Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers
- Thread starter Humphreys
- Start date
What I noticed was the screen actually 'locking' for the few seconds I described.
Even if they just used that period to swap stands it was pretty damn smooth and bold.
StanBearclaw
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 967
I think the sensible solution has been determined, but now what can he possibly say as the phony explanation come Friday? I think this is where his brilliance is really put on display. He can weave a good story.
This guy clearly used the same technique as Derren Brown and this is from someones home, isnt hard to pull off.I sense a little dig at Derren here, replace the xxx with www
Erm, except for the whole 'being live' thing.
I could do what the guy on Youtube did.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Seems plausible that the ball rack could be a printer (that took a year to develop and perfect!) that prints the numbers on the balls from beneath and then rotates them through 90 degrees. That would account for a snug fit (so the balls only rotate axially) and also why the last ball "rode up" slightly. Yes - I think that's more or less the answer.
I could see that. My only question would be what Ambrosia said:
Ambrosia said:
And also the fact that the balls could have been closer to the camera, rather than stuck back there by the wall. Of course, Derren needed to be far away from the balls to emphasize that he couldn't possibly be manipulating them, and perhaps the front-back separation was the most logical one to keep both in the shot.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
I'm also pretty sure that the left side was freezed. No need to pre-record that at all, it can be done in "real time". Every modest video FX mixer has a freeze function. Also, every such mixer has an option to wipe between two images/feeds. Simply connect the same camera to both inputs, freeze on one input, then wipe. Such things are the most basic functions of every video FX mixing desk.
Also, note that the "shaking" is in no way human. It looks way too "mechanical" for my taste. Just zoom the image a tiny bit, so as to have some "border" outside the TV screen to move into, and then use the mixing desk's stick to displace the image. Another basic function of any modest video mixer.
Yes, the "jumping ball" at the leftmost position really gives it away. That side of the scene was simply frozen and wiped in, then someone wrote the numbers on the balls, and zip, unfreeze, and it's done.
Greetings,
Chris
Also, note that the "shaking" is in no way human. It looks way too "mechanical" for my taste. Just zoom the image a tiny bit, so as to have some "border" outside the TV screen to move into, and then use the mixing desk's stick to displace the image. Another basic function of any modest video mixer.
Yes, the "jumping ball" at the leftmost position really gives it away. That side of the scene was simply frozen and wiped in, then someone wrote the numbers on the balls, and zip, unfreeze, and it's done.
Greetings,
Chris
They 'froze' that side of the screen? From when until when, and how did they match the motion to the other side of the screen? And how did they do that live?
That may be the principle but the details seem rather more complicated.
ETA: It's amusing me how posters are implying this trick is hardly any more complicated than two people, a copy of Adobe Premier and six ping pong balls.
I guess that's why this trick has been performed so many times live on air.
Last edited:
StanBearclaw
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 967
The camera is stable. It's not moving, so there is nothing to match up. They do their dirty tricks on the left hand side of the screen, then they take the final product and do some panning and zooming artificially. It's meant to fool you.
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,675
another point I meant to note earlier.
Notice that whilst DB is explaining that his setup early in the piece he stands directly behind the stand. Why?
"nothing behind this stand guv - no wires, no trapdoors, look these are real balls honest"
It's to obscure that painted black line behind the stand directly above the balls (which aren't shown to even be balls until after the reveal) - black line being used to line up the new balls in rack whilst a portion or all of the shot is frozen, or to mark off where a freeze is to be dropped into the shot to obscure the from above accomplice.
Or it's where the fleas are hiding...
Notice that whilst DB is explaining that his setup early in the piece he stands directly behind the stand. Why?
"nothing behind this stand guv - no wires, no trapdoors, look these are real balls honest"
It's to obscure that painted black line behind the stand directly above the balls (which aren't shown to even be balls until after the reveal) - black line being used to line up the new balls in rack whilst a portion or all of the shot is frozen, or to mark off where a freeze is to be dropped into the shot to obscure the from above accomplice.
Or it's where the fleas are hiding...
That could probably be automated.
