2 and 1/2. March 29th, 2019.I already did but the video is a year old,
ok. when i eyeballed teh "baseball-diamond" shaped sand spot and bushes on the lower left, in google earth, i was around 2000 feet.The wider the lens the lower the drone but 15 mm on FF equiv is pretty wide, 20mm FF equivalent gets us ~750m
Any cropping/zooming on the video, makes the drone higher.
2 and 1/2. March 29th, 2019.
the video just before it is a compilation vid of many locations, so likely he filmed OP vid in 2018 or even 2017 etc.
the Op vid is a repeat upload. (not that that matters, the original is exactly the same as far as i can tell.)
this vid has a side view of a very low sea bird (regular flying speed), but then also has higher birds now flying toward the camera that do seem to fly faster. not as fast as OP video for sure, but might be useful as far as how the [maybe same] camera performs
what?The camera operator also zoomed in, which actually makes that distance even smaller
but those birds are smaller than the op "bird" (unless its a bug but looks like a bird), which means they are closer to the ground ie. further from the drone.However again the 'faster' bird still took around 13 seconds to cover what I would estimate to be a small stretch of coastline.
they look like tic tacs to me.In fact those white objects are unmistakable as the flight of birds.
it depends on the altitude of the "bird". i'm waiting on the math. i myself cant do the pythagorus stuff esp when its backwards and involves focal lengths.I think you would have to concede that object is moving much faster than a bird...surely?
They look nothing like tics tacs to me, they are quite clearly birds flying, in the manner birds fly. .they look like tic tacs to me.
when the bird appears at 10.43 sec, the cameraman continues to zoom in, thereby shortening the distance that the bird is actually flying across the scene. That makes the 13 seconds it took to cover that (shortened) distance, quite a long time. Compare that to 1.3 secs, covering a greater distance (1.3 seconds calculated by another member, not me) in the original video I posted.what?
There's also what appears to be another (bird/alien spacecraft) in the top left of the orginal video
yea its gotta be higher than 820 feet like the video says. the buildings at 840 feet [on Google Earth] are a lot bigger
so what distance did the object travel then in your calculation?
can you provide a screenshot of this UFO at 2.13?
Wind is also a factor. Unless it is the same for whatever time and altitude which the different "things are flying at.It might also be the speed look higher because the drone is moving in the opposite direction. Just a thought, I just gave a quick glance to the video.
You have to understand that that is only the distance at sea level, if the object is closer to the camera then it actually travels a shorter distance.ok I'm confused, how could it have travelled 50 feet in any scenario, when its already been shown the distance of that journey across the sea area is at least 270m?
took me about 4 watches to see it. I do see a blur for as millisecond. I don't personally think that is related in any way to the other video,
ok I'm confused, how could it have travelled 50 feet in any scenario, when its already been shown the distance of that journey [at sea level] is at least 270m?
ok, yes I get you. Personally I think its likely somewhere between distance 1 and 2. If it was up at around 3, I'd imagine it would be a much clearer object. Of course that's only my hunch too...like the drone operator who took itMe neither. I was just having a laugh and showing that there are always blurred shapes zooming in front of cameras at incredible speeds.
Because it's not at sea level. Sea level is the bottom distance here:
Whereas if it's a bird it's at more like Distance 5.
If you want to visualise how that works in your immediate environment pick two spots at least a few feet away from you and estimate the distance something would travel to move between them (let's say it's around 15cm).
Now put one finger from each hand about six inches in front of your face and line them up with the two distant spots.
Now estimate the distance something would travel to move between your two fingertips.
Probably it's around 3 or 4 cms.
Ergo, as things get closer to you they travel less distance to cover the same 2D space.
I'm looking at a very small screen phone, but it looks like the ground/sea is in pretty good focus. In which case, I'd expect the object to be blurrier the higher it is, roughly speaking. Though motion blur may have more to do with it than focus, maybe?If it was up at around 3, I'd imagine it would be a much clearer object.
Wide angle lenses have pretty short hyperfocal distances even at wide apertures.I'm looking at a very small screen phone, but it looks like the ground/sea is in pretty good focus. In which case, I'd expect the object to be blurrier the higher it is, roughly speaking. Though motion blur may have more to do with it than focus, maybe?
I might understand that but am not 100% sure... can you restate in terms that a point and shoot guy can grasp?
If it was up at around 3, I'd imagine it would be a much clearer object.
I am not sure how to define the back of a beachball, so not sure how to answer this. FWIW, I did not rotate the image at all, it remains as found, orientation wise.those beachballs are backwards right?
Such was not my intent!it's freaking me out.
You seem stuck on the thing traveling 270 meters. Before discussing that, can you clarify: do you not agree that the object at any altitude above "barely skimming the waves" would travel a shorter distance potentially MUCH shorter? Or do you agree with that but have reason to believe that the object is right down on the deck as it flies by (and if so can you share your evidence?) Or some other option I haven't thought if?ok I'm confused, how could it have travelled 50 feet in any scenario, when its already been shown the distance of that journey across the sea area is at least 270m?
Personally I think its likely somewhere between distance 1 and 2.