Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers

[Worm]

I haven't actually watch this yet (I've got it on TiVo) but if it was a split-screen as most people seem to think, then I think he has lost a bit of credibility with the skeptic audience.

But to my mind, that isn't the audience he's aiming for, he going for the general public, who will listen to the explanation and take it all in as if it's not just another trick.

Brown does very simple things (at the heart of it), but dresses them up in such brilliant showmanship that people fall for it.

He basically says "I'm going to lie, everything I do is a lie" and somehow people find it more believeable becaus ehe has admitted to it at the beginning.

 

[Ralfy]

So you are saying the second camera view was prerecorded and Derren had to synch his movements exactly with the recorded waving?

No pre-recording necessary. The camera wobble is an effect added to the live broadcast. We were shown the cameraman with the handheld, but once we had seen him the broadcast switched to a static camera. The left hand frame freeze was part of the live broadcast as well. No need whatsoever for any pre-recording or synching.

Edited to add: Okay so maybe the bit where he walks into the studio and we see the long shot of the camerman with the handheld was pre-recorded, just to make you think it was all filmed handheld. That bit was clever.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

As pointed out, there was a hand-held camera. And whether it was later locked down or not, I am not sure, but he wanted you to know there was one there and certainly accentuated the camera shakes during the shooting. The camera was moving all around, whether artificially or not, to help the trick. Either the cameraman had been drinking or he had zoomed way in.

And there is no reason to suspect that the wide shot with the hand-held in it was recorded earlier. There's no need for that.

ETA: And I don't mean to suggest the cameraman was drunk. I believe it was done on purpose, either by a live cameraman or in after-effects.

 

[Azrael 5]

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhaUpOkShOQ
Not sure if this is Darat's upload, although it is his "creation"

 

[Kiosk]

I fell asleep before the end but did catch the bit at the start where he said that the bonus ball was of no interest for the show and that it was for "Women and Gays"?

Very strange.

Derren came out relatively recently, although there are some who feel this was some sort of misdirection...

 

[Darat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhaUpOkShOQ
Not sure if this is Darat's upload, although it is his "creation"

Unless my blackouts are getting more creative I am sure I didn't create that - perhaps someone asked me to upload it or I asked permission to upload it....

 

[ynot]

Obviously the balls were somehow numbered after the Lotto numbers were drawn. To be a credible prediction the predicted numbers should have been identified before the draw. To suggest that doing this would be somehow illegal is rubbish as people predict Lotto numbers all the time without fear of prosecution. A good trick but nothing to do with prediction.

 

[Azrael 5]

Unless my blackouts are getting more creative I am sure I didn't create that - perhaps someone asked me to upload it or I asked permission to upload it....

Apologies Dave. It was certainly someone on here who uploaded it,maybe TheBoyPaj then come to think of it.

 

[jsiv]

As pointed out, there was a hand-held camera. And whether it was later locked down or not, I am not sure, but he wanted you to know there was one there and certainly accentuated the camera shakes during the shooting. The camera was moving all around, whether artificially or not, to help the trick. Either the cameraman had been drinking or he had zoomed way in.

Yes, it's a trick!!! He wants you to believe that it was hand-held, nothing more.

There were no hand-held cameras, no actual motion, no nothing. I bet 50 øre that it was done by first filming the scene with a fixed camera, and then pasting that picture onto the left half of the screen, and then using the same fixed camera to film the other half live. The motion was just added by moving the actual image around in post-production. All that is needed is an image that is slightly larger than what is shown on TV.

 

[Christian Klippel]

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

Nope, i watch the same stuff. Yes, you can see someone holding a cam towards Derren. But you can also see more, if you analyze the first minute better.

They use hard scene cuts when he walks in. How convenient that you never see the full audience space, it just cuts off in the middle, into a new scene. Watch the perspective from the close-up footage. Then you will notice a cut to another cam, so that you can see the guy standing there in front of Derren. Then another hard cut and back to a close up. However, the perspective is different. Since the camera guy didnt move around, and didn't move the camera, where does the change of perspective come from?

Here is what i see: Derren is in a side room, talking. He then moves out, followed by the closeup cam. As he enters the stage there is a hard cut, at a time where you can see half of the audience seats. You can then see the closeup-cam guy walking together with Derren, and you can see only the first two rows of the seats.

Then another hard cut to the close-up of Derren. He positions himself in front of the TV, and the next hard cut happens, where you can see the close-up cam guy in front of him. Notice how the guy does not move himself, nor the cam.