I say they didn't swap stands. It was one stand the whole time. They filmed the stand earlier in the day. When Brown got on stage, the stand was empty. What you were seeing was a composite image of live and recorded footage. While he was in front of the TV and nowhere near the stand, some lackey was there with a box of numbered balls putting them in the rack as they were called out. To make double-sure that he had time, Brown didn't write down the numbers until they were repeated.
Then the image stood still and the composite image was replaced with a full screen live image. I'm not positive, but I think the camera was on a mount the whole time. I seriously doubt a person could do it by hand. There are ways to add jitter (movements in any direction) digitally. During the reveal, the camera zooms in. It gets a lot harder to control your movements when zoomed in, but the amount of jitter remains about the same.
Digital jitter is limited by the amount of image space you have. For example, imagine a 100 x 100 pixel image where you only show 90 x 90 pixels. You have 10 pixels on either side with which to jiggle the image to make it look like you're moving the camera.
Now imagine aiming a camera at a 10' x 10' wall that is far away. Slight movements of the camera result in the image showing maybe 12 inches one way or another. Now zoom in so you're only showing 1' x 1'. When you move the camera the same amount as you did before, you'll completely move off the image.
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
Brilliant post Ash.
So many naysayers about this effect. If the method is digital I'd be dissapointed ,but Derren has got the "water cooler" moment yet again today in UK at least. And we dont even have water coolers
StanBearclaw
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 967
I somewhat agree with this, but it's like the Randi-Geller thing: He may be bending spoons with his mind, but he's doing it the hard way.
Why would he not do things in the simplest way possible? Why bother doing stage magic when there is no audience?
For these reasons, I'm pretty sure the lotto thing is not really the payoff, but is instead the setup to something more spectacular. Or maybe it'll be more of a skeptical learning type of program, teaching us that we can't believe anything we see, even on live TV.
Or it could be Derren jumping the shark.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Wow! That is impressive. I remember there was a jelly bean jar episode that was also very good.
My only theory is that they were all stooges!
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
They could have frozen it right where the scene starts or somewhen later, until to the point where the leftmost ball is suddenly raised. All that is needed is to freeze it for as long as is needed to swap/label the balls.
There was no motion to match at any time, since the camera simply didn't move at all. The composited image was "shaken" around by hand.
How they did that live? Do you really asking this seriously? Take a trip to any TV studio you want, and ask to see the video mixing desk. That should answer your question. How do they cut scenes live? How do they superimpose text over imagery live? The same way this trick is done: using a simple video mixing desk.
No computer software needed. No fancy pre-filming needed. This kind of effect is in fact pretty old-school, a lot of VJ's did that. It's just the "packaging" that is differently here. That is, the way DB presents it.
Try some Google-Foo on "video mixing effects desk" (or swap "desk" for "console") and see what these consoles can do.
Keep in mind that they are in a TV studio. All camera's are synchronized, so is the rest of the equipment. Mixing stuff together it the bread-and-butter of any such studio.
Really, it's bog standard stuff that's going on there.
Greetings,
Chris
I agree, this was answered a few pages ago, theres really no doubt this was the method he used and the magical jumping ball in 1 frame sealed the deal.
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,675
Derren Brown genius at it's finest.
However he did it, it's probably a simple idea that was difficult to execute. He nailed it on live TV first time.
I am presently left wondering if he comes up with some mumbo jumbo explanation what kind of sales Camelot will hit for the Saturday rollover draw.
I for one will be watching his special Friday night.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
You're too cynical.Wow! That is impressive. I remember there was a jelly bean jar episode that was also very good.
My only theory is that they were all stooges!
That's a real psychological effect. If you ask a sufficiently large number of people to make a numerical estimate of something like jelly beans in a jar or the weight of a cake their average estimate will turn out to be astonishingly accurate.
I was reading about it the other week, I forget where, it was in a book by Richard Wiseman or someone like that.
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
When I watch the Youtube clip the left-most ball doesn't "jump" or is "suddenly raised". It appears to "rise", i.e. there appears to be movement over around a half-second period. This might just be how it seems, and it might be sudden, but if there's movement then that blows the freeze screen theory. Who thinks the ball jumps and who thinks it moves? Watch the 2:00 to 2:05 section 5 or 6 times before deciding. I agree that the lack of audience is hard to explain though.