Wave height comparison - Heceta Lighthouse, Oregon

[DangerD205]

To estimate wave height, you swim into the waves with a meter stick, and then you put the meter stick at the base of the wave. Then you put your hand at the TOP of the meter stick, then repeat. Remember, you must be wearing jeans to complete this task.

[huskiesrock06]

Those are some serious swells. Too bad some of the posters dont know what the word estimate means. I would guess the swells were about 20 feet

[Bmosh1133]

THAT IS SO MUCH SWELL. AND HELL YEA NOR CAL RECKS SHIT, YOU GUYS ARE EVEN CLOSER TO SWELL OROGINS N SHIT UP THERE!!! NORTHWEST RUGGED SWELL ALL DAY.

[DROPD5150]

PEOPLE!!......SKREW THE NON BELIEVERS!!!!......The NW has some of the biggest surfable waves in the world!!!PERIOD!!!!....Just not enough good exposure!!!!....and we LIKE IT THAT WAY!!!!Nelscott Reef can with ease hold 70+ faces!!!...and ive surfed the beachbreak there when it was 18+!!......it has no bearing on what size ''Mavs'' is that day...Mavs just gets more publicity!!..its not the biggest or best on the west coast!!!...

[clarkewi]

Those waves are far away and would appear much larger were they as close as the lighthouse was. Those waves are 50' on the face. You can tell by how long it takes the lip to hit the bottom of the wave. When its slow like in your video, then you know its huge.

[surrfer990]

thats a lighthouse ghost

[jaymebaer]

Keep the variables in mind and enjoy the comps...

Thanks for posting

[Molge123]

@casperkaren he had a rangefinder noob.

[shootzbra]

my ding-a-ling is bigger than the light-house.....yes

[popsflying]

well i dont know about you`re comparison theory but this was some cool footage of some awesome waves, thanks dude.

[boogiebuddy01]

are there sharks there because that looks really fun

[ruskiantonov]

obviously the people talking trash have limited spacial cognition. it makes perfect sense to do this to approximate wave height, he's not saying its exact but its a pretty good indication that the waves were at least over 20. so please before you post something completely moronic, remember the fact that youre not as bright and clever as you think

[clarkewi]

When they seem to be breaking in slow motion you know they are 50' plus. Mavericks does that.

[jms8220]

I got what you were doing. All these people are being dumb. If you keep the distances the same, the measurements are very relative.

[gavatar7]

Those waves are too close together to surf

[73dumbo73]

whys noone surfing ????

[bodtorent]

Those waves are closer.

[TangaIslandSurf]

Gives a good ballpark idea anyhow.

Massive waves.

Another way to tell a wave size is see how long it takes the lip of the wave to fall to the trough.

These seem to be moving in slow motion, just because of the size involved.

[x11115]

i wouldn't go for a causal swim in it.. nice video..

[tomperanteau]

Casper:

It's relative.

[Suncruiser240]

that sucks...damn

[tomperanteau]

Sun, you suck. Do better.

[pikiwiki]

impressive to understand that, if one is actually at the base of the waves, they are easily, easily two to three times taller than they look from a vantage point several hundred feet up a cliff. still, one of the most majestic sights in the world

[flyingbansheedude]

im a crabber outta newport i remember this storm we had steady 37ft swells rolling into the jetty took the first bouy with 2 12.000 pd anchors and moved it 200 yards inshore biggest storm we have had in years

[Mck419now]

Newport is lamest port ever... podunk nothing little ass town. Had to go to Astoria just to unload Albacore.

[flyingbansheedude]

yeah i agree with u there always got a better price in astoria or illwaco newport sucks way 2 many tourists nothing to do but drink and well thats pretty much it

[djn00nan]

vid does not do it justice, id say those waves are probibly 30 ft +/- big enough to fuck u up for sure. even when i was back east i heard about oregon swells being big

[pey3b]

Haha, the Lighthouse is further away and has an different angle then the waves?? isnt that obvious?

[cpdaman]

apparently what most of the morons commenting on this video don't understand is that your comparison which was flawed UNDERESTIMATES the size of the way

If the wave in the DISTANCE measured similiar to the 56 foot lighthouse (that was closer) then the wave would have been Larger than the light house

Those are 30 foot breakers EZ.....and mavericks was probably 40 feet that day..