Finally another hard cut to the supposed close-up cam, with the artificial shaking. However, the perspective doesn't match. The guy must have moved/pivoted the cam down a bit if this is the same cam. But he didn't, as could be seen while he was visible.

To me it looks like a different cam was used from there on. The whole scene is static, except for the "shaking". After he wrote the numbers, and when he is walking to the balls, is where the cam seems to start to move again. But it looks like a remote controlled pivoting/zooming going on there. It could be cam close to the stage, somewehre in the front row (remember, you never get to see the complete audience space), or a cam on a crane. The whole entry scene stuff, up to the point where the fake shaky cam is active, could be pre-recorded to hide the cam setup in case it would be visible from the other perspectives otherwise. Just because he has his hands in the air means nothing, there are no reliable points to compare against. Too much of the hands is cut off in the following close-up. But personally i doubt that something was pre-recorded.

The footage simply doesn't match up to be from the same guy's cam.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[StanBearclaw]

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.

The verdict is in:

 

[Salerio]

Derren came out relatively recently, although there are some who feel this was some sort of misdirection...

Oh did he? It's about time. I actually missed what he said there, I caught the "women" but and missed the and part. I kind of fell 1/2 asleep when he started on about psychic writing and never quite woke up until the end.

I was disappointed on the whole, but was looking forward to the bloke getting a knife through his foot lol I'd have settled for 1/2 that.

 

[Ashles]

Nope, i watch the same stuff. Yes, you can see someone holding a cam towards Derren. But you can also see more, if you analyze the first minute better.

They use hard scene cuts when he walks in. How convenient that you never see the full audience space, it just cuts off in the middle, into a new scene. Watch the perspective from the close-up footage. Then you will notice a cut to another cam, so that you can see the guy standing there in front of Derren. Then another hard cut and back to a close up. However, the perspective is different. Since the camera guy didnt move around, and didnt move the camera, where does the change of perspective come from?

The cameraman did move. You see him in a differnet place. He walks frm the corner and moves with Derren and follows him to the TV.

Here is what i see: Derren is in a side room, talking. He then moves out, followed by the closeup cam. As he enters the stage there is a hard cut, at a time where you can see half of the audience seats. You can then see the closeup-cam guy walking together with Derren, and you can see only the first two rows of the seats.

Then another hard cut to the close-up of Derren. He positions himself in front of the TV, and the next hard cut happens, where you can see the close-up cam guy in front of him. Notice how the guy does not move himself, nor the cam.

Finally another hard cut to the supposed close-up cam, with the artificial shaking. However, the perspective doesn't match. The guy must have moved/pivoted the cam down a bit if this is the same cam. But he didn't, as could be seen while he was visible.

To me it looks like a different cam was used from there on. The whole scene is static, except for the "shaking". After he wrote the numbers, and when he is walking to the balls, is where the cam seems to start to move again. But it looks like a remote controlled pivoting/zooming going on there. It could be cam close to the stage, somwehre in the front row (remember, you never get to see the complete audience space), or a cam on a crane. The whole entry scene stuff, up to the point where the fake shaky cam is active, could be pre-recorded to hide the cam setup in case it would be visible from the other perspectives otherwise. Just because he has his hands in the air means nothing, there are no reliable points to compare against. Too much of the hands it cut off in the following close-up. But personally i doubt that something was pre-recorded.

The footage simply doesn't match up to be from the same guy's cam.

Greetings,

Chris

I think you are reaching there. Nothing appears out of place or incorrect. To be honest you are showing a great deal of confidence in spotting suppsed details that I can't see at all, when you hadn't previously even noticed the cameraman from the second view.

And anyway why would it even need to be prerecorded from the second view? All the split screen options are still there if the cameraman is perfectly genuinely there and it starts off hand held. Why not just lock off the camera after the second cut? It never cuts back again so it wouldn't have to remain hand held.
That seems far more likely to me rather than try to match perfectly movements and timing from a prerecorded second viewpoint.

 

[Darat]

Do we have any professional (or highly skilled amateurs magicians) posting who could give an opinion whether there are any other magic tricks that they think could have been adapted to produce the effect? (Not asking for them to reveal the actual how.)

 

[Ashles]

Do we have any professional (or highly skilled amateurs magicians) posting who could give an opinion whether there are any other magic tricks that they think could have been adapted to produce the effect? (Not asking for them to reveal the actual how.)

