[Merged] Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers [Archive]

Darat

7th September 2009, 06:38 AM

MIND reader Derren Brown is to perform his most audacious stunt yet - predicting the lottery results.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/2624817/Derren-Brown-Ill-predict-Lotto-numbers-during-show.html

Anyone care to have a guess at what this could all be about?

"Derren Brown" is a magician i.e. someone that you pay to misdirect you and lie to you to give the appearance that he has done something that can only be explained with "magic", and therefore like most magicians you can be sure anything that he tells you in the course of his tricks will be either a lie or misdirection.

You will probably need to get someone who has studied magic to explain how he will do his trick (it is unlikely to be anything fundamentally new, just an old stand-by dressed up with new clothes).

Southwind17

7th September 2009, 07:11 AM

At best I reckon this part:
Sadly, Derren will be filmed at a secret location as he predicts the balls tumbling out of the National Lottery machine - when it's too late for us to buy a ticket.
could be interpreted thus:

"Sadly, Derren will be filmed at a secret location as he reveals the numbers of the balls that have, moments before, but before being broadcast, tumbled out of the National Lottery machine, such secret location conveniently housing the technology necessary to convey the information to him, and which, were it a public place, would reveal how blatantly obvious and simple the apparent deception is."

Edx

7th September 2009, 08:27 AM

anyone remember the horse racing illusion he did?

Its funny because the fact trick wasnt very smart once he tells you how he did it, but theres a section in the middle where he tries to convince people he could do it and that wasnt explained at all!! I still would love to know how he did that!

Garrette

7th September 2009, 10:49 AM

Don't doubt Derren.

Watch this video for his previous work with lottery predictions of a type (be sure to watch all the way to the end):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IT&hl=it&v=oEwF4RqTgqg

Humphreys

7th September 2009, 10:51 AM

"Derren Brown" is a magician i.e. someone that you pay to misdirect you and lie to you to give the appearance that he has done something that can only be explained with "magic", and therefore like most magicians you can be sure anything that he tells you in the course of his tricks will be either a lie or misdirection.

You will probably need to get someone who has studied magic to explain how he will do his trick (it is unlikely to be anything fundamentally new, just an old stand-by dressed up with new clothes).

I know who Derren Brown is, I just don't see any way this trick can be done other than getting the numbers moments before they have been broadcast, in which case it's a simply awful trick and barely worth doing.

I hope it's something else, as it has the potential to be amazing and completely baffling if it is.

pounce

7th September 2009, 11:14 AM

"Derren Brown" is a magician i.e. someone that you pay to misdirect you and lie to you to give the appearance that he has done something that can only be explained with "magic", and therefore like most magicians you can be sure anything that he tells you in the course of his tricks will be either a lie or misdirection.

You will probably need to get someone who has studied magic to explain how he will do his trick (it is unlikely to be anything fundamentally new, just an old stand-by dressed up with new clothes).

you need to work on your definition here a bit.

a magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.

the art of doing magic involves a variety of techniques of slight of hand, deception, storytelling, and more to create the illusion that something impossible has happened. darren brown is great at it. he is a swell entertainer. it's a fun brain puzzle to watch magic when well done. how it works is less germane than whether of not it fools and entertains.

Stray Cat

7th September 2009, 12:55 PM

Humphreys

7th September 2009, 01:00 PM

To speculate on how he 'could' perform the illusion seems a bit pointless.
I'll reserve judgement on how he did it until I've seen the show.

But anyone who's seen Copperfield or Max Maven will know that 'prediction' illusions are commonplace in magic shows and the method will be better revealed by the actual performance... One thing's for sure, it's not paranormal :)

I know it's not going to be paranormal, I'm more concerned it's going to be completely lame, as the idea only appears to lend itself to two possibilities:

1) getting hold of and announcing the numbers live mere moments before they have been broadcast, but after they have been drawn
2) some technique involving splicing together prerecorded footage of himself reading out each number, and then putting that out as if it was live, again, AFTER the balls have been drawn

Either way, there no way he's rigging the lottery, so he must announce them after they have been drawn, there is no other way!

laca

7th September 2009, 01:23 PM

Darat

7th September 2009, 01:27 PM

I know who Derren Brown is, I just don't see any way this trick can be done other than getting the numbers moments before they have been broadcast, in which case it's a simply awful trick and barely worth doing.

I hope it's something else, as it has the potential to be amazing and completely baffling if it is.

I'm not too sure what you are looking for - most magic tricks are pretty unamazing, if you know the trick; the amazing part is how it is presented.

Darat

7th September 2009, 01:32 PM

you need to work on your definition here a bit.

a magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.

...snip...

No - an actor playing a magician is when an actor plays a magician, for example portraying Houdini in a movie. A magician is simply a type of entertainer who does what I described.

Humphreys

7th September 2009, 01:40 PM

I'm not too sure what you are looking for - most magic tricks are pretty unamazing, if you know the trick; the amazing part is how it is presented.

No matter how well presented, if everyone with half a brain knows precisely how the trick is going to work before it has started, it's just a poor and pointless trick.

Stray Cat

7th September 2009, 01:49 PM

I know it's not going to be paranormal, I'm more concerned it's going to be completely lame, as the idea only appears to lend itself to two possibilities:

1) getting hold of and announcing the numbers live mere moments before they have been broadcast, but after they have been drawn
2) some technique involving splicing together prerecorded footage of himself reading out each number, and then putting that out as if it was live, again, AFTER the balls have been drawn

Either way, there no way he's rigging the lottery, so he must announce them after they have been drawn, there is no other way!

Well just don't bother watching then if it's going to be soooo lame. :rolleyes:

Brown's genius over the years has been his presentation of some very old tried and tested tricks. His presentation of them is usually new and interesting and his enduring popularity (and belief in his 'superpowers') bears witness to the fact that approach has been successful.

There is no way that Copperfield can fly... does that make it any the less entertaining to watch him make it look as if he can?

Emperor_Gestahl

7th September 2009, 01:54 PM

Pup

7th September 2009, 02:00 PM

I hope this won't be the standard magician's way of "predicting" things, by writing down the prediction in such a way it couldn't possibly be tampered with (ahem), and then revealing it after the event occurs--and after there's been time to tamper with the written prediction.

Again, I don't know how it's done, but predicting newspaper headlines that way is a standard trick (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2009/06/21/2009-06-21_amazing_mind_readers_the_unseen_correctly_predi ct_daily_news_headlines__and_repo.html).

Either way, there no way he's rigging the lottery, so he must announce them after they have been drawn, there is no other way!

What he said. Honestly, I'd consider either of the two ways Humphries suggested as less lame than the usual "write it down, then reveal it afterwards" stunt.

chillzero

7th September 2009, 02:07 PM

a magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.

No. That would be an actor.

chillzero

7th September 2009, 02:08 PM

Humphreys

7th September 2009, 05:07 PM

Well just don't bother watching then if it's going to be soooo lame. :rolleyes:

That's a pretty childish response. I don't see what's wrong/invalid about criticizing an entertainer for what has to be a poor trick. I've loved a lot of Derren's stuff, but I do not have high hopes at all for this upcoming trick.

Brown's genius over the years has been his presentation of some very old tried and tested tricks. His presentation of them is usually new and interesting and his enduring popularity (and belief in his 'superpowers') bears witness to the fact that approach has been successful.

There is no way that Copperfield can fly... does that make it any the less entertaining to watch him make it look as if he can?

Yes, but the enjoyment often comes from working out exactly how he is doing the trick. If you can clearly see the wires, it loses its appeal.

If Derren Brown does a gripping lead-up to a stunt, and then simply pulls a rabbit out of the hat in normal old-school style, would you not be disappointed in some way? I would be.

There is a lot more to good magic than showmanship. You use showmanship to make a good trick great, it doesn't work with crap tricks. You might as well just go to a pantomime and watch Peter Pan get whisked accross the room on string.

athon

7th September 2009, 05:23 PM

Humphries makes a valid point. This is interesting simply because there's only one real method to do this trick and it's an obvious and lame method. Not so much a question of how it's done but why he's bothering.

Ditto.

Good magic, for me, is when I simply cannot think of how they could have done it.

I used to love doing amateur mentalism stuff for my classes, mostly to get them thinking. I would never reveal how I did it, but I would encourage my students to come up with all of the ways it could be done. Often they would nail it in one of their explanations.

In the end, we will never really know how a trick is done. It's no different to psychic powers - we don't know truly if a psychic is mindreading or not, but given there is a mundane way it could be done which for all purposes looks the same, it becomes far less amazing.

Athon

Stray Cat

7th September 2009, 06:04 PM

That's a pretty childish response. I don't see what's wrong/invalid about criticizing an entertainer for what has to be a poor trick. I've loved a lot of Derren's stuff, but I do not have high hopes at all for this upcoming trick.
Childish to me is writing it off before you've even seen it.
Yes, it may well be rubbish... however, as a magician I enjoy watching the performance and delivery even if I know the method. The DB shows are not aimed at magicians, they are aimed at a much lesser informed public who will no doubt be suckered in by the performance.

Yes, but the enjoyment often comes from working out exactly how he is doing the trick. If you can clearly see the wires, it loses its appeal.
For you perhaps... for most people, the enjoyment is in engaging in the fantasy.

If Derren Brown does a gripping lead-up to a stunt, and then simply pulls a rabbit out of the hat in normal old-school style, would you not be disappointed in some way? I would be.
I've seen him do lots of 'old school' magic tricks using 'old school' methods. His delivery is what makes it fresh and interesting to me as a magician and to audiences that are not aware of the methods, he has turned magic into 'woo'... that's perhaps not a good thing, but you can't blame him for other people's beliefs.

