UFO Sighting (Cigar Shaped) Filmed by Snowboarder in Aspen, Colorado

[funbox]

Looking at an object 20 pixels long on a HD video or on a half-VGA video is the same thing, 20 pixels are 20 pixels (I used 20 as a random value, I didn't measure the object in the video), regardless of what the definition is you will always get things that do not have enough resolution to be recognised.

excuse me ? half -vga video
what is this gibberish ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

excuse me ? half -vga video
what is this gibberish ?

A VGA display has a resolution of 640x480, half-vga is 640x240. It was a common format for digital video in the previous millennium. 

It had a higher resolution than the previous format, quarter-vga, 320x240 pixels, which I think was the first format for digital videos.

[zorgon]

ah man am I gonna sound like a non believer after that last comment I made

Cosmo..
it looks like a helicopter that dropped off a skier to me..and the guy continually looking so pointedly back makes me suspicious.  and makes me think it's a set up...
a snowboader with a selfie stick.....hummmmmmmmmmmmm
at 54 sec...it really looks like a helicopter to me

Looks like a helicopter to me also.  Looking straight into the sun your not going to get a clear shot of that helicopter  Won't see rotors either 

[funbox]

A VGA display has a resolution of 640x480, half-vga is 640x240. It was a common format for digital video in the previous millennium. 

It had a higher resolution than the previous format, quarter-vga, 320x240 pixels, which I think was the first format for digital videos.

what has this got to do with what the video was filmed in? we don't have that information , but what we do have is 1080p on youtube .. watch it on that its much crisper

but given its not 20 years ago , im going to take a phenomenally wild guess and say the camera has capability's far beyond 320X240 , ha I used to render such resolutions when I was first doing animation in 3ds4

funbox

[ArMaP]

what has this got to do with what the video was filmed in?

It's obvious, if you read what I wrote instead of trying to find problems where there are none.

What I said was that the resolution in which the video was made is irrelevant, if you have an object that appears as 6 pixels wide (this time I measured the object ) on a video, it doesn't matter if it was filmed in 1080p or QVGA, as it will always be 6 pixels wide, and that's too small to get all the details.

[funbox]

It's obvious, if you read what I wrote instead of trying to find problems where there are none.

What I said was that the resolution in which the video was made is irrelevant, if you have an object that appears as 6 pixels wide (this time I measured the object ) on a video, it doesn't matter if it was filmed in 1080p or QVGA, as it will always be 6 pixels wide, and that's too small to get all the details.

full hd is 1920 x 1080 im sure if it was filmed in that it would be bigger than six pixels wide given there's 1920 pixel along the horizontal .. and 6 pixels would all the object fills ? gibberish

the truth is we don't know what resolution the video was filmed in.. or did I miss an important piece of information ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

full hd is 1920 x 1080 im sure if it was filmed in that it would be bigger than six pixels wide given there's 1920 pixel along the horizontal .. and 6 pixels would all the object fills ? gibberish

Here you go, measure it for yourself. I got 6 pixels as the maximum width of the object.


(don't forget to save the image or open it in another page or tab, the forum software reduces all images to a width of 600 pixels, if I'm not mistaken)

the truth is we don't know what resolution the video was filmed in.. or did I miss an important piece of information ?

Then why did you say "full HD ArMaP , not some dodgy old security camera footage"?

[funbox]

Then why did you say "full HD ArMaP , not some dodgy old security camera footage"?

because you can change the settings of the video to 1080, so im assuming the original footage is far beyond the minuscule resolutions you're suggesting..

lets say it was filmed in a high res..full hd at 1920 pixels width. are you still going to suggest its six pixels wide?

funbox

[ArMaP]

because you can change the settings of the video to 1080, so im assuming the original footage is far beyond the minuscule resolutions you're suggesting..

Are you really reading what I write or are you imagining what suits you?

I suggested no resolutions, read what I wrote.

lets say it was filmed in a high res..full hd at 1920 pixels width. are you still going to suggest its six pixels wide?

It's not a suggestion, it's a measurement. Do it yourself, if you don't believe me.

Edited to add that the 6 pixels width is only the dark part of the object, it doesn't include what I think may be the rotor and that adds some 8 pixels more on the image I just posted.

[funbox]

firstly make sure you take a screenshot at the highest resolution YouTube has to offer, or get the original video

many more than six pixel width



funbox

[ArMaP]

firstly make sure you take a screenshot at the highest resolution YouTube has to offer, or get the original video

How do you think I got that 1920x1080 image I posted on post 122348? By magic? 

many more than six pixel width

Be specific, how many do you count?

[funbox]

How do you think I got that 1920x1080 image I posted on post 122348? By magic? 

I don't even want to know how you came to that insane number

I count around 56 pixels in width ,varying  a few pixels for ambiguity in the start and end of the object

the exact dimension of the original footage isn't known, it was integrated in editing software and re-rendered, then re-rendered in YouTube , but ide say it was fairly high
resolution ..

do you notice there's less banding in my screen grab.. did you do a grab in 240p or something low ?

funbox

[funbox]

gnarly giant sperm , when you blow it up, wonder if it would smell like petunia's

funbox

[ArMaP]

I don't even want to know how you came to that insane number

What insane number? I was talking about the image I posted.

I count around 56 pixels in width ,varying  a few pixels for ambiguity in the start and end of the object

I see, it's a question of definitions, again.
To me, the object has, in its longest dimension (that I call length), around 56 pixels, and in its shortest dimension (width), 6 pixels.

I thought everybody used the same definition for length and width, but it looks like I was wrong.

do you notice there's less banding in my screen grab.. did you do a grab in 240p or something low ?

No, I downloaded the 1920x1080 pixels version of the video and saved that frame from a video editing program (Avidemux) that allows me to move frame by frame, that's probably the reason for the banding. As the banding doesn't change the size of the objects in the video I wasn't worried about it.

[COSMO]

Thanks for the feed back folks.  I duuno...I have been looking at these:

https://www.google.com/search?q=helicopter+in+the+sky&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8-bXt04rLAhVE2D4KHfW9C-kQ_AUIBygB&biw=1024&bih=681

Seems more detail should be visible in that video and I can't figure out what that movement or "object" is underneath it.  Chopper in the sunlight???... I still can't decide what the heck it is....

Cosmo