Reddit post claiming '300 MPH UFO Caught on Drone' Any thoughts

[cenobite]

A review is also on youtube;

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLqWWPGQZHM


Reddit post; Filmed 300 mph object moving above ocean with drone — WTF is this? [/H1]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1n371v6/filmed_300_mph_object_moving_above_ocean_with/


Any thoughts?

 

[Mick West]

Given that it moves in the opposite direction to the drone, it's probably something very small, like a seed, and the motion comes like parallax plus a little wind.

The trail is probably an artifact of the slow-motion effect.

The original video is needed to say more.

 

[cenobite]

Thanks Mick..What you say makes sense.
I miss your regular uploads on YouTube!

 

[boguesuser]

Op adds a bit more information here.

Appreciate it . For scale, I was at ~120m altitude shooting at 120 fps, and you can see the object pass directly over the striped bass school. The camera was panning and I was tracking the object as it moved, so its motion is consistent with being an actual object above the water. That rules out a bug or something tiny close to the lens — at that distance and frame rate it would've been out of focus and blurred. I fly daily and have never seen this before, I see bugs often. My DJI camera lens is like an inch wide they don't look like that.

If I have the right fish then it ranges between 50–90 cm long.

The average size in length is 20 to 35 inches (50–90 cm) and approximately 5 to 20 pounds (2–9 kg), but varies based on the fish's age and sex.

Even if it were skimming the water, the object would be fairly small. The largest it could possibly be is about 18cm right?

I blew up the picture, measured a random fish, and then measured the object. The object was about 10mm while the fish was 50mm on my screen. So (10/50)*90 gives 18.
Does that math seen right?

 

[FatPhil]

Appreciate it . For scale, I was at ~120m altitude shooting at 120 fps, and you can see the object pass directly over the striped bass school. The camera was panning and I was tracking the object as it moved, so its motion is consistent with being an actual object above the water. That rules out a bug or something tiny close to the lens — at that distance and frame rate it would've been out of focus and blurred. I fly daily and have never seen this before, I see bugs often. My DJI camera lens is like an inch wide they don't look like that.

Would he like to share his depth of field calculation to support that claim? Assertions that things can't be close because they would not be in focus are nothing new. It seems people don't appreciate there's a distance-squared term in the DoF calculation. They'll happily set up a small demo on a desk of it being impossible to focus on 50cm and 100m at the same time, say, not realising that that simply tells us nothing about 50m and 100m being simultaniously in focus, let alone 5km and 10km in Chris Lehto's infamous case (IIRC).

Here's a rando dial/scale that implies that 10m-inf being simultaniously in focus isn't such a weird concept (at f/4, so f/2 would still happily have 40m-inf in focus):

img link: https://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Canon_DOF_480.jpg
via: https://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html

Anyway - from its size and behaviour, it looks small and near to me, so I suspect it's most likely something small and near.