There is a lot more to good magic than showmanship. You use showmanship to make a good trick great, it doesn't work with crap tricks. You might as well just go to a pantomime and watch Peter Pan get whisked accross the room on string.
Yes there is a lot more to it than good showmanship, but I would disagree about making a good trick great... most magic is based upon the simplest of methods. But seeing Billy McComb make a show out of them was probably the best show I ever saw. Magic is the art of making the impossible look easy. Watch an amateur club magician perform an ambitious card routine and then watch Darryl do it... Same simple moves... whole world of difference... the magician's performance makes the trick crap or great accordingly.

Garrette

7th September 2009, 09:16 PM

To Chillzero: Don't know why the link is showing as unavailable to you. It works for me.

It's a seven minute presentation involving a sort of mock lottery. Derren "divines" the lottery numbers, along with which participant chose which one, but also demonstrates that he predicted which of the participants was the winner and where each would end up standing.

It's impressive in the component parts, though more experienced magicians than I can probably figure it out, but it's presentational thing of beauty. That's the genius of Derren Brown.

Garrette

7th September 2009, 09:20 PM

At Humphreys and Emperor G:

No worries if it's not your thing, but it is apparent from your comments that you simply haven't a real idea regarding what is (apparently) possible in magic and mentalism.

I don't know how Derren Brown is going to present this feat, but I can make a guess, and if it's like effects that I have seen then it will be impressive indeed.

Imagine this:

Performer stands on stage and throws a soft ball (or stuffed toy or what have you) into the audience, asking the person who catches it to toss it randomly to someone else. The second person names a number 1-52 then tosses the ball again. That person also names a number, and so on until there are six numbers named by random audience members. And, yes, they truly are random audience members who picked the number they wanted.

Performer shows a lottery ticket that he had in his pocket. Not a piece of paper, not something he wrote on, but an actual, printed lottery ticket.

That ticket has the six numbers named by the 6 audience members. Volunteers can come up to verify it.

That trick is out there now. Magicians today perform it.

So why don't they actually go win the lottery? Easy: they can't. It's a trick. And yet the effect is still impressive.

arthwollipot

7th September 2009, 09:33 PM

I know who Derren Brown is, I just don't see any way this trick can be done other than getting the numbers moments before they have been broadcast, in which case it's a simply awful trick and barely worth doing.

Either way, there no way he's rigging the lottery, so he must announce them after they have been drawn, there is no other way!I learned when I went to see Penn & Teller at the Rio that a failure of the imagination is no reason to dismiss a trick. Penn did a trick with a nail gun that appeared to involve the memorisation of a very long apparently random binary sequence - board, hand, board, board, hand, board, hand, board, hand, hand, board... I was fully prepared to believe that Penn had actually memorised the sequence, but a group of us discussed the trick in the bus on the way back to South Point and I realised that there were ways of doing the trick that had never occurred to me - ways that were a lot easier than memorising such a long binary sequence.

Of course it's going to be a trick. A lot of tricks are incredibly lame when you know how it's done. Check out the Balducci Levitation - astoundingly lame! Quite possibly one of the lamest tricks I've ever seen. But still effective when presented properly. I spent days teaching myself the French Drop, which is another pretty lame trick, so as to make it appear not lame.

I'll bet that the lottery numbers gig is another lame trick. But the best part of it will be that we won't know how lame it is.

vIQleS

7th September 2009, 10:11 PM

At best I reckon this part:

could be interpreted thus:

"Sadly, Derren will be filmed at a secret location as he reveals the numbers of the balls that have, moments before, but before being broadcast, tumbled out of the National Lottery machine, such secret location conveniently housing the technology necessary to convey the information to him, and which, were it a public place, would reveal how blatantly obvious and simple the apparent deception is."

Not that I'm guessing at methods or anything, but he may have been able to convince the television people to delay the draw for a few seconds...

Watch Jonathan Creek to see how that's done... (On a small scale)

Brian-M

8th September 2009, 01:09 AM

Hey, I can predict lotto numbers too.

I predict... 27 will be drawn. (But I won't tell you which lotto draw I'm referring to. You'll just have to wait until 27 comes up to find out. :) )

I challenge Derren Brown do do a lamer prediction routine than this one!

Uncayimmy

8th September 2009, 01:23 AM

No matter how well presented, if everyone with half a brain knows precisely how the trick is going to work before it has started, it's just a poor and pointless trick.

I think that depends entirely upon the trick. I appreciate two things abouta trick. The first is wondering how it was done. Once I know, that mystery is gone. The second is the execution - things like misdirection and sleight of hand. If the trick is simply a mechanical one that any of us could do with a little practice, that's boring. But when I know what's gonna happen and still can't see it happen, that's enjoyable to me. It's like watching the highlight reels for sporting events. I know the guy is gonna make a diving, one-handed catch, but it's still great to watch.

Professor Yaffle

8th September 2009, 01:26 AM

The publicity blurb I have seen says that he will predict the numbers several minutes before they are drawn. The drawing is being shown live on BBC1, while Derren's show is on.

arthwollipot

8th September 2009, 01:27 AM

I think that depends entirely upon the trick. I appreciate two things abouta trick. The first is wondering how it was done. Once I know, that mystery is gone. The second is the execution - things like misdirection and sleight of hand. If the trick is simply a mechanical one that any of us could do with a little practice, that's boring. But when I know what's gonna happen and still can't see it happen, that's enjoyable to me. It's like watching the highlight reels for sporting events. I know the guy is gonna make a diving, one-handed catch, but it's still great to watch.Like Penn & Teller's cup and ball routine - done with clear plastic cups. You can see exactly what's going on the whole time, but it's so fast and fluid that you also kinda can't see what's going on. You have to admire the artistry involved in doing a trick like that.

Darat

8th September 2009, 01:33 AM

...snip...

I've seen him do lots of 'old school' magic tricks using 'old school' methods. His delivery is what makes it fresh and interesting to me as a magician and to audiences that are not aware of the methods, he has turned magic into 'woo'... that's perhaps not a good thing, but you can't blame him for other people's beliefs.

...snip...

You've put your finger on what I think on what has annoyed more than a few Members here over the years regarding his act. He uses a lot of the currently popular pseudoscientific trappings favoured by many con-artists.

Kuko 4000

8th September 2009, 02:41 AM

I have no reason to doubt it will be something that I enjoy, well, the Russian Roulette episode was a bit too tacky for me. Other than that, I've enjoyed everything else by him (seen them all). Should be interesting. Definitely waiting to see what happens.

He is an outspoken sceptic, I would not be surprised if he takes another dig at all kinds of psychics and mediums in this episode.

Southwind17

8th September 2009, 03:04 AM

Again, I don't know how it's done, but predicting newspaper headlines that way is a standard trick (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2009/06/21/2009-06-21_amazing_mind_readers_the_unseen_correctly_predi ct_daily_news_headlines__and_repo.html).
Having a "standard" explanation?!

666

8th September 2009, 04:26 AM

Don't doubt Derren.

Watch this video for his previous work with lottery predictions of a type (be sure to watch all the way to the end):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IT&hl=it&v=oEwF4RqTgqg

:( Not available.

To Chillzero: Don't know why the link is showing as unavailable to you. It works for me.
It's a UK copyright thing. I can't see it either.

Tapio

8th September 2009, 05:38 AM

He is an outspoken sceptic, I would not be surprised if he takes another dig at all kinds of psychics and mediums in this episode.

I think this part is something that definitely separates Derren from so many others in his field. Someone earlier mentioned the horse race-episode, 'The System'. Even though the trick itself was as simple as can be (though presented in such an enjoyable way), I think the best part of the show had to do with how he used all his effort to convey the fact that we're inclined to take reality as we experience it, as the 'only' reality. And how some critical thinking skills would benefit us all in this regard. Remember his analogue with homeopathy on that episode? This kind of stuff, along with his book, is what I think the guy's really all about. And that, to me, puts him way ahead of other performers like him...

It's a fabulous and inspiring thing to see a great magician and showman at work, but if they on top of this use their hard learned skills as a consciousness lifting tool for the whole world...now, that's something I admire from the bottom of my heart.

Garrette

8th September 2009, 05:38 AM

It's a UK copyright thing. I can't see it either.
Sorry. I forget sometimes that I ain't in the States right now. Let me summarize:

Derren Brown gets some people in and does some really cool stuff.

No way you can figure it out.

It's wicked awesome.

Duzzat help?

Garrette

8th September 2009, 05:47 AM

Slightly off the main topic but consistent with some side comments:

As a magician, I frequently enjoy it more when I know how it's done, but usually when how it's done is very simple.

The single most impressive magic trick I ever saw performed was a version of "Chameleon Coins" (you can buy it fairly cheaply). The magician gussied up the commercial version by changing the handling. He made it simpler, but in making it simpler he also made it far more brazen and put the secret right there in front of the spectators' eyes. It was only through skillful audience management that he got away with it.

Similarly with Derren Brown and other 'greats' of mentalism. Rick Maue has an effect in which he, with 100% accuracy can tell you which of five cups you put an item under. There are no secrets, no gimmicks, no stooges, no electronics, no nothing but the performer and his skill. Mechanically the trick is as simple as any trick in the world gets (and I'm not exaggerating), but very few magicians can pull it off. Why? It takes chutzpah (which he gives away in the title of the effect which is why I'm not listing it) and audience management and confidence and timing and all those skills that really aren't a magician's skills but a presenter's skills.

Dunninger's method for working his Question and Answer sessions were unbelievably impressive. His method was similarly unbelievably simple.

