cameras, the volume manufacturer likely limits testing to a small, random sample of completed cameras. The volume manufacturer uses this data to guarantee a certain high percentage of shipped cameras will work to spec. But this number is almost certainly less than 100%.
Summary
From this collection of business entities and relationships, it’s easy to see why there is little interest by anyone involved in enabling customization for trail camera firmware. As a trademark licensing business, Browning has little interest. The camera maker, Prometheus seeks to simplify the design engagements it manages with its 3rd party technology suppliers. Finally, 3rd party developers focus on features sought by their business customers.
Feedback and Coming Attractions
If you have more insight and/or data on the trail camera technology ecosystem, please let me know in the comments below.
In the next post in this series, “Theory of Operation”, we finally get to some technology as I give an overview of the major parts of a typical trail camera and how they operate.
Thanks Bob for this blog entry. I think you are spot on regarding Browning and Prometheus Group. I have purchased dozens of the Browning Recon Force line of cameras. I only capture video as that maximizes my own wildlife education and the education of others who are interested in my mountain lion work.
Although these Browning cameras are marketed almost soley to hunters, there is a large number of people like me who use them for research. What is the incentive, if any, for a company like Browning to develop a $300 camera with a one inch lens and sensor?
I welcome your feedback. Thanks for all you do.
Warm regards,
David
That’s just the camera we want! 🙂 Unfortunately, it does not seem to be the direction Browning is going. I can understand why — their core advantages are their affiliation with the hunting market (via Browning trademark license), their ability to work B2B between tech suppliers and their distributor channels, and their customer support. Thus, it makes much more sense for them to grow their revenue by expanding into the cellular camera space. It involves a couple new business relationships (cell phone network providers), some easily outsourced tech (phone apps and web interface, cell-equipped cameras). It plays well in their existing market — giving their customers a reason for purchasing new gear. As a bonus, it comes with a recurring revenue stream for each camera sold!
Contrast this to the research market for higher image quality cams. (Relatively) Low volume, more requests for customization, more requests for volume discounts. It’s possible they get there via their cell-cam push by building a smarter backend for photo/video processing, but even so they’d be competing with their research customers who have already developed sophisticated in-house solutions for their non-cell cam stuff.
It seems more likely to me that one of the newer companies — like GuardePro — might be more likely to expand into the higher image quality space. They did, after all, come out with a white flash camera. But even this may be a stretch, since it would mean a whole new camera design (vs. the WF cameras, which was basically a firmware mod and alternate PCB option), and focus on image quality (vs. low cost)
Reconyx could have gone into the “higher image quality” direction when sales to their existing research market (where they were popular) started to move toward lower cost (albeit lower build quality) trail cameras, like Browning. For whatever reason they didn’t 🙁 Instead, they appear to cut off investment in new camera development, and thus (inevetibly) give up on the trail camera business.
The post provided a lot of information that I hadn’t imagined, it’s very good to know about Browning’s logistical dynamics.
I am a beginner in trail cameras, I started this hobby at the end of 2021.
At the time I imported two cameras to Brazil, a Spec Ops Elite HP4 and a Recon Force Elite HP4.
The quality of these cameras at the time was a joy and a total disappointment.
The cameras had very good video quality and very poor audio quality. At the time, I tried to find out more, and got some reports about this audio problem, so I ended up changing their microphones and it solved the problem 100%.
My opinion on the quality of cameras today is not very good.
I now have three Elite HP5 cameras, two of which are only working because of Mr. Robert’s alternative firmware.
There’s not much interest from Browning in fixing the bugs in the trail camera.
Another thing that really annoys me in 2024 is the video quality of other cameras that don’t belong to the Elite series.
I’ve gotten countless video samples and the quality isn’t good, and what’s even worse is that some cameras still use the .AVI codec, which is obsolete and takes up a lot of space on the memory card.
This is how I feel about the brand: the cameras are excellent in terms of detection, robustness and durability, but the video quality of the models below the Elite series is poor.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Ours matches yours quite well. In many respects, the “Advantage” series cameras seemed to have marked a high point for video/sound quality. Three generations later, there hasn’t been a lot of improvement on video. In our experience, the audio in our best HP5s is not as good as in the Advantage series. I suspect this slippage is the result of cutting production costs, and is tolerated because the hunting market doesn’t value high quality audio as much as we do.
It seems to me time for Browning (Prometheus) and their vendors to make some investments in bringing their tech up to par, and fixing some hw/sw quality issues, especially in their high-end (Elite) series cameras.
Well now I understand why I hear a jumbled word salad of business names when I phone “Browning” for support issues affecting my trail cams. Thanks so much for researching and providing this information, Bob.
Thanks. I think this also explains why Browning/Prometheus tend to simply replace broken cameras, rather than try to repair them. I suspect they don’t have the technical staff, or even access to design documentation — all of which resides with their 3rd-party tech suppliers. It works for them as a business practice, but is counter-intuitive to most consumers.