Paul Daniels says "What I saw was a trick, pulled off with aplomb, and it took me just a moment to think of two
-and-a-half decent ways to get it done."

 

[StanBearclaw]

words

Here is a concise description of what I and most other people think happened. Other than "Derren wouldn't stoop so low," why is this not the most logical explanation?

http://poeljames.googlepages.com/HowDerrenDidIt.html

 

[Christian Klippel]

I think you are reaching there. Nothing appears out of place or incorrect. To be honest you are showing a great deal of confidence in spotting suppsed details that I can't see at all, when you hadn't previously even noticed the cameraman from the second view.

Sorry, maybe i was unclear. Originally i wrote:

They did at no point show someone holding that cam.

"That" cam, not "any" cam. Yes, i saw the guy with the cam. But the footage i was referring to, that is, the long scene with the "shaky" image, was not from that cam.

And anyway why would it even need to be prerecorded from the second view?

As you have just quoted my post, you probably also read it. I wrote that i doubt it was pre-recorded. I simply listed it as another option.

All the split screen options are still there if the cameraman is perfectly genuinely there and it starts off hand held. Why not just lock off the camera after the second cut? It never cuts back again so it wouldn't have to remain hand held.

Putting a hand-held cam onto some stand or similar would result in a noticeable, distinct and strong "shake" or move of the filmed image, which is not the case here. Since the guy seems to have the cam directly in his hand, and is not using a steady-cam mount, it surely would be noticable if he placed the cam on some stand, table, whatever. Just try it yourself. Take a video camera, film a scene in front of your table while holding the cam in your hands, and then place the cam on the table.

That seems far more likely to me rather than try to match perfectly movements and timing from a prerecorded second viewpoint.

Yes, it does indeed. As already said, i also doubt that it was pre-recorded, it's just another possibility.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: What i mean with the perspective not matching: The footage from the "real" hand held cam shows more of the ceiling and less of the floor (like the white base of the ball-stand). The "fake shaky" cam shows nothing of the ceiling, but more of the floor (like said base). To get that change of perspective, the guy must have pivoted the cam downwards, but at least i can not see him doing that. That is why i am confident that this "fake shaky" footage comes from another, remote controlled "static" cam.

 

[odeed]

The cameraman did move. You see him in a differnet place. He walks frm the corner and moves with Derren and follows him to the TV.



I think you are reaching there. Nothing appears out of place or incorrect. To be honest you are showing a great deal of confidence in spotting suppsed details that I can't see at all, when you hadn't previously even noticed the cameraman from the second view.

And anyway why would it even need to be prerecorded from the second view? All the split screen options are still there if the cameraman is perfectly genuinely there and it starts off hand held. Why not just lock off the camera after the second cut? It never cuts back again so it wouldn't have to remain hand held.
That seems far more likely to me rather than try to match perfectly movements and timing from a prerecorded second viewpoint.

If you watch the sequence where Derren Brown waves to the camera, before the cut the ball stand is to the left and in front of the reinforced wall support, the shot cuts to the far off camera view and the hand held camera man does not move, and when it cuts back the ball stand is to the right of wall support and panned out, so the the camera angle has moved to the left even though in the far off shot the hand held camera man remained still.

 

[Darat]

Paul Daniels says "What I saw was a trick, pulled off with aplomb, and it took me just a moment to think of two
-and-a-half decent ways to get it done."

After sullying myself by reading an article from the Daily Mail....

Interesting that Daniels says:

"Derren, like all magicians, deals in lies and half-truths. Although it is possible to execute 'future-prediction' tricks without the aid of technology, there's no doubt in my mind that, to present it in the way he did, he used some technological trickery on this occasion - and to admit that would spoil the fun."​

 

[Ashles]

Here is a concise description of what I and most other people think happened. Other than "Derren wouldn't stoop so low," why is this not the most logical explanation?

http://poeljames.googlepages.com/HowDerrenDidIt.html

Why, who is saying it isn't? I have said more than once the split screen seems the most likely.

I was questioning the matching of the cut scenes to Derren's movements (which seem perfectly synched to me). But that linked explanation neatly explains how it could appear to be hand held, even though it never is during the live section.
But I hadn't seen anyone in this thread so far suggest that the the whole start is prerecorded, and the actual live section only starts a couple of minutes in (which seems to make sense).

Apologies if somebody did suggest that and I missed it.