Outside Derren Brown's more advanced card tricks (he is a very accomplished finger-flinger), his methods are usually quite simple (at least the ones I know, and I don't know them all by a long shot), but his presentation is usually marvelous.

That's what I enjoy when I watch magic or mentalism.

Zax63

8th September 2009, 07:28 AM

What always baffles me is the intricate setup of these "demonstrations", when it could be so simple:

1. Derren announces he's going to win the lottery
2. Derren buys a single ticket
3. Derren wins the lottery

Now that would be something.

This will be just a show. Hopefully a good one.

I follow Derren Brown on twitter and he has been complaining that C4 won't allow him to buy a ticket. I guess having some relative or acquaintance buy the ticket for him wouldn't be good enough. Or maybe he means they won't let him buy a ticket a few seconds before the broadcast.

shuttlt

8th September 2009, 07:44 AM

Pup

8th September 2009, 07:57 AM

Having a "standard" explanation?!

Like levitation or sawing a girl in half, I'd expect there are a few different standard methods. Google "glass box prediction," or just go here (http://www.murphysmagic.com/Product.aspx?id=44929) to buy one of the versions. There's mention of being able to announce one of the predictions on a radio show before the event, dunno, might be something there....

I suspect this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29kF1vZ62o) is Derren Brown performing a similar trick, except using a dead animal instead of a glass box, with a bogus explanation edited in at the end, but I dunno.

I have no idea how the newspaper prediction is done, but for a few bucks, apparently anyone could find out, although I'm sure that wouldn't necessarily give them the skill to do it believably on stage.

For me, watching magic is like watching a movie or reading a novel. Yes, I know the lovers will probably get together in the end despite all odds, and the good guy will surely triumph over the bad guy, but that's not the point. The brilliance is in how exciting and unique the author and/or actors can make their particular version of the journey seem, which is Derren Brown's strength. (A dead raccoon instead of a glass box!? LOL)

Zax63

8th September 2009, 08:32 AM

Or he might be lying. However the trick works, it definately doesn't work in a way that would allow him to end up with a valid winning lottery ticket.

I agree. I was being sarcastic about having a relative buy the ticket. I didn't mean to imply that it was anything but a trick.

Matthew Best

8th September 2009, 09:14 AM

I suspect this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29kF1vZ62o) is Derren Brown performing a similar trick, except using a dead animal instead of a glass box, with a bogus explanation edited in at the end, but I dunno.

Also not available in the UK due to copyright restrictions. Blerg.

shuttlt

8th September 2009, 09:17 AM

I agree. I was being sarcastic about having a relative buy the ticket. I didn't mean to imply that it was anything but a trick.
:D

volatile

8th September 2009, 09:34 AM

Apparently he will reveal how the trick is done in a second show, to be aired on Friday.

Darat

8th September 2009, 09:43 AM

Before the Euro lottery is drawn? :D

Pup

8th September 2009, 10:13 AM

Also not available in the UK due to copyright restrictions. Blerg.

Long story short, Brown asks a couple advertising men to design a campaign for his taxidermy business, but says he also has his own ideas, which he hides in an envelope under a taxidermy raccoon on the table and says he'll reveal them later.

They come up with a campaign and show it to him, and Brown reveals that similar ideas had been sitting in the envelope under the raccoon all along. His "explanation" is that during the admen's ride to the meeting, he subtly planted clues along the street to influence them to choose what they did.

David Wong

8th September 2009, 11:39 AM

Apparently he will reveal how the trick is done in a second show, to be aired on Friday.

And that explanation, will also be a trick. That's how Derren Brown works. It's always a two-layered trick, one presented as a trick, the other presented as "scientific" explanation, both equally false.

That's what bugs some people about him.

Professor Yaffle

8th September 2009, 11:40 AM

And that explanation, will also be a trick. That's how Derren Brown works. It's always a two-layered trick, one presented as a trick, the other presented as "scientific" explanation, both equally false.

That's what bugs some people about him.

Not always - I believe his explanation of how he did the betting system trick in a previous series was the correct one.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#The_System

sphenisc

8th September 2009, 11:43 AM

you need to work on your definition here a bit.

a magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.

A recursive definition with no end condition? I find that strangely spooky...

Stray Cat

8th September 2009, 11:58 AM

Professor Yaffle

8th September 2009, 12:00 PM

All except for the last bit! :)

Well, yes, obviously...

ad foedera cresco

8th September 2009, 03:05 PM

Hi Guys , first time poster. Can I point out that this is the first programme of a new series that Derren Brown is doing and that he will be explaining how he did it on a follow up show on Friday. Don't know what the fuss is about ,it's a TV show. He tells you its a trick and doesn't claim any supernatural powers and then tells you how he did it (or possibly why he failed to do it). Calm down chaps and lets see what he does.

HeyLeroy

8th September 2009, 03:20 PM

Not that I'm guessing at methods or anything, but he may have been able to convince the television people to delay the draw for a few seconds...

Watch Jonathan Creek to see how that's done... (On a small scale)

Or The Sting. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070735/)

ETA: Welcome to the forum, ad foedera cresco.

shuttlt

8th September 2009, 03:26 PM

Brian-M

8th September 2009, 06:19 PM

I follow Derren Brown on twitter and he has been complaining that C4 won't allow him to buy a ticket. I guess having some relative or acquaintance buy the ticket for him wouldn't be good enough. Or maybe he means they won't let him buy a ticket a few seconds before the broadcast.

How would they stop him buying a ticket? If it's anything like the Lotto over here, he could just walk into any newsagent in the country and buy one. It's not like you have to provide ID or anything.

Not always - I believe his explanation of how he did the betting system trick in a previous series was the correct one.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#The_System

The coin-tossing trick was pretty lame. Anyone who realizes that there is a one in 1024 chance of getting 10 in a row, and noticed it wasn't a live performance could guess how he did it. The fact that he claimed this as evidence of a special 'system' cost him all credibility with me for the rest of the show.

Verde

8th September 2009, 07:25 PM

The fact that he claimed this as evidence of a special 'system' cost him all credibility with me for the rest of the show.

As I am on the far left side of the pond I only get to see DB by vicarious means, but I have a strong suspicion that any claims of paranormal ability is accompanied by a strong 'tongue-in-cheek' maneuver.
He is a very good entertainer, and knows his audience. That they are mostly gullible twits is not his fault.
I don't see any indication that he is pushing a woo agenda; quite the contrary actually.

V.

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 01:16 AM

Not always - I believe his explanation of how he did the betting system trick in a previous series was the correct one.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#The_System

If I understand the explanation correctly it means he would need to have had 7,776 film crews simultaneously filming all of the punters for the first race!

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:08 AM

If I understand the explanation correctly it means he would need to have had 7,776 film crews simultaneously filming all of the punters for the first race!
A lot cheaper and easier to just bribe the jockeys, or nobble all but one of the horses in some way.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:20 AM

One of the descriptions I read stated that he had six film crews and only filmed the final race.

Darat

9th September 2009, 04:23 AM

From the description from Wikipedia I'd say it was more likely that for the last race they just placed a bet on all the possible winners and he handed her the winning one to ensure the final winning shot.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:28 AM

sphenisc

9th September 2009, 04:30 AM

I think he NLPed the horses. :)

Professor Yaffle

9th September 2009, 04:53 AM

If I understand the explanation correctly it means he would need to have had 7,776 film crews simultaneously filming all of the punters for the first race!

If I remember correctly, the first 2(?) races were not filmed.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 05:03 AM

Maybe he used a de la Warr camera to choose the winner?

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 05:14 AM

I guess he could have done it like the coin toss and just kept picking high odds horses until he got three in a row.

Tapio

9th September 2009, 05:32 AM

The coin-tossing trick was pretty lame. Anyone who realizes that there is a one in 1024 chance of getting 10 in a row, and noticed it wasn't a live performance could guess how he did it. The fact that he claimed this as evidence of a special 'system' cost him all credibility with me for the rest of the show.

But not everyone realize these things. You must be one of the lucky ones with a brain to figure stuff like that out for yourself. Good for you. However, based on all the stuff I've seen/read, my guess is Derren is mainly not aiming these shows for the likes of you.

I believe there are thousands of people out there watching his stuff who need exactly this kind of initial misdirection with the following explanation (linked to a grander view on things) to eventually get the 'ahaa' experience. Even with such simple ways as the coin toss. And that is the experience which just might push the 'big ball of self-examination' rolling...

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 05:46 AM

But not everyone realize these things. You must be one of the lucky ones with a brain to figure stuff like that out for yourself. Good for you. However, based on all the stuff I've seen/read, my guess is Derren is mainly not aiming these shows for the likes of you.

I believe there are thousands of people out there watching his stuff who need exactly this kind of initial misdirection with the following explanation (linked to a grander view on things) to eventually get the 'ahaa' experience. Even with such simple ways as the coin toss. And that is the experience which just might push the 'big ball of self-examination' rolling...

Is this not in some ways similar to what we complain about Uri Geller doing?

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 05:56 AM

Is this not in some ways similar to what we complain about Uri Geller doing?
I don't think so. Geller's intent is to deceive. Derren's is to entertain and he openly explains that he is using trickery.... while Geller maintains that he has super powers.

Darat

9th September 2009, 05:57 AM

Is this not in some ways similar to what we complain about Uri Geller doing?

No, one states his powers are real outside the performance, the other doesn't.

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 06:07 AM

I don't think so. Geller's intent is to deceive. Derren's is to entertain and he openly explains that he is using trickery.... while Geller maintains that he has super powers.
The fact that Geller's deception hasn't been blown completely out of the murky waters that the general populace chooses to frequent to slake its collective thirst for apparent paranormality, and that he continues to profit from what he, clearly, remains convincing at, shows that he must have "super powers" of some rational sort that we should at least give him credit for!

