COuld this be GCI VFX?

This is ancient dead-end technology straight out of 1958.

You and whoever made your video (probably you) are an imbecile.

This has nothing to do with /3/. Or anything else for that matter. May God have mercy on your empty soul.

>>538701
I saw this on the news. The BBC covered it here in the UK. Allegedly he flew in london docklands. Like a few days ago

>>538701
sorry i thought this was the forum for video computer effects and 3d computer modelling

>>538699
>its fake coz some movies use greenscreen
>its fake cuz hes standing on a metal plate
>its fake because video compression caused artifacts
>more research is needed
Feels like this video is done by a small kid whos roleplaying like hes a cgi expert

>>538706
nah mate - i came here because i am not a cgi expert. I came here because some of you guys actually are.

>>538708
Well logically they don't need to fake something like this because this is kind of an old technology. And videos seem fine.

>>538709
ah - okay then. Thanks. The vids only dodgy to me, but then to be 100% honest i know nothing about vfx.

>>538699

Fake as fuck. There's no wake from the jet wash. There's not even any exhaust from the jet.

If he was really skimming over the water in a jetpack you'd see evidence of it in the water blowing around. Look at the wake a helicopter produces when it hovers over water at a higher altitude. A concentrated focused jet blast would produce an even more dramatic effect on the surface of the water at that low an altitude.

i see a drone in a few shots and not quite sure but is he wearing a gopro on top. if so where is this footage from these angles

It's real it uses these engines.
http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tj-100-turbojet-engine

They match the needed thrust for it to work.

>>538728
Actually, it uses http://www.amtjets.com/Nike.php
>176Lbf thrust per engine
>65,25 oz/min of fuel per engine
>$31,000 per engine

>>538699
cgi? no
A composite of a chopper carrying around a guy that then gets removed? maye

Jetpacks are nothing new, they were around for good 50 years in military experiments, but they were always dangerous and expensive to use, not to mention fuel lasted for a minute or so on a huge container

My only problem is that it uses a propeller rather than some form of liquid fuel that all the jetpacks i saw so far did, only 2 engines? And why the hell is his flight path so stable, with only 2 engines and no additional vertical stability sources its really hard to believe he would have so little problems with those maneuvers
Then again a simple modern iphone has enough horse power today to correct all data and the exact power output on the flight with little pilot input

As for few thing from video, the water at the end would be from the propeller condensing it form atmosphere with high huminidity near a river, with the power this thing needed it would make a strom inside a enclosed room

Eh, i guess i can buy into this being real, but with teh mount of hoax videos you can find on youtube i wont be surprised if its not

>>538721
>>538721
>If he was really skimming over the water in a jetpack you'd see evidence of it in the water blowing around
You can see two points on water when he gets low few times in the video.
Even a tiny helicopter will weight a tone with nothing on board.
The rescue helicopters you will usually see above water weight 3 or 5 or even more tons. This guy is probably just 110kg with the jet pack on him, teh force needed to lift him would dissipate faster.

>>538997
>>538699
ok, i guess its real after all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIMWYeP7O1w

That song was pretty good until it became such utter fucking garbage, jesus.