Yes he did, right at the end.
Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers
- Thread starter Humphreys
- Start date
Yes he did, right at the end.
It's happening again - a person paid to entertain us by lying to us lies to us and it upsets some people. Right at the start he told you what he does and he ends the whole show with a reminder.
Ralfy
Student
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 34
The camera was not handheld, it was a standard fixed TV studio camera. All that had to be done was zoom in to 90% of the frame, giving the freedom to add a bit of digital wobble, freeze the left hand half of the frame while the assistant changes the balls and then unfreeze it before Derren does the reveal.
As someone on another forum noted, if this had been run through a number of times before, all of the effects above could be pre-programmed for the live broadcast. State of the art TV studios are a bit more advanced than Premiere and After Effects.
Er where has that been thoroughly debunked? We see the hand held cameraman at the start from the second camera and Derren's movements perfectly match when it switched back to the first camera. But it may then subsequently be locked off.
(If it was always a fixed camera then you have to add the perfect timing of his movements in to the mix. Again possible but adding to the complexity.)
*sigh* Yes, of course, if it were just a piece of video you were provided, and didn't have to do it live with a hastily locked off camera.
Look I do think it is the most likely explanation, I'm not disputing that, but I am disputing it is easy to do in the scenario presented. You would need to rehearse very thoroughly.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
What refresh line? You mean the effect that if you film a regular TV, that you have a line/bar crawling up or down the filmed screen? If so, that happens only if the TV and the camera are not in sync.
They are in a TV studio, so they simply synced the local cameras to the incoming signal. Or they resynced the incoming signal.
What makes you think that it was hand held throughout the scene? The shaking is definitely not from a hand held camera. They did at no point show someone holding that cam. It could be a motorized cam on a dolly. It could be a cam on a crane. It could be mounted on a steady-cam thing which then was put in place after someone walked in with the cam (if someone handled the cam with bare hands at all).
Really, it _is_ simple to do when it was done with a split screen. Move cam in place, freeze the scene on one channel, wipe halfway in the secon (live) channel, wipe out after done. Add artificial shaking all the time. Really just a matter of pushing a few buttons and fiddling with a joystick.
However, the scene setup itself has to be done carefully. Shadows from the actor have to be avoided, which they did well by using a dark floor and even lighting. Nothing has to stay in the way where someone walks in while the frozen frame is partially wiped in. Like cables on the floor that someone could trip over and move around by accident.
But besides this, the effect itself is really easy. At least from what i know how video mixing and FX desks are used in TV station. These are trained people who do similar stuff every day. Just think of the news, when they report live and do PiP's that zoom into full-frame and back, adding subtitles, etc.
Greetings,
Chris
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
I was dubious about Seance-Darat kindly edited a piece together which suggested camera trickery(edits) on YouTube somewhere.
But I was dissapointed,I knew we wouldnt get the real explanation but I was bored watching the faux one-doubt many laypeople were convinced.
To carry out such an audacious effect then offer to explain it was asking to much I think.
Last edited:
So you are saying the second camera view was prerecorded and Derren had to synch his movements exactly with the recorded waving?
Kiosk
He Thinks He's People
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 349
Probably the dullest show Derren Brown's ever done. Shame.
You could tell he'd been on the internet, and was well aware that everyone had seen through the trick. "You don't have to believe any of this," he said at the end, "you can go on believing it's some sort of super-technology if you want." I guess that was meant as a wink of sorts, but it didn't really work (although I loved his smirking closing line).
That business with him suddenly deciding to "calculate" the results from the group's last set of numbers himself, not telling them the results, then putting the balls unseen into an opaque canister before going off to do the live show, so the group didn't know which numbers "they'd" come up with before the draw... ugh. Were we not supposed to notice that? It was like two dustbin lids clanging together - sure, if you have even a 12 year old's understanding of magic, you can often spot where the trick happens, but it doesn't usually clobber you over the head. We're used to better from Derren, really.
I'm hoping next week's is a bit more fun. What's the deal with this supposed subliminal film that makes you unable to stand up?
You could tell he'd been on the internet, and was well aware that everyone had seen through the trick. "You don't have to believe any of this," he said at the end, "you can go on believing it's some sort of super-technology if you want." I guess that was meant as a wink of sorts, but it didn't really work (although I loved his smirking closing line).
That business with him suddenly deciding to "calculate" the results from the group's last set of numbers himself, not telling them the results, then putting the balls unseen into an opaque canister before going off to do the live show, so the group didn't know which numbers "they'd" come up with before the draw... ugh. Were we not supposed to notice that? It was like two dustbin lids clanging together - sure, if you have even a 12 year old's understanding of magic, you can often spot where the trick happens, but it doesn't usually clobber you over the head. We're used to better from Derren, really.
I'm hoping next week's is a bit more fun. What's the deal with this supposed subliminal film that makes you unable to stand up?
I was dubious about Seance-Darat kindly edited a piece together which suggested camera trickery(edits) on YouTube somewhere.
But I was dissapointed,I knew we wouldnt get the real explanation but I was bored watching the faux one-doubt many laypeople were convinced.
To carry out such an audacious effect then offer to explain it was asking to much I think.
I did find the follow-up show quite disappointing - it was really just three pretty standard tricks and a lot of mumbo-jumbo, well presented and so on - just not that entertaining.
A fair review and like you I hope the other shows will be more interesting.
Ae you watching a different programme?
They absolutely show a hand held camera from the second view
Watch this at 0:34 and 0:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG-5qebwflA
Last edited:
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
Yes they did.
Edit Ash beat me by seconds.
I find it ironic everyone is picking over this trick frame by frame an in detail, and yet still entirely miss noticing a whole cameraman in a bright shirt.
But for the second camera from the back of the room, those sequences (walking on and then waving his hands) could of been filmed earlier and rehearsed and when they cut between shots the handheld camera shot could have been swapped for a fixed camera.
Yes and straight after Darren waved to the far camera they all walked off for a few pints, the far view was clearly recorded earlier to make you think the camera was handheld.
I find it ironic everyone is picking over this trick frame by frame an in detail, and yet still entirely miss noticing a whole cameraman in a bright shirt.
To be fair he was stood behind the gorilla.
merseyviews
New Blood
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Messages
- 20
I was dubious about Seance-Darat kindly edited a piece together which suggested camera trickery(edits) on YouTube somewhere.
I know its OT but edits in seance? What was the need? The point of the programme was to expose how seances can be re-created "artificially" to the participants (not viewers) when assuming they buy into the idea its real?
'Clearly'? Really? How do you declare that it was 'clearly' recorded earlier? Certinly nothing in the two cuts indicate that - all the movements and gestures match perfectly.
Is there anything you can see that indicates that it is pre-recorded other than you just feel it must have been?
Again it is of course possible those cuts were recorded earlier, but to match the cuts that perfectly live... well that would be very impressive by itself.