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 06:26 AM

The fact that Geller's deception hasn't been blown completely out of the murky waters that the general populace chooses to frequent to slake its collective thirst for apparent paranormality, and that he continues to profit from what he, clearly, remains convincing at, shows that he must have "super powers" of some rational sort that we should at least give him credit for!
Sorry Southwind, I don't give Geller credit for anything... he is an outright fraud. But just as much blame for his success rests with the TV/Radio shows that give him airtime and promote his brand of nonsense. And his deception has been blown completely out of the water... it's just that people will choose to ignore that because it's easier to ignore than to face up to in order to maintain a belief in the supernatural.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 06:30 AM

Darat

9th September 2009, 06:32 AM

Depends on how high the building is.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 06:38 AM

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 06:41 AM

Depends on how high the building is.
Sooner or later there would be a large enough heap of dead psychics to cushion the fall of one of them who would take their survival as vindication of their powers.

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 06:58 AM

Nonsense! It's like the coin toss. Throw out enough psychics and one of them is bound to get lucky.
I think you miss my point. I'm saying he deserves credit for longevity. Could you sustain such a profitable 'career' on the back of a simple con - one that most intelligent people mock?!

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 07:15 AM

I think you miss my point. I'm saying he deserves credit for longevity. Could you sustain such a profitable 'career' on the back of a simple con - one that most intelligent people mock?!
Once your profile is high enough it gets easier. He got lucky and caught big wave at a point when supposedly serious people claimed to give this stuff more than a nano seconds thought. Any number of psychics could have done the same. He's now famous as a freak and through being a friend of Michael Jackson. I doubt he's had to try very hard to maintain his profile for quite a few years now.

If you mean, you and I wouldn't have the stomach to act like such a freak and be mocked for it, you're probably right. I'm sure there are loads of psychics who could though. I don't see why I should admire his sticking power more than Sylvia Brown's - she has to put up with far more abuse and negativity than he does.

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 07:44 AM

Once your profile is high enough it gets easier. He got lucky and caught big wave at a point when supposedly serious people claimed to give this stuff more than a nano seconds thought. Any number of psychics could have done the same. He's now famous as a freak and through being a friend of Michael Jackson. I doubt he's had to try very hard to maintain his profile for quite a few years now.

If you mean, you and I wouldn't have the stomach to act like such a freak and be mocked for it, you're probably right. I'm sure there are loads of psychics who could though. I don't see why I should admire his sticking power more than Sylvia Brown's - she has to put up with far more abuse and negativity than he does.
MTC mate ... MTC!

Tapio

9th September 2009, 07:49 AM

Is this not in some ways similar to what we complain about Uri Geller doing?

I'd like to emphasis a part of my post earlier (though others have adequately pointed it out already).

...who need exactly this kind of initial misdirection with the following explanation (linked to a grander view on things) to eventually get the 'ahaa' experience...

So, if Geller would, after confusing his audience with his trickery (ha!), admit it to be trickery/showmanship/misdirection and use it as a basis to explain how we would be best to stay cautious towards what we perceive as the 'only' reality etc....now then I think he'd be on the same level. As it is...well...:nope:

Darat

9th September 2009, 07:51 AM

And we have to remember that Geller's act was not and is not just about the tricks; for example he made claims that people could be healed by his powers - that is a completely different ballpark to magicians such as Copperfield and Brown.

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 08:04 AM

After the wrong horse wins her hand is in her coat pocket with the ticket. The camera cuts away to a head shot of her and Derren, back to the wider angle with her hand still in her pocket, back to the head shot. In the next wide angle she appears to be either putting her hand back into her pocket before withdrawing the ticket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-0kTUOygM&feature=related
around 3:40
What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. I figure he just continued "the system", and attended the "last race" with as many of the remaining punters as it took to see a win. Given a six-horse race and a near-favourite punt (you'll recall the tipster stating "Any one of those four could win it." (which included the winner, at odds or circa 2.25:1)), it wouldn't take long to see a winner. Even it took half a dozen races to see a winner, 24 grand is small beer to pull off the stunt. Alternatively, of course, the subject bookie was in on the deal, and agreed only to take the bet post-post(!), in return for writing six slips, one of which Derren did, in fact, switch, and the producer reimbursing the bookie, plus a small return for his "cooperation". You'll notice also that they collect the winnings from a different Bookie from the one whom Derren apparently placed the bet with.

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 08:08 AM

So, if Geller would, after confusing his audience with his trickery (ha!), admit it to be trickery/showmanship/misdirection and use it as a basis to explain how we would be best to stay cautious towards what we perceive as the 'only' reality etc....now then I think he'd be on the same level. As it is...well...:nope:
I think he'd be a whole lot less of a celebrity too, not to mention less wealthy. As it is ... well ... nope!

sphenisc

9th September 2009, 08:59 AM

What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. I figure he just continued "the system", and attended the "last race" with as many of the remaining punters as it took to see a win. Given a six-horse race and a near-favourite punt (you'll recall the tipster stating "Any one of those four could win it." (which included the winner, at odds or circa 2.25:1)), it wouldn't take long to see a winner. Even it took half a dozen races to see a winner, 24 grand is small beer to pull off the stunt. Alternatively, of course, the subject bookie was in on the deal, and agreed only to take the bet post-post(!), in return for writing six slips, one of which Derren did, in fact, switch, and the producer reimbursing the bookie, plus a small return for his "cooperation". You'll notice also that they collect the winnings from a different Bookie from the one whom Derren apparently placed the bet with.

If the bookie were in on it and paid for his cooperation would that constitute using a stooge?

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 09:25 AM

What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. I figure he just continued "the system", and attended the "last race" with as many of the remaining punters as it took to see a win.

He could have done. That might involve filming quite a few people at the racetrack with the implication that he filmed even more at the previous stages in order to get multiple 'winners'. I suppose he could have cut the number in half by giving each person a different ticket to the horse they think he's backed. That should give him odds of well over 50% of claiming victory at the first attempt.

I don't see any reason to involve the bookie unless Derren is bothered about 24 grands worth of production budget.

I don't see him bothering to film 6^3 people prior to going to the racetrack though. If it was me, I'd approach it more like the coin toss.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 09:37 AM

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 09:52 AM

He claims to have sent predictions to 7776 people, filmed 216 people and taken one 'winner' to the track. To be safe, how many winners does he need to be able to take to the track? 3? That would mean sending predictions to 23328 people and filming 648 people. Production costs for this would be ridiculous, wouldn't they?

If i'm not mistaken, I believe they asked the participants to record their experiences by themselves, and send the footage in. Only when it got to the later stages, did they need to use proper film crews.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 09:59 AM

If i'm not mistaken, I believe they asked the participants to record their experiences by themselves, and send the footage in. Only when it got to the later stages, did they need to use proper film crews.
No fools them (unless they provided the recording equipment). What counts as the later stages though? Only once they picked a winner?

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 10:27 AM

This is coming from memory so is probably wrong, but the first time the cameras were used, was when they brought the "final" 6 together. They then only needed to record 6 groups of 6, and then continue recording the 6 "winners" from each group.....

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 10:30 AM

7776 is only 65, so there was only one person left after five races, not six, as I initially assumed. He didn't, therefore, film six possible outcomes to ensure a certainty (not that he could have been in six places around the same racetrack all at the same time! Actually ... no, let's not go there.)
I reckon a ticket for each horse with a careful switch after the result is the only possible solution, unless the bookie is actually in on it.

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 10:57 AM

No, one states his powers are real outside the performance, the other doesn't.

When does the performance end?

I would say that once the trick is over, it is over. if you address the audience afterwards and tell them you did it via psychic powers, then you've crossed the line into fraud.

Derren doesn't quite do this, but it still makes me uncomfortable when he addressess the audience after the trick and tells them they have been witness to amazing psychological tricks.

Also, there is a kind of code of honour amongst magicians not to outright lie about how tricks are done. For example, if a magician tells the audience before the trick that no camera trickery at all will be used, he should stick to his word. Otherwise, it's just cheap.

Derren is no Geller but he does do and say things that border on "not okay".

Either way, I like Derren, hate Uri, and accept that both are, in their own way, brilliant at what they do.

Tapio

9th September 2009, 12:19 PM

Derren doesn't quite do this, but it still makes me uncomfortable when he addressess the audience after the trick and tells them they have been witness to amazing psychological tricks.

I understand completely, and to some extent agree with your whole post. However, what I find remarkable is how even though in some cases (Seance for example) he does keep repeating it all having no true paranormal/psychic base of any kind, during the act, people still go all the way in constructing an experience which they easily interpret as such.

Ambrosia

9th September 2009, 12:21 PM

What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. You'll notice also that they collect the winnings from a different Bookie from the one whom Derren apparently placed the bet with.

Are you watching a different program?

Derren places the £4k with "tote betting" - he collects the winnings from a "tote sport" stand which is the same company.

A note at the end credits states that every losing participant along the way was offered a full refund of any losing bets placed, which I'd guess would add up to more than £24k

I think he backed every horse and then switched the tickets for the final race. When the punter loses she is stunned and can easily be misdirected away from noticing Derren switching tickets which at the time she had in her coat pocket without holding onto it. If Derren simply picks the last winner correctly the shows climax is not nearly so good.

However he did it it's a great effect.

Still can't get my head around how he did the middle piece with the racing "experts" and the photos

Southwind17

9th September 2009, 12:38 PM

Are you watching a different program?