[SorthNarolina]

maybe if you could have found a tall boat or something on a calm day it would have been a litttle easier

[naes101010]

Wow my finger is an inch wide......I can hide the moon behind my finger......The moon is an inch wide and everything makes perfect sense now

[woahinkfish]

YES! Someone finally got it. The moon IS an inch wide and the Apollo Missions were a hoax, designed to take public attention away from the politics of the moment. After all this time I am amazed that only one person has come up with the answer.

[wordupbud]

depth and perspective -- educate yourself

[CortesZ666]

Good size waves, Lets go surfin!!

[tarimbang]

I agree with

numbereightyseven.....

Go back to geometric stuff ...It's not a good method a 2ft wave can be estimate as 50 ft with this kind of approximation.

[stevil2006]

The third wave looked to be the wettest.

[yutziy]

15ft Max. 30-40ft is like Jaws and Outer Log Cabins

[dragondefeu111]

Maybe with paddle board !

[jzinthehood]

just padle in,than youll c how bigs that thing

[JangTsungMeek]

lighthouse actually kinda is a good indicator. you can already tell its huge. nice vid.

[llacoll]

that wave at 2;32 was massive. funny idea with the light house. sucks how footage just doesn't do it justice. thanks ive been wanting to see the lighthouse in action. ive heard it get alot bigger. well there must be a reason why its on the hit list for 100ft+

[disasterlover]

haha did your have the same distance from the camera

[tubester4567]

Ya they look big to me.

[woahinkfish]

I know this was not science and I do not need reminders that the method was flawed. I tried to swing the camera from the lighthouse to a point offshore at about the same distance. Who knows if I was even close - I don't!

I recently found an offshore bouy with wave height data and discovered that its maximum height for the day was 8.72 meters. That is a little over 28 feet. What we see from the shore when a wave breaks is a face of some greater height.

[numbereightyseven]

Your method would be spot on for anything that was the same distance away from you as the lighthouse, but for things closer (you swung the camera to the waves in front of you, which were closer than the lighthouse?), it doesn't work.

As an extreme example, imagine that you were to also move the camera to someone standing near you. That doesn't mean they could be 56 feet tall, say. I'm not trying to be perfectionist about this - just saying. Hope it helps for next time.

[JackJamesElias]

I think what we're talking about here is the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, right?

[numbereightyseven]

Well, no, I was thinking more along the lines of truth and falsehood, actually.

[maczenwes]

Relativity, actually.

[fallout415]

easly 30-40 ft swells

[jbonez002]

That's a huge swell no matter which way you look at it.!!!

[Malaka57]

If I lie down naked and super impose....

oh well ...

[r32adt3db]

I was just there last month and took some cool photos of the lighthouse. The area looked like it has serious potential for good surf, especially just to the south.

[Filipeener]

hahahaha...loser

[AS859]

If I put my finger up to the screen, it looks like the wave is only the size of my nail!...Not disputing it may be as tall as you say, but it's extremely inaccurate to super impose an image like that as it is measured from a distance meaning that the scale is unpropotionate!

[woahinkfish]

OK, everyone, I know about focal lengths and relative size of objects in the foreground versus background. I was not asleep during Physics 101. This was a lighthearted attempt to gauge the height of the swell because I could not find anything in the water to use for comparison, AND because I had just purchased a new video editing program and it has this neat feature of superimposing an image over the video and controlling the degree of transparency. 8 minutes of the raw footage is on my site.

[StuartOld]

Woahinkfish naa I seriously doubt that about that old 60's THC somebody would have smoked da hell of it long ago. Besides the THC content decays over a period of time, so therefore, today it would be inert. sorry

[Telstar28]

Of course, this isn't going to work unless the waves are at the same distance as the lighthouse. I doubt that is the case from looking at the video.

[cannonmaker]

I recognize that lighthouse. That's the one right by sealion caves isn't it?

Did the cave get flooded out by the rough surf?

[lelekook]

shit those r perfect surfing waves

[lolahavasuaz]

Intresting perspective, huge swell that day for sure.

[sargea1]

so you're comparing the size of an object in the foreground with objects in the background... hmmm, I think I might see a teeny flaw in your logic there somewhere....

[woahinkfish]

You're right. That is why I point that flaw out at the end of the clip.

[alexaustralia2]

Woaa! I wouldn't know. I was not even born in the 60's!!!

[woahinkfish]

Young pup!Eh?

[alexaustralia2]

Not really. young man I'd say

[alexaustralia2]

far out mate, you been smoking a lot of pot!

[woahinkfish]

Pot had nothing to do with it, unless there is still some THC floating around from the 60's. Nah!