Tic Tac in Greece?

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I already did but the video is a year old,
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
1637845583486.png


Screenshot 2021-11-25 080226.png

1637845888247.png

Source: https://youtu.be/eznG_kOiLpw?t=515
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
ok. when i eyeballed teh "baseball-diamond" shaped sand spot and bushes on the lower left, in google earth, i was around 2000 feet.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
2000ft is ~600 metres, I prefer meters for working in the apps I use but I will convert if I get a result.

Estimating a ~50cm object on a 20mm camera object gets a from camera distance of 266 meters,

But the object in it's non motion blur affected width is only 2-3 pixels (on the 1920x1080 max I can download from YT, I know OP video is higher res 2160p) wide so the estimates are quite error prone.

A full res screengrab would help slightly but I don't have a 4k monitor.
 
Last edited:

steviemac

Member
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
1637845583486.png


Screenshot 2021-11-25 080226.png

1637845888247.png

Source: https://youtu.be/eznG_kOiLpw?t=515

Ok, I watched your video. The slower birds, aren't worth comparing I think you would agree. However again the 'faster' bird still took around 13 seconds to cover what I would estimate to be a small stretch of coastline...I'd estimate it to be a lot shorter that 300 metres. The camera operator also zoomed in, which actually makes that distance even smaller

Additionally if you watch the birds, they meander slightly off course as they fly....which would be natural. In fact those white objects are unmistakable as the flight of birds. I would identify them as birds instantly. The video actually highlights the significant difference between the random flight of birds and the object in original video, which flies across the distance at a ruler straight trajectory...and noticeably way faster. I think you would have to concede that object is moving much faster than a bird...surely?
 
Last edited:

Mauro

Active Member
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.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The camera operator also zoomed in, which actually makes that distance even smaller
what?

However again the 'faster' bird still took around 13 seconds to cover what I would estimate to be a small stretch of coastline.
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.

i'm not willing to try to determine drone height for that vid, but added it here in case one of the guys wanted to try to do the math on that footage. we cant prove the op is a bird, but we can prove it isnt if we get the right heights etc. but we need math to disprove it.
In fact those white objects are unmistakable as the flight of birds.
they look like tic tacs to me.

I think you would have to concede that object is moving much faster than a bird...surely?
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.
 

steviemac

Member
they look like tic tacs to me.
They look nothing like tics tacs to me, they are quite clearly birds flying, in the manner birds fly. .

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.

I believe you simply cannot compare that seagull meandering across the scene in your video, with the lightening fast speed of the one in my video. That's just my opinion.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
There's also what appears to be another (bird/alien spacecraft) in the top left of the orginal video

Great spot. That one's moving quite a bit slower, and also appears smaller - consistent with a bird further away.

So I guess there are either: two UFOs, one UFO and one bird (and they just so happen to look the same); or two birds.

Maybe a question a believer could ask would be: what are the chances of a drone flying over this beach and there never being a bird in shot? And then: if there was a bird what would that bird look like?

yea its gotta be higher than 820 feet like the video says. the buildings at 840 feet [on Google Earth] are a lot bigger

Does it work to compare things like building sizes? Or would the type of camera and any crop/zooming also change things?

I don't know the answer to that; just asking.

I've added Stevie's original figures into the calc, for an object 125m (half-way) below the drone:

1637858858066.png

So that's an object about 4 feet in length travelling at approximately 240mph.

(You can't do one for his original guess of 900mph and 700mph as the object would be below sea level.)

If I go with an object travelling at about 30mph, however:

1637858766623.png

I get something 50 feet below the camera about 20cm long.

I imagine the margin of error there is pretty large considering the inaccuracy of measuring pixels, blurring, uncertain drone data, etc. But size-wise it seems in the ballpark of a bird.

Then again, I think I spotted the UFO on another video from Evvia, just after the scene changes at 2.13:

Source: https://youtu.be/o8fumX79G2w?t=133

Could be the same one!

(Which raises the question: maybe it's a bug?)
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
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.
Wind is also a factor. Unless it is the same for whatever time and altitude which the different "things are flying at.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
This is from a 4k screen grab, so lets say how many pixels wide is it (motion blur likely means it is artificially elongated along the long axis in the video, no way to for sure without knowing the shutter speed of the camera during the video, however drone videos in bright light are usually shot with NDs to allow a longer shutter speed for smoother looking video.

For reference if we assume a 0.5 meter wide object going from 5 to 4 pixels means going from 213 metres away from the camera to being 266 meters away.

1637870714533.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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?
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.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
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,

Me neither. I was just having a laugh and showing that there are always blurred shapes zooming in front of cameras at seemingly incredible speeds.

The interesting thing about that one is we can immediately tell it's a bug because it has a lot of frames of reference, in terms of buildings and such. But with the original video being shot over the sea there's really nothing to compare it to, so we really have no idea whether it's 20 metres or 200 metres away.

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?

Because it's not at sea level. Sea level is the bottom distance here:

1637872278246.png

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.
 

steviemac

Member
Me 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:

1637872278246.png

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.
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 it
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
If it was up at around 3, I'd imagine it would be a much clearer object.
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?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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?
Wide angle lenses have pretty short hyperfocal distances even at wide apertures.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I might understand that but am not 100% sure... can you restate in terms that a point and shoot guy can grasp?

At a certain point with a camera lens, all objects further than a specific distance are in acceptable focus, this is called the hyperfocal distance.

With wide angle lenses like on this drone the hyperfocal distance is short often within 5 meters even at f/2.8 a relatively wide open aperture.

This is how landscape photographers get trees., mountains, stars all in focus when using wide angle.

The narrower the angle the further the hyperfocal distance is at 300mm at f/.2.8 it might be as far as a kilometre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance
 

Rory

Senior Member.
If it was up at around 3, I'd imagine it would be a much clearer object.

I guess to test that hypothesis we could take a video of something like an insect flying very close to a camera.

In fact, we've already looked at one like that.

As we've seen, the object wasn't clear at all.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Personally I think its likely somewhere between distance 1 and 2.

Based on the figures we have, if it was three-quarters of the way to the ground it would be travelling around 350mph and be around 6 feet in length.

1638032104341.png

Some people might think that's too small to be an alien craft - but what if they're the size of mice? There could easily be a sizeable crew of them in there if that was the case.

I suppose it's not a zero percent chance. But the smart money's on the bird. :)
 
Last edited:
Top