Derren places the £4k with "tote betting" - he collects the winnings from a "tote sport" stand which is the same company.
I thought that might be the answer, so looked for "tote" signs, but didn't notice them.

Still can't get my head around how he did the middle piece with the racing "experts" and the photos
Me neither. To my mind every aspect of the stunt relies on the selected photos, so the selections must be "forced". Everything else "simply" falls into place after that. The only question is, then: How does he force the selections?

What gets me is given these stunts are so common place, and usually just variations on a theme, how come the explanations remain a secret? Seems implausible in this day and age.

Ambrosia

9th September 2009, 02:56 PM

Me neither. To my mind every aspect of the stunt relies on the selected photos, so the selections must be "forced". Everything else "simply" falls into place after that. The only question is, then: How does he force the selections?

I'd guess that it has something to do with the initials of the people choosing. He must force those photos somehow, and then by extension force the order they stand in, which kind of falls into place after they choose where the pics are located, he also has to force the brown envelopes they chose as well, which I'd guess is the easiest of the 3 to do.

I have a couple of ideas - but I'm basically still stumped.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 03:40 PM

He's going to select the balls. We are going to find out what the BBC says the numbers were. He is then going to show us what the balls were that he chose.

Kiosk

9th September 2009, 03:41 PM

Hilarious midirection from Derren here - "we had a meeting with Camelot (company that runs the lottery) and for legal reasons the BBC has to announce the numbers first, so I've put them on these balls here which we'll look at after the numbers are announced..."

Yeah, it's illegal to say what you think the lottery numbers will be ahead of time...

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 03:45 PM

Well. He got all 6 right. Now just gotta wait till Friday to get his explanation for it.

ETA: I'm gonna guess the stand that the balls were on, is/was rigged though

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 03:46 PM

Unless there is some techie trick to put the numbers on the balls, or he's rigged the BBC footage in some way, I can't see how he's done it.

Lothian

9th September 2009, 03:46 PM

When he said he would get at least five. I thought he was going to write them down one at a time just before the balls came out.

666

9th September 2009, 03:46 PM

Possible explanation: Photosensitive coating on the balls? Project the numbers as soon as they're announced then turn the stand round?

Salerio

9th September 2009, 03:47 PM

Well I was impressed :) Now if I could do that two or three weeks running ... I clapped it was a cool trick

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 03:47 PM

Yeah, it's illegal to say what you think the lottery numbers will be ahead of time...
Quite right. That part is a glowing bag full of arse.

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 03:52 PM

Just to clear one thing up... the footage he was showing of the draw, was exactly what was being shown on bbc1, at near enough exactly the same time. I was sad enough to check..

Salerio

9th September 2009, 03:53 PM

You're not the only one sad enough to check, I had one on my PC (BBC) and C4 on the telly

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 03:54 PM

Possible explanation: Photosensitive coating on the balls? Project the numbers as soon as they're announced then turn the stand round?
That would be a lame way of doing it... not mentalism at all.

Salerio

9th September 2009, 03:55 PM

Derren's website has crashed - well done JREF

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 03:57 PM

Just to clear one thing up... the footage he was showing of the draw, was exactly what was being shown on bbc1, at near enough exactly the same time. I was sad enough to check..
Darn it that rules out a lot. It would take some nerve to do the trick by ********ting the numbers are hoping nobody checks.

Does anybody know how long the delay is between an event in a live TV studio and that event making it onto our screens as "live"?

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 03:58 PM

That would be a lame way of doing it... not mentalism at all.Thats pretty much the only way he could've done it... I don't see why it will take him a whole hour to explain that though. Maybe a little bit more too it.

Derren's website has crashed - well done JREF

And well done to his 30k + twitter followers.

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:01 PM

Does anybody know how long the delay is between an event in a live TV studio and that event making it onto our screens as "live"?

Not too sure to be honest, but any delay the bbc would have, would be the same as what channel 4 had..

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:02 PM

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:05 PM

It was a very rushed broadcast. How long was there between the program starting and the end of the draw. It couldn't have been much more than 90 seconds.

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:05 PM

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:08 PM

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:09 PM

Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_television)
"There is usually a 75-90 second delay between what is actually being filmed and what is being broadcast; this is to allow time for editing and censoring."

Hmmm. If we are 90 seconds delayed from his feed that might be enough time.

He had the balls in view for longer than 90 seconds (at least a few minutes) so it doesn't seem that that was the method.

I think 666s suggestion is most likely.

None of the balls moved at all, and judging by when he touched them they were loose and light, like ping pong balls.

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 04:12 PM

If so, we're fast running out of options for how the trick could be done.
It was a very nice stand that he'd put his balls on though wasn't it?

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:12 PM

Also, if the lottery is subject to the 90 second delay then surely so would Derren's show be.

But what he was showing on screen matched almost exactly what was coming from the BBC.

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:13 PM

yeah. I'd agree with 666's explanation. Seems the most likely. Derren was stood right behind the stand when he turned them round, concealing anything behind him that could've been used to 'etch' the numbers on the balls.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:14 PM

He had the balls in view for longer than 90 seconds (at least a few minutes) so it doesn't seem that that was the method.

I think 666s suggestion is most likely.

None of the balls moved at all, and judging by when he touched them they were loose and light, like ping pong balls.
The only thing I have against that as a solution is that it's inelegant. He certainly could have done it that way, I'll just be disappointed is all.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:18 PM

Also, if the lottery is subject to the 90 second delay then surely so would Derren's show be.

But what he was showing on screen matched almost exactly what was coming from the BBC.
That depends. He'd presumably have to have cooperation from the BBC and Camelot to pull it off, in which case the delay could have been stretched further. Also, the delay seems to be a convenience rather than a technical necessity.

Marduk

9th September 2009, 04:18 PM

Key word in that first sentence, was 'usually'. With the lottery, it doesn't apply.. Might be mistaken, but I believe they have to, legally, show the draw without any form of delay.

ETA: And the National Lottery program started at the same time as the Derren brown program started. They had to do the thunderball draw, and show the dream number draw first. Derren started showing the footage just after the dream number draw finished.

they legally have to have subtitles for all BBC programs or they are discriminating against deaf viewers, they dont need that for ceefax this is what it means by "usually",
the time delay allows stenographers to add the titles,
the censorship rule has been in effect since the Russian school massacre thing and is purely so that they can tell viewers some scenes may offend so that the viewer has time to turn off or leave the room. If they didn't do that and someone was traumatised they could be sued.
Al derren would need would be someone at the BBC phoning through the balls as they came out and hed have up to 90 seconds to improvise. the lottery as you may know is filmed in front of a live studio audience

this isn't real psychic powers, its just technology
;)

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:20 PM

I hadn't considered a man with a phone in the lottery audience. :D

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:22 PM

The only thing I have against that as a solution is that it's inelegant. He certainly could have done it that way, I'll just be disappointed is all.

Why is that less 'elegant' than any other method?

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 04:22 PM

Marduk

9th September 2009, 04:24 PM

I hadn't considered a man with a phone in the lottery audience. :D

I think its ever so slightly more likely than that the BBC and Camelot are conspiring to increase a channel 4 programs ratings

Kiosk

9th September 2009, 04:24 PM

Thats pretty much the only way he could've done it... I don't see why it will take him a whole hour to explain that though.

Well, I think it's fair to say that whatever explanation he gives will be completely and utterly made up.

Dawned on me recently, I think I've reached the sweet spot when it comes to my understanding of magic. I'm a total dilettante, but I know enough to make educated guesses about what sort of trick I'm watching (i.e. which other tricks might use the same technique), and sometimes spot one a mile off - but not enough to end up thinking "ah yes, that's an ingenious presentation of One Up The Hooter" or whatever, after every single trick. This allows a nice mixture of technical appreciation and genuine mystification.

Somewhat refined from when I was 6, and got thrown out of a school Christmas show for shouting "it's on a string!" at the grimacing, top-hatted turn.

Marduk

9th September 2009, 04:26 PM

Being in the US, I didn't get to watch this show.

Can anyone give a brief rundown of how this played out?
.

it was crap, a real demonstration of his woo powers would be the announcement in tomorrows headlines that he had won the lottery,

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:26 PM

That depends. He'd presumably have to have cooperation from the BBC and Camelot to pull it off, in which case the delay could have been stretched further. Also, the delay seems to be a convenience rather than a technical necessity.

It seems extremely unlikely that the BBC will be involved. They would not deliberately delay the lottery coverage just so Channel Four could show a trick.

They take ther lottery coverage pretty seriously and wouldnt jeapordise losing it over a stunt.

I think the delay explanation is not the answer.

There is no reason for Derren to simply not have had the numbers facing the screen from the start, so it must be that he somehow got the numbers on the balls after they were announced.

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:27 PM

it was crap, a real demonstration of his woo powers would be the announcement in tomorrows headlines that he had won the lottery,

He never claims any 'woo powers'. It's a trick and Derren never pretends to be anything other than an illusionist.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:28 PM

I think its ever so slightly more likely than that the BBC and Camelot are conspiring to increase a channel 4 programs ratings
True, I need to think more and post less. What appeared to me to be a plausible thought was that they might view this as publicity for the lottery, or have done some deal or other. However, I accept that isn't very likely.

Nigelwyn

9th September 2009, 04:28 PM

I've worked quite a bit in live TV situations and in the UK at least there is no 90 second delay. All production galleries and trucks will have a monitor showing an off air picture and I have never seen a delay of more than about 2 seconds.
Phone in radio programmes may have a 7 second delay built in so that offensive calls can be edited out.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:30 PM

It seems extremely unlikely that the BBC will be involved. They would not deliberately delay the lottery coverage just so Channel Four could show a trick.