Thank you for your work. More please.
Thanks! More on the way. Just putting finishing touches on Part 4 — “Theory of Operation”. Early next week
I’m still at a loss how allowing longer video & Smart IR at night is not a potential positive for the core hunting market. Sure, counsel the user that the battery life will be lower but I also expect their tech support get a shedload of (avoidable, but costly) calls “my night video cuts off at 20s”
In terms of GardePro moving to HQ devices, they have a way to go based on what I see of their A series at least. In turn, GardePro is a step up from the Victure HC500 (my first toe in the trailcam water) but the triggering is slow (side by side with the Browning shoes a 700-900ms lag – despite claiming to trigger in 0.1s/100ms) & the audio is basically unusable due to wind noise also on the A3s yes you can use SDXC (>33GB) cards but only if you format in the camera (which only uses the first 32GB of the card…)
Keep up the good work Bob.
Thanks, Jason. I agree that the 20 second limit on night time video in Browning trail cameras is a bit of a head scratcher. It’s definitely not necessary to “protect the LEDs”– see: https://winterberrywildlife.ouroneacrefarm.com/2022/11/14/deep-tech-will-long-night-videos-damage-the-browning-elite-hp5-trail-cameras/
We can only hope GP’s quality and performance improves over time. The T5WF I reviewed a few months back seems like it was much better, overall, than the A-series (which I haven’t looked at). See: See: https://winterberrywildlife.ouroneacrefarm.com/2023/11/18/gardepro-t5wf-white-flash-trail-camera/
The fact that they went into to white flash market (definitely non-hunting), I take as encouraging. On the other hand, I just noticed that it’s not sold on the GuardePro.shop website, which could mean it didn’t work out 🙁
Hello Bob,
We have another issue with a Browning BTC-7E-H5 camera that I don’t see discussed in your posts. I may have missed it. Anyway here goes.
We have been running a Mt Lion project here with 10 cameras for the last 5 years. We have three different models of Browning cameras and a few Reconnyx cameras.
Last time we checked our camera, we discovered this on the Browning 7E-H5.
Our team checked all the cameras on June 10th. First, we got our pictures taken, then check the Date and Time, next replace the batteries and the SD card (inserted card # F769), and then formatted the card in the camera.
When we checked the camera again on July 17th, the first picture was saw recorded on June 30 at 2:45 pm. What happened to the pictures that we expected to be recorded between June 10 and June 30th?
I used the Advanced File Recovery program (ADR)
I checked the SD card F769 for missing JPG files. ADR found 4354 jpg files missing all from between dates 06/10 and 06/30. (20 days). All jpg files are about the same size (1.1 MB ) and there is nothing unusual about the last jpg that would indicate anything strange happened at that time.
The first jpg ADR found was taken on 6/10 at 12:47 PM when we were completing the battery and SD card replacement. The last picture ADR found was taken on 06/30 at 2:38 PM.
Screen captures not copied to this reply. I can forward a word document with all the details and some discussion. Let me know how to get this to you.
Thanks for any help
Mike
Let’s see, if I’m understanding the chronology, the BTC-7E-HP5 (Recon Force Elite HP5) camera was out from 6/10/2024 to 7/17/2024. During this period, the only apparent image on the SD card was from 6/30/2024. Using a forensic recovery tool, you were able to recover (apparently intact and complete) images from 6/10/2024 to the reported photo on 6/30/2023 – several thousand altogether. But you were not able to recover any images from 6/30/2024 to 7/17/2024.
Assuming this is right, I have a theory, but I want to test it with a couple of questions:
– What was the state of the batteries when you picked up the camera on the 7/17/2024?
– What kind of SD card were you using?
-bob
PS: I’ve removed your contact information from this public post, but will keep for my own records in case we need to talk.
Hello
The camera / SD card appeared to work properly from 6/30 until 7/17. There are three folders 100_BTCF(containing 999 pics); 101_BTCF(containing 999 pics) and 102_BTCF (with 471 pics).
The Advanced File Recovery Program found over “Deleted” 4000 pics that were recorded from 06/10 until 06/30. I have screen captures of all this however I can’t paste them in here. I can send you the detailed Word document with all the details.
– Batteries still were functioning, and took pics of us checking the camera on 7/17.
– The SD card is a 32GB SDHC UHS 1; Class 10 by micro center.
Note: I have not attempted to recover any of the “deleted” jpg files. I am preserving the SD card in the condition I found it in.
Obviously, there is no need to recover any of the pics taken from 06/30 to 07/17.
They are fully accessible and can be viewed and copied.
thanks
Mike
This thread continues on https://winterberrywildlife.ouroneacrefarm.com/2023/11/16/fixing-browning-edge-elite-hp4-and-hp5-sd-card-corruption/