(no subject)

[arethinn]

http://www.humanbirdwings.net/

DO WANT

(anyone up for a trip to the Netherlands where we beg, borrow, bribe, or steal these?)

Unfortunately, the supplies involved seem to include a parasailing kite, which nevermind all the engineering involved (these are motorized; he's just controlling the timing of flapping) sounds expensive.

Does really drive home just how big of wings you need on a human-sized body (never mind a dragon) to enable flight in Earth gravity, though.

edit: See also Man Claims to Fly With Custom-Built Bird Wings; Analysis of the Human Birdwings, which discusses whether there's anything in the video saying it must be a fake based on camera motion and some of the physics; and Man Flies Like a Bird Flapping His Own Wings (Update 6) on Gizmodo, which has a bunch of updates with people saying both "OMG fake" and "this is feasible".

This really doesn't look like 3D CGI to me, though it could possibly be a physical rig with cables painted out.

Comments

[lunaticbubbles.livejournal.com]

'Tis a hoax. There's a couple of articles out there that show how it's been CGI'd and why the physics don't match up. Gizmodo I think disproved via CGI, wired had an article out there that went through to why the physics were wrong, but "left the decision to you".

If only, though.

[arethinn]

So what's all the photos of him building it and stuff? Duh, I realized that if it were part of a hoax he would have to have all that. Seems like a lot of work to go to though.

(sorry for all the edits; I'm done now, honest)

I dunno, the video looks awfully physical to me. Not to say it couldn't have been physically rigged, but I am not seeing the signs like wrong or too perfect light on surfaces, improper shadows, etc... Wired says "...preliminary analysis by physicist Rhett Allain found nothing in the video that indicates it must be a fake." *shrug*

If you're referring to http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/analysis-of-the-human-birdwings/ I don't think that at all goes through "why the physics are wrong"... it seems to be an analysis of whether what we see on the video is something we could reasonably expect to see if it were real, and seems to come down with the quote above: "Nothing immediately, obviously fake."

Even Gizmodo's article has been edited with a bunch of updates. It might be wrong to too quickly accept it as genuine, but I think it's also wrong to too quickly dismiss it as "must be fake."

[lunaticbubbles.livejournal.com]

I've seen more theories that it's a viral marketing campaign, for the products in the final video. Which makes sense to me, having seen a campaign go through for months with ever showing an ad until the final video is revealed. Especially with the 1/14-14/14, which has been reported that it was always 1/14 as if he knew by vid 14, it would be successful (but on the other hand he could be great at guessing). There's more folks saying that his linked in profile is faked, none of the companies that he's reportedly worked for have confirmed that he has.

The shaky camera action, and panning in and out with poor focus are tricks used to hide CGI mistakes. There's one section (1:50-ish?) where they pan out from him flapping, and physical Smeets is (or could be) replaced with CGI Smeets.

Also, there should also be load on the fabric, but there's none, it's flappy- and even with gliders, the fabric is taught, as indicates it's taking load (which thinking on it, could be a frame issue, but don't know enough to be sure). One of the other things that pops up is his legs/feet going from hanging to supported would require some pretty amazing ab strength, looking at the trees in the vid, and his speed, there doesn't appear to be enough headwind to lift him via the fabric 'tween his legs. Another argument has been that the wings don't rotate. Meaning, that the flapping up and down motion is going to push him down just as much as up with out some pivoting in the "shoulder joints". Didn't notice that bit the first watch, but noticed it on the second go 'round.

I could easily be wrong, though. Oft' times am.

Edited to add:

Smeets admitted that it was a hoax, it was apparently an experiment in "online story-telling", not commercially sponsered.