They take ther lottery coverage pretty seriously and wouldnt jeapordise losing it over a stunt.

I think the delay explanation is not the answer.

There is no reason for Derren to simply not have had the numbers facing the screen from the start, so it must be that he somehow got the numbers on the balls after they were announced.
But if there's no trick with the delay, why was the show so rushed? One or other, or both, must have been misdirection.

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:30 PM

the lottery as you may know is filmed in front of a live studio audience

From The Daily Mail article about it: The BBC also insists that its midweek draw is shown without a time delay. The only sleight of hand involved is the use of recorded applause.

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 04:31 PM

it was crap, a real demonstration of his woo powers would be the announcement in tomorrows headlines that he had won the lottery,

I meant like:

1) Derren announces that he will NOT be allowed to announce the numbers before the draw, for legal reasons
2) He has a rack set up with the chosen balls facing away from the audience
3) After the draw, he turns the rack around and all 6 correct numbers are on there?

Is that about it?

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:31 PM

Pup

9th September 2009, 04:33 PM

I'm also in the US so didn't get to see it. Am I understanding correctly that he recorded his prediction before the drawing by using numbered balls which were in plain view but without the numbers showing, and revealed them after the lottery was announced?

From my post earlier in this thread:

I hope this won't be the standard magician's way of "predicting" things, by writing down the prediction in such a way it couldn't possibly be tampered with (ahem), and then revealing it after the event occurs--and after there's been time to tamper with the written prediction.

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:34 PM

But if there's no trick with the delay, why was the show so rushed?

I don't really understand - this show was only going to be Derren revealing the trick, and his timings were dependent on the BBCs show so it would have had to be slightly reactive and off the cuff.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:35 PM

Being in the US, I didn't get to watch this show.

Can anyone give a brief rundown of how this played out?

Sounds more interesting than I first thought it would be, anyway, but only because he didn't really announce them before the draw.
Empty studio. 6 white ping pong balls on a clear stand. TV screen to one side. Derren explains he can only show a brief bit of BBC footage "for legal reasons". He also claims that he can't show his prediction in advance of the draw "for legal reasons". He turns the TV on and the draw begins. He stands by the TV (the balls on the stand are visible the whole time) holding a pen and a large white card as the draw is announced. After the draw he writes the numbers down and turns the TV off. He then walks behind the stand and turns it around revealing the correct numbers on the reverse of the balls. At no time does he appear to handle the balls. The whole broadcast appears very rushed.

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 04:35 PM

I oticed that when Derren turned the tray round to reveal the numbers, they all seemed tilted quite high up on the balls which also makes me wonder if a projection device/laser was above, out of shot (and further away) aimed on the balls.

While this may well be the explanation, it doesn't sound very "Derren" like to me.

If this is how he did it, I'd be even more surprised if he admits to this "explanation" on friday.

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:35 PM

I meant like:

1) Derren announces that he will NOT be allowed to announce the numbers before the draw, for legal reasons
2) He has a rack set up with the chosen balls facing away from the audience
3) After the draw, he turns the rack around and all 6 correct numbers are on there?

Is that about it?

That's it.
Derren had no audience, it was in an empty studio.

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:38 PM

But if there's no trick with the delay, why was the show so rushed? One or other, or both, must have been misdirection.Because it was live, and he didnt know what time exactly, the draw would be starting. Also, with his show being shown on all five, channel 4 owned, channels, the longer the program took, the more of an impact it would have on their schedules.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:38 PM

I don't really understand - this show was only going to be Derren revealing the trick, and his timings were dependent on the BBCs show so it would have had to be slightly reactive and off the cuff.
Just my impression. It could be for the reasons you describe. It could be that he had limited air time given that he was on every channel Channel4 own. I don't see why there was so little lead in if it was just a question of syncing with the BBC.

Ashles

9th September 2009, 04:39 PM

While this may well be the explanation, it doesn't sound very "Derren" like to me.

Derren Brown freely admits he uses multiple methods to achieve his effects.
If it works I don't think there is any method or technique he would reject.

I thik part of his genius is that people think he achieves affects in certain ways, which then gives him even more leeway to use any imaginable method that suits.

Personally I think he uses technology a lot more than he ever alludes to.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:40 PM

That's it.
Derren had no audience, it was in an empty studio.
Empty studio. Derren is the only person we see. Rows of empty seats and an empty stage + the TV and the stand with the balls on.

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 04:41 PM

Empty studio. 6 white ping pong balls on a clear stand. TV screen to one side. Derren explains he can only show a brief bit of BBC footage "for legal reasons". He also claims that he can't show his prediction in advance of the draw "for legal reasons". He turns the TV on and the draw begins. He stands by the TV (the balls on the stand are visible the whole time) holding a pen and a large white card as the draw is announced. After the draw he writes the numbers down and turns the TV off. He then walks behind the stand and turns it around revealing the correct numbers on the reverse of the balls. At no time does he appear to handle the balls. The whole broadcast appears very rushed.

Thanks.

Was the footage of Derren turning the balls around on the stand seamless?

Could the numbers on the balls be added by the camera itself, or is that too far fetched? I know I have seen live football footage before where they make it appear that the team badges are etched onto the pitch. Not having seen the footage or having knowledge of the limits of the technology, does this seem possible?

Capsid

9th September 2009, 04:42 PM

AgeGap

9th September 2009, 04:43 PM

Possible explanation: Photosensitive coating on the balls? Project the numbers as soon as they're announced then turn the stand round?

Wouldn't the studio lights turn his balls black? Heat??

Marduk

9th September 2009, 04:46 PM

Wouldn't the studio lights turn his balls black?

only if they were UV bulbs and aimed at his naked scrotum
:D

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:46 PM

Just something ever so slightly OT:

On his blog this morning, Derren posted an email he recieved from someone who claimed that quite often, they predict the lottery numbers "with accuracy".

From: http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/09/typical-inbox-morning/

any way i shall give you 3 of the 7 numbers gonna be drawn with accuracy rest later the numbers are 11-16-46
Just thought i'd share that with you.

shuttlt

9th September 2009, 04:49 PM

Thanks.
Was the footage of Derren turning the balls around on the stand seamless?

From memory, yes.

Could the numbers on the balls be added by the camera itself, or is that too far fetched?

I would say no.

One observation while I was watching it. The stand seemed to be made of a tube about 1.5m high with a small rectangular tray on top for the balls. The tray and the tube appeared to be made of clear plastic. Is it absolutely out of the question that the balls travelled up the tube during the broadcast and what we though were the balls were dummies.

Marduk

9th September 2009, 04:50 PM

Just something ever so slightly OT:

On his blog this morning, Derren posted an email he recieved from someone who claimed that every week, they predict the lottery numbers "with accuracy".
any way i shall give you 3 of the 7 numbers gonna be drawn with accuracy rest later the numbers are 11-16-46
From: http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/09/typical-inbox-morning/

Wednesday, 9 September 2009 - Draw number 1431

2, 11, 23, 28, 35, 39 (15)

Epic Fail
:D

Kuko 4000

9th September 2009, 04:51 PM

He never claims any 'woo powers'. It's a trick and Derren never pretends to be anything other than an illusionist.

On top of that he's a very active sceptic in his TV shows, live shows and in his books. I just cannot understand some of the comments on this thread :boggled:

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 04:55 PM

Epic Fail

Well, you could give him/her some credit I guess, for getting atleast 1 number correct. But yeah, in general, fail!

Kuko 4000

9th September 2009, 05:02 PM

Here we go, side by side comparison:

lmxua_V1AcM

andyandy

9th September 2009, 05:03 PM

Well, I wonder how he did that. ;)

Kuko 4000

9th September 2009, 05:05 PM

And this is the original:

cHZ2mQczkcg

Capsid

9th September 2009, 05:11 PM

Well he did touch the balls, I was wrong. So doesn't look projected from the stand either. Not sure how they got the numbers on the balls now. The etching idea is the most plausible so far.

bokonon

9th September 2009, 05:11 PM

The stand could project the numbers up on to the balls from the base. There was plenty of time for those numbers to be entered into the projector before they were revealed. Notice that Derren didn't touch or move the balls.
That would be my guess too, having not seen what any of the apparatus looks like. Or an "inkjet and rotate" stand, which sprays the numbers on the bottom, then rotates the balls to display them.

db2431

9th September 2009, 05:17 PM

dbalsdon

9th September 2009, 05:17 PM

Well he did touch the balls, I was wrong. So doesn't look projected from the stand either. Not sure how they got the numbers on the balls now.The whole time I was watching the vid posted above, I was looking to the back of the stage area. theres something there with small panels that keep varying in colour, maybe caused by slight camera movements.

That seems to be too obvious, so.. if you watch careful, as he moves over to the balls after the draw, there is another object to the left of the screen, that looks like it could be a projector of some kind. That would seem to fit with 666's suggestion, that the balls were coated with a light sensitive paint/liquid, and the numbers were projected onto them.

Capsid

9th September 2009, 05:23 PM

Im amazed nobody has has worked out the easiest way to do this yet.Anyone with any knowledge of adobe after effects could make this same video, not live of course but the result would be the same.With tv production tech with high powered computer rigs it would be easy to do in real time.

You simply film the balls blank from the same camera angle as broadcast at an earlier time in the day.Later once Derren has walked over to the tv you overlay the half of the screen with the balls with the footage you shot earlier of the balls sitting there untouched.This allows someone to simple walk on and place the balls on that half of the tv screen as they are read out then walk off once the ball is placed and then the mask on that half of the screen is removed to show the live feed of the balls.

