• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Derren Brown

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #71
    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
    As demonstrated here.
    There you go.

    Comment


      #72
      Originally posted by realityhack View Post
      There you go.
      If that's how he did it - as per all of those "get a pen into a jar over the shoulder" type youtube videos - then I'm disappointed.

      Edit: I thought there were two cameras in the room, but I don't remember seeing anything from the wide shot???
      ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

      Comment


        #73
        Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
        I thought there were two cameras in the room, but I don't remember seeing anything from the wide shot???
        You only need (and should only have) 1 camera for split-screen. It's done with an image processor in the studio, with the feed from one camera. You can even do it with consumer software (Adobe After Effects) but you'd need better kit for a live feed.

        A second camera wide-shot would show nothing untoward.

        Comment


          #74
          realityhack, you've convinced me. And if that wasn't the way he did it, you could sell him the idea.

          It was a jolly good trick though. Right, I'm off to lunch.

          Comment


            #75
            Originally posted by realityhack View Post
            You only need (and should only have) 1 camera for split-screen. It's done with an image processor in the studio, with the feed from one camera. You can even do it with consumer software (Adobe After Effects) but you'd need better kit for a live feed.

            A second camera wide-shot would show nothing untoward.
            I know you can do it, I know how to do it. I've never seen it done live, but then I don't work in a TV studio.

            The second (wide) shot would ruin the illusion (unless it too was being split), but he did boast about it in the pre-amble.
            ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

            Comment


              #76
              I know this is a long shot......

              But has anyone actually checked that the numbers that came out of the machine were actually the ones on his balls???

              OR....

              Did he write down his numbers on the white board and imposed his will on the population that the numbers were correct....

              Very similar to making the bookie pay out on the wrong dog....

              Just trying to find an angle...


              Comment


                #77
                I think he will proclaim himself to be the son of God, he was wasn't due till 2012 but seeing as the whole world is in a bit of a pickle he thought he'd pop by early to save us from Peter Mandelson.
                Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

                Comment


                  #78
                  Originally posted by Tingles View Post
                  I know this is a long shot......

                  But has anyone actually checked that the numbers that came out of the machine were actually the ones on his balls???

                  OR....

                  Did he write down his numbers on the white board and imposed his will on the population that the numbers were correct....

                  Very similar to making the bookie pay out on the wrong dog....

                  Just trying to find an angle...


                  Uh the lotto has a website with the result, unless they're in on it too which would be a little unethical don't you think?
                  Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

                  Comment


                    #79
                    Originally posted by realityhack View Post
                    Not so.

                    Here's one way it could be done:
                    Live feed from static camera on a tripod with split screen. As he leaves the left-hand part of the screen, it's frozen. As the numbers are read out, an assistant replaces the balls with the correct numbered balls. Note the delay from the numbers on the TV to Derren writing them down. This gives the assistant a few more seconds to make sure the balls are placed correctly and leave the shot. The left split-screen is switched to live, and Derren enters it to show the finale.

                    This would explain the curious elevation of the ball on the left shortly after the last number is announced, the design of the stand so the balls will be in (almost) the same position, and the left-right placement of the balls vs Derren & TV.

                    The shaky camera work? Easy. The live feed is passed through a second image processor where an editor moves the screen within the screen jerkily to simulate handheld camera work. The actual 'shot' area is larger than that broadcast, and it's moved around frame-in-frame and broadcast from the second processor. This technique is common in filmmaking to simulate camera shake. This would explain the not-quite-so-random camera shake we see.

                    Thats what I said!!!!
                    l l l http://www.thewantedfans.com

                    Comment


                      #80
                      Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
                      Uh the lotto has a website with the result, unless they're in on it too which would be a little unethical don't you think?
                      Well...

                      Influencing the whole population into believing he chose the numbers is far better than a cheap split screen trick!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X