Predicting the Lottery
- Thread starter AndrewSchofield
- Start date
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,655
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
What was it we were suppose to see it that dex? My eyes is shot I think!
The left hand ball moves up slightly. (Later on in the full show it's very noticeable that it's higher than all the rest). This indicates a switch, but I'm not quite sure how.
EDIT: OK, the suggestion is that the left side (from the viewer's perspective), where the balls are, is for some of the time digitally overlain with an image or prerecording - while the right side is still live. That gives an assistant time to place the balls in the real rack. Then, the overlay is removed and Brown reveals the 'prediction'.
BUT, the assistant screwed up. When he placed the numbered balls in, he didn't get the end one in properly, thus betraying the trick.
EDIT: OK, the suggestion is that the left side (from the viewer's perspective), where the balls are, is for some of the time digitally overlain with an image or prerecording - while the right side is still live. That gives an assistant time to place the balls in the real rack. Then, the overlay is removed and Brown reveals the 'prediction'.
BUT, the assistant screwed up. When he placed the numbered balls in, he didn't get the end one in properly, thus betraying the trick.
D
dextrous
Oops - posted wrong link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDWHUPF_s8&feature=related
G
Goldberg
I feel sorry for the 24 numbskulls who got drawn into the deception.
Their work colleagues will never ever tire of telling them that the word "gullible" isn't in the OED.
Their work colleagues will never ever tire of telling them that the word "gullible" isn't in the OED.
On a serious note, is digital photography admissible as evidence, seeing as how easy it is to manipulate images using electronic means?The magic of a half wipe on a vision mixer desk, just make sure the camera is well locked offtold you before tv is all about illusion, dont believe a thing you see on it
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,655
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
I like this explanation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqAt2akPHJ8&annotation_id=annotation_406128&feature=iv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqAt2akPHJ8&annotation_id=annotation_406128&feature=iv
I have to admit I'd be a bit disappointed if it is how he did it. Digital trickery like this just seems like cheating, and doesn't strike me as Derren Brown's style. Illusions ought to work 'in the flesh', using physical methods - and most magicians' do. There's skill to that, whereas there really isn't to doing what dozens of tv shows do every day.
But it does seem overwhelmingly likely. Especially as it explains the lack of a studio audience, and indeed how few people there were - everyone there has to keep the secret, so the fewer the better.
But it does seem overwhelmingly likely. Especially as it explains the lack of a studio audience, and indeed how few people there were - everyone there has to keep the secret, so the fewer the better.
DB is an illusionist, by using cameras and technology he created the illusion that he knew the numbers. Is it that much different from the sword in the box trick in which we are led to believe that a sword is run through a person. We know in our hearts that it is not possible but our eyes tell our brain that we have really seen it happen.
It is no different to special FX in movies.
It is no different to special FX in movies.
Slightly off topic, but do you think he had anything to do with this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8259801.stm
For the cynics: I am only joking
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8259801.stm
For the cynics: I am only joking