The camera needs to be stationary to do this and he has cleverly mad the camera wobble to misdirect, however its not the camera wobbling PHYSICALLY itself but a digital wobble ADDED so the camera itself is actually stationary.Easiest way to do the trick and a tv editor could do it in his sleep.The following videos show how easy it is to do.

change xxx to www
xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=84Fm353GuQ8

xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=84Fm353GuQ8It didn't look like a masking effect, watch the video above. DB actually moves and touches the balls and the numbers move on the balls as he does so. That wouldn't happen with a masking shot would it?

db2431

9th September 2009, 05:28 PM

It didn't look like a masking effect, watch the video above. DB actually moves and touches the balls and the numbers move on the balls as he does so. That wouldn't happen with a masking shot would it?

Your misunderstanding me, the second Derren walks from the balls to watch the live broadcast on the TV, the left side of the screen had the earlier footage of the balls masked over, so while Derren is standing their watching the live draw theres simply some guy placing numbered balls on the rack on the left side covered by the earlier days footage of the balls from the same angle lol.Derren spends the whole time on right side of screen while the results are drawn then the left side mask is simply removed once last ball is placed to show the real live balls.Watch the following footage, the guy isnt really sitting next to a clone of himself, there could have been brad Pitt sitting there on his left with a pink dress on but we will never know cos it was masked off...

xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=bqLBE82nnxg

Capsid

9th September 2009, 05:33 PM

Your misunderstanding me, the second Derren walks from the balls to watch the live broadcast on the TV, the left side of the screen had the earlier footage of the balls masked over, so while Derren is standing their watching the live draw theres simply some guy placing numbered balls on the rack on the left side covered by the earlier days footage of the balls from the same angle lol.Derren spends the whole time on right side of screen while the results are drawn then the left side mask is simply removed once last ball is placed to show the real live balls.Watch the following footage, the guy isnt really sitting next to a clone of himself, there could have been brad Pitt sitting there on his left with a pink dress on but we will never know cos it was masked off...

xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=bqLBE82nnxgCute, I like it.

Kiosk

9th September 2009, 05:34 PM

Funny, that actually occurred to me while I was watching. I don't know enough about TV tech to know precisely how easy or difficult it would be to do live, but I figured it probably wouldn't be impossible.

Kuko 4000

9th September 2009, 05:41 PM

That sounds like the most obvious way for me, although I don't know enough about tech to say how it would work in a situation like this. After the last number was announced Derren spent 25 seconds on the right side of the screen before moving to the left. Plenty of time for the final change.

It was ok entertainment for me, interesting because of the idea, but stuff like this is not why I like his act. Of course, this was only the first part of the event.

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 05:44 PM

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 05:47 PM

Im amazed nobody has has worked out the easiest way to do this yet.Anyone with any knowledge of adobe after effects could make this same video, not live of course but the result would be the same.With tv production tech with high powered computer rigs it would be easy to do in real time.

You simply film the balls blank from the same camera angle as broadcast at an earlier time in the day.Later once Derren has walked over to the tv you overlay the half of the screen with the balls with the footage you shot earlier of the balls sitting there untouched.This allows someone to simple walk on and place the balls on that half of the tv screen as they are read out then walk off once the last ball is placed and then the mask on that half of the screen is removed to show the live feed of the balls.

The camera needs to be stationary to do this and he has cleverly mad the camera wobble to misdirect, however its not the camera wobbling PHYSICALLY itself but a digital wobble ADDED so the camera itself is actually stationary.Easiest way to do the trick and a tv editor could do it in his sleep.The following videos show how easy it is to do.

change xxx to www
xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=bqLBE82nnxg

xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=84Fm353GuQ8

Well, I didn't quite say this, but I did allude to camera trickery:

Thanks.

Was the footage of Derren turning the balls around on the stand seamless?

Could the numbers on the balls be added by the camera itself, or is that too far fetched? I know I have seen live football footage before where they make it appear that the team badges are etched onto the pitch. Not having seen the footage or having knowledge of the limits of the technology, does this seem possible?

Does anyone else think the balls look wrong? Misshapen? Like perhaps the top of a ball had been placed over the actual ball?

I'm liking your camera trickery explanation though, db.

Humphreys

9th September 2009, 05:48 PM

The split screen seems the most likely to me too.

I'll have to watch a hi res replay to check but It seems that at the start all the balls rest on the stand equally, but at the end the one on the left (before he turns the stand round) is slightly higher than the others.

The balls defintely do not look right to me. The one on the end looks misshapen, and not quite right. I was thinking maybe Derren had 6 hollow ball tops which he writes on as he writes the numbers, but watching the footage I can see no way Derren can drop these tops onto the actual balls.

Okay, that FIRST ball is definitely raised, and I swear it gets more raised for no apparent reason in one or two frames.

Edit: The split screen explanation is good, but I don't think it's Derren like. I think, somehow, he is transferring that ink, whether it is a ball top, or a sticker, or...something, but he is somehow managing to get it on those balls in the moments before he gets to the stand, and before he turns it, and I think he is using the board with the numbers on it as a tool too.

He says "we might want to try this too", I doubt that would refer to camera trickery, it refers to some sleight of hand more like.

David Wong

9th September 2009, 06:04 PM

Funny, that actually occurred to me while I was watching. I don't know enough about TV tech to know precisely how easy or difficult it would be to do live

As easy as flipping a lever in the control room.

Hearing the explanation for this one actually depressed me. If it's any than the aforementioned still shot brought up to mask the left hand side of the screen, he'd be a fool. That's so simple and easy, it could be done with minutes of preparation. You just have to make sure the ball stand is in exactly the right spot, and the lighting is the same, or else it's not seamless. As simple as marking the floor to make sure he rotates the stand correctly.

Big Les

9th September 2009, 06:19 PM

Except that he said he'll explain on Friday, and it will be a method that the viewer could use. Allegedly.

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 06:27 PM

Dead easy.... he phoned Uri Geller and asked him for the numbers... Geller phoned Sylvia Browne (who already knew he'd be phoning and had them prepared), Geller then phoned Derren back and gave him the numbers which he then had printed onto some ping pong balls with the dye submilation press he bought on ESP Bay (because he had a funny feeling it would come in handy some day).

Amongst all the fuss of phoning around and printing his balls, he didn't have time to nip out to the newsagents and buy himself a ticket... Doh!!!!

:D

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 06:28 PM

Except that he said he'll explain on Friday, and it will be a method that the viewer could use. Allegedly.
The explanations he gives are rarely the methods he uses. ;)

And he didn't say the viewers could "use" it... he said they could "try" it.
I'm betting if they try the method he reveals, they will not be so successful.

David Wong

9th September 2009, 06:30 PM

The explanations he gives are rarely the methods he uses. ;)

Correct, the explanation will be some complicated pseudoscience affair that makes him sound like a superhuman genius. That, also will be part of the trick.

That's Derren Brown's thing.

db2431

9th September 2009, 06:41 PM

The change from old earlier days footage to current numbers just laid out as read out happens at 2:04 in this clip, watch the far left ball suddenly raise up higher than the others as it was placed in higher than the others by mistake.Watch in HD for more clarity

replace xxx with www

xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIzR6GNAXw

Stray Cat

9th September 2009, 06:48 PM

db2431

9th September 2009, 06:49 PM

Yes, I've taken a few stills and overlayed them in Photoshop... but not from the Hi Res so they're not really good enough to see clearly.

Here, this about sums it up, cant post images yet so have to copy and paste in to browser.Rules out everything but splitscreen imho.

http://img.waffleimages.com/787c48641030d3bdc01997fe9b97dc52c15f07f8/ehmzvp.gif

Pup

9th September 2009, 06:51 PM

Correct, the explanation will be some complicated pseudoscience affair that makes him sound like a superhuman genius. That, also will be part of the trick.

That's Derren Brown's thing.

That's what I'm hoping. I'm hoping this part of the show was just a build-up to the real "trick" of making up a bizarre explanation that almost sounds believable. He implied it took a year of his life, so I want to hear something really involved, convoluted and wacky. :D

There were just too many ways of adding the numbers to the balls, from a low-tech pen-on-a-stick coming out of the wall directly behind the balls, worked by an assistant, to the higher-tech camera editing and projecting possibilities.

Kiosk

9th September 2009, 07:30 PM

db2431

9th September 2009, 07:46 PM

To everyone who seems disappointed that the trick's so simple (assuming this is indeed how it was done), isn't this just the hi-tech equivalent of putting your glamorous assistant in a cabinet, drawing the curtain and making her vanish? In the sense that it's a trick performed by objects rather than the magician himself? I think people tend to feel cheated not so much when they realise how simple the trick was, but when they realise that anyone could have done it with the right bit of kit. But that's just the way it goes.

Strikes me as risky, though, if this is how it was done. The slightest technical hitch and Derren's career is over.

Well there was a hitch, the ball being placed higher doesnt leave room for much doubt, Ill be disappointed if he gives another explanation.If anyone is interested in how to pull this trick off in non realtime then this is how I taught myself.

www.videocopilot.net/tutorial/time_freeze/

Kiosk

9th September 2009, 08:32 PM

Well there was a hitch, the ball being placed higher doesnt leave room for much doubt

Well OK, maybe I didn't mean the slightest technical hitch. I was thinking more of the camera not being properly aligned, or the overlaid picture suddenly cutting out to reveal some guy in a T-shirt changing the balls. I reckon Derren would be forgiven if he were caught out on live TV switching an envelope or something - just - but a really spectacular disaster like that would finish him, and it wouldn't even have been his fault. Presumably there'd be some kind of computerised whatchamacallit making sure that didn't happen.

