It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: TritonTaranis
No idea what it is - but this pic rules out bird or plane.
All I did was blow it up a bit and used a tiny bit of contrast.
Very cool
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
From your description you couldn't even see the object(s) without your phone so it's hard to put much confidence in your speed estimate. Even if you could see them, your speed estimate still wouldn't be reliable because you would have to know the size to estimate the distance and speed. This is true for almost all UFO sightings, where the estimates of the UFO size, distance and speed are notoriously unreliable. This has been proven where UFO reports have eventually resulted in the objects being identified when it was learned the estimates of the UFO size, distance and speed were often way off.
originally posted by: TritonTaranis
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: TritonTaranis
Nice images, for sure a UFO.
I am thinking balloons and/or butt cushion.
S&F
I can definitely see how it would be easy to look at the pics and say balloon, but the speeds were imo somewhere in the range of 300mph and upwards, that was the most stand out thing for me other than the interesting shapes, they were very fast
Even a trained observer can only estimate the distance and speed of a known, identified object, which they are able to do because they know how big the object is. Without knowing the size of the object, it's impossible to make an accurate estimate.
originally posted by: silo13
I think these 'things' are just fab!
Again - I see no bird, plane, or...swamp gas.
Nice find!
originally posted by: Fallingdown
originally posted by: silo13
I think these 'things' are just fab!
Again - I see no bird, plane, or...swamp gas.
Nice find!
Nice fine I agree .
OP tell your wife “way to stay alert” .
Thanks for the Embed Silo i’m on my phone and can’t make them out that well.
But I’ve got to a bed that t picture does look like a toilet seat .
originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: TritonTaranis
What do you mean by "live picture"? The photos?
If it's that then making a video doesn't help, it only makes the photos look worse. What we need is for you to put the photos on a site that preserves the EXIF data, as that extra information may be helpful.
PS: your link for the video is not working, it points to a site, not a video.
originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Happy to give the EXIF data
What could we learn from it?
I’ll try upload video again
Live Photos is an iPhone camera feature that brings movement in your photos to life! Instead of freezing a moment in time with a still photo, a Live Photo captures a 3-second moving image/clip/video
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Happy to give the EXIF data
What could we learn from it?
We could get an idea of the zoom level used and, at least, the exact time the photos were taken, so we could get a better idea of how much the objects travelled between photos.
I’ll try upload video again
Now it's working.
Live Photos is an iPhone camera feature that brings movement in your photos to life! Instead of freezing a moment in time with a still photo, a Live Photo captures a 3-second moving image/clip/video
OK, I get it.
Is that the real speed or is that speed a result of your moving the slider?
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Were there winds aloft when you shot that? In other words, was it windy?
Honestly, it kind of looks like some debris which took flight and was just blowing around. Possibly a couple mylar balloons, one of them crumpled up and the other still inflated.
I know the feature you're talking about on your iPhone. My wife's phone does the same thing, so I understand what you were doing there to create the video. Good job.
ArMaP...it's probably close to real speed. The iPhone takes a very brief section of video before it snaps the still picture (drives me crazy actually on my wife's phone). What the OP is doing is scrolling through consecutive pictures to simulate a video.
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: TritonTaranis
Thanks. Okay, based on this I guesstimate the objects to be about 200m +/- from your vantage point, and about 70m in elevation. This would make the objects relatively small, say in the 700mm range +/-.
The iPhone has a 2x optical zoom, and given the object goes from being a speck to being a recognizable object suggests the object is both small, and not too distant from you, else it would zoom to just being a larger speck.
originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel
In the past, people would reply to UFO sighting posts that describe with no pics saying post pics next time, we cant go on this.
Now, I want to say post a video next time. If you have the time and means to snap pics with a phone, you could just as easily press the record button instead or in addition to the pics. If you have one, can you upload it somewhere? Edit it to a few seconds or less if need be for size. There's no way to tell the speed and trajectory, the way that it moves.
It could zip by fast in a straight line, it could zig zag. It could be slow or even make unnatural turns. It could be floating etc. A text description of how it was moving is about as good as a text description of a sighting with no pics.
I was using an iPhone 5, and with a little Googling, we can learn some key pieces of information about its camera sensor:
pixel resolution: 3264 x 2448
focal length: 4.10mm
sensor size: 4.54 x 3.42 mm
So: the first formula above for "Working Distance" can tell us the distance at which a subject of a given size will fill the sensor's frame. With the camera in landscape orientation, and a subject 2m tall (2000mm), we get: (3.42 + 2000) * 4.10 -------------------- = 2401.76mm, or about 2.4m 3.42
So if you stand about 2.4m away from a 2m tall person, they should fill the frame in landscape orientation. For portrait, you'll need to step up to about 1.8m away. That's all fine and wonderful for filling the frame. But we want to calculate for arbitrary distances, by seeing how much of the frame our subject takes up. That's what the second formula is for. Let's again use our 2m tall subject, and plug numbers in. For this experiment, let's say that we've examined our image, and the subject in the photo is taking up 1800 pixels, vertically.
Plugging into the second distance formula, we get: 4.10 * 2000 * 2448 ------------------ = 3260.82mm, or ~ 3.26m 1800 * 3.42
And if the subject took up the same 1800 vertical pixels in portrait mode, then we could guess that the photographer was about 3.28m away.
This all assumes that the formulae given above are correct. And again, I only did rudimentary attempts at verifying the 'full-frame' measurements (once with a subject about 28cm tall, then with a subject about 1.7m tall). But my eyeball estimates looked reasonably close to what the formula predicted.