Ill be disappointed if he gives another explanation.

Prepare to be disappointed. If you've seen some of his other "OK, let me show you how this is done" routines, you'll know that they rarely bear much resemblance to reality. "I implanted the words 'Daily Mail' into your minds, subliminally, throughout the show", etc. (that one after he'd just pulled off the latest reworking of a trick he's been doing for half his career, presented with such brilliant, hysterical flamboyance that anyone who didn't spot the tell-tale signs would think it was brand new, rather than 100+ years old).

firecoins

9th September 2009, 09:10 PM

he phoned the mob and they set it up.

Ralfy

10th September 2009, 12:03 AM

Derren didn't win the lottery. We can be sure he or someone else didn't use the numbers earlier in the day as no-one matched all 6 last night.

From the official National Lottery website:

StanBearclaw

10th September 2009, 12:49 AM

I imagine the intro was pre-taped, including the shot from the camera at the back of the studio. That established that the main camera was a hand-held camera operator who would give the picture a convincing wobble. When they cut back to the first camera, it started rolling live footage, but now it was being shot on a stationary camera, and the "wobble" was added artificially.

They could have started the masking at any moment after Derren walked over to the TV. The stagehand moved into place to select the correct balls as they were being read, and had plenty of time to place them in ascending order and skedaddle. There was a full 24 seconds between when the 6th ball was announced and when Derren began to walk over to the stand. I don't think it could get any more foolproof than that.

db2431, I think you nailed it!

Lothian

10th September 2009, 01:28 AM

Possible explanation: Photosensitive coating on the balls? Project the numbers as soon as they're announced then turn the stand round?

That would be a lame way of doing it... not mentalism at all.I don't care how he did it. By that I mean I will not be disappointed if it turns out to be simple. There is no such thing as magic. Every trick is a trick. Derren in an entertainer. I thought the effect was great and I was entertained.

Ralfy

10th September 2009, 01:34 AM

More evidence that the camera wobble is an effect added during broadcast is that the zoom in to Derren at the end is perfectly steady, where you would expect this to be the most wobbly bit of footage of all, if the camera is handheld.

Also I read elsewhere that the split screen effect could have been achieved by simply freezing the left hand side after Derren walks to the TV and unfreezing once the correct balls have been put in place. Is this possible using software such as After Effects?

Darat

10th September 2009, 01:38 AM

I don't care how he did it. By that I mean I will not be disappointed if it turns out to be simple. There is no such thing as magic. Every trick is a trick. Derren in an entertainer. I thought the effect was great and I was entertained.

That's the key point isn't it? He's got folk here interested in it, his own blog seems to be down because of the interest - looks like he's doing his job very well - he got everyone watching!

And I think he did it with trained ants, that's why he had to delay moving to the balls so they could all into get into position.

Ashles

10th September 2009, 06:07 AM

The split screen also seems likely (hardly 'easy' as some have described it) but probably a good chance it was that.

If it was split screen it was amazingly well done.

I have one other theory but need to check the video first...

microdot

10th September 2009, 06:28 AM

Guess we'll have to wait until Friday to find out :)

Pup

10th September 2009, 06:29 AM

And I think he did it with trained ants, that's why he had to delay moving to the balls so they could all into get into position.

That's it! He's going to tell us he spent a year of his life training those ants.

When we all know that what he really did was have an assistant quickly paint sugar water on the balls while the split screen masking was in effect, and the ants just lined up along the sugar water.

:D

Lothian

10th September 2009, 06:42 AM

Feel free to specualte in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153195)

Kuko 4000

10th September 2009, 06:42 AM

I'm with Darat and others. It just seems to me that most people who are let down because of a "simple" explanation are not familiar enough with the world of magic. It's all about the dressing, as Derren himself has so beautifully and effectively demonstrated over the last years.

On the explanation part, I expect Derren to brief the viewers about the history of numerology or some other BS, making sure to remind everyone that it doesn't work, but that he has found this very time consuming and complicated mathematical pattern that allows him to know the correct numbers after analysing the national lottery, every day, for the last year or so.

Then he goes on to show the correlation of the numbers yesterday and the numbers from the previous drawings, everyone is amazed and the numerologists feel vindicated after all, until Derren once again smacks their head in with a hammer, when he gives a hint on how it was really done with two Derrens talking side by side in the same picture.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 07:03 AM

I'm with Darat and others. It just seems to me that most people who are let down because of a "simple" explanation are not familiar enough with the world of magic. It's all about the dressing, as Derren himself has so beautifully and effectively demonstrated over the last years.

I'm not sure it's a question of being disappointed that the explanation is simple (if indeed we've worked it out). The method for predicting the horse race is simple, but elegant. There are certainly other aspects of his performance to admire, he's a showman, no question. For the racing prediction, or Pen and Teller making objects appear under clear plastic cups the tricks remain impressive even when I know how they were done.

Maybe it's also a nagging feeling that there must be a better way to pull of the trick that doesn't rely on camera trickery. Not that I know of, or could do any such thing. Maybe this has a lot to do with Derren's act being about getting you to believe such things are possible if you're as clever as him.

Crundy

10th September 2009, 07:06 AM

I also think the camera wobble is artificial, because if you watch when the camera moves significantly the perspective of the objects doesn't change (e.g. everything looks 2D).

Southwind17

10th September 2009, 07:07 AM

I don't care how he did it. By that I mean I will not be disappointed if it turns out to be simple. There is no such thing as magic. Every trick is a trick. Geller is an entertainer. I thought the effect was great and I was entertained.
That's the key point isn't it? He's got folk here interested in it, his own blog seems to be down because of the interest - looks like he's doing his job very well - he got everyone watching!

I've changed just one word in one of the quotes above (oh, and one other, just for correction). I wonder whether, given the change, you would both maintain your statements.

Darat

10th September 2009, 07:09 AM

I'm not sure it's a question of being disappointed that the explanation is simple (if indeed we've worked it out). The method for predicting the horse race is simple, but elegant. There are certainly other aspects of his performance to admire, he's a showman, no question. For the racing prediction, or Pen and Teller making objects appear under clear plastic cups the tricks remain impressive even when I know how they were done.

I can sort of understand the "disappointment" if it turns out to something as apparently straightforward as a split-screen, but that's only after the fact, when I watched it the reaction I had was "How the hell did he do that?!", so I got the entertainment I like from a magic trick.

I think it's a bit like when I saw one of those "magicians' secrets revealed" shows and the woman in the box with the swords through it was revealed to be simply a matter of there being enough room in the box! But since then I've seen the trick done by a much better magician and it was still entertaining but in a different way - I was looking at the angles the swords went in and so on.

Darat

10th September 2009, 07:12 AM

I've changed just one word in one of the quotes above (oh, and one other, just for correction). I wonder whether, given the change, you would both maintain your statements.

No - as I explained in my previous posts - one says he is an entertainer the other claims he is real and makes claims outside his performance e.g. he can heal people with his powers - it really is like comparing apples and pears. One is a magician, the other claims he has magic powers, the two things are not the same so I don't even know why people keep trying to compare the claims made by Geller and Brown.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 07:17 AM

I think it's a bit like when I saw one of those "magicians' secrets revealed" shows and the woman in the box with the swords through it was revealed to be simply a matter of there being enough room in the box! But since then I've seen the trick done by a much better magician and it was still entertaining but in a different way - I was looking at the angles the swords went in and so on.
At least then they are working with optical illusions, cognitive biases etc. The box is sitting right there in front of you actual size and they have to fool you. If they can pull it off, I find it much more impressive than if they used some kind of digital image manipulation to make the box appear smaller. Some tricks like the lottery one it may be a choice between doing it in Photoshop and not doing it at all, in which case fine, but it's still a defect.

Darat

10th September 2009, 07:20 AM

At least then they are working with optical illusions, cognitive biases etc. The box is sitting right there in front of you actual size and they have to fool you. If they can pull it off, I find it much more impressive than if they used some kind of digital image manipulation to make the box appear smaller. Some tricks like the lottery one it may be a choice between doing it in Photoshop and not doing it at all, in which case fine, but it's still a defect.

This is were I think we have a disconnect, let me try it this way:

Did you enjoy his show?

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 07:31 AM

This is were I think we have a disconnect, let me try it this way:

Did you enjoy his show?
Certainly, like I say there are admirable things about his performance. It was a success, I'm not claiming otherwise. If you strip out the performance though, I don't like the trick (if we have it right). Surely some tricks are more elegant than others irrespective of the merits of the performance? Maybe I've been spoiled by Penn and Teller and the cups.

Darat

10th September 2009, 07:36 AM

Lothian

10th September 2009, 07:40 AM

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 07:42 AM

My issue would be more that it's not a "true" magic trick because you couldn't do it in front of a live audience, and I consider that the hallmark of a good magic trick compared to a special effect. (Albeit as I am typing this response I can think of exceptions to that "rule".)
Yes.

I guess for me the ideal trick would be one where the magician tells you what he's going to do (without leaving out anything important like a trapdoor, or marked deck), does exactly what he said, and your still left standing there saying "how in heck did you do that?" Down one notch would be tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method, but are still done right there in front of you. At the bottom of the heap are tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method and can't be done in front of you.

The quality of the performance is separate and, at least as important if not more so (in my opinion). If he's able to pull of something as stupid as split screen and turn it into a big TV event then hats off to the man.

Stray Cat

10th September 2009, 07:43 AM

Certainly, like I say there are admirable things about his performance. It was a success, I'm not claiming otherwise. If you strip out the performance though, I don't like the trick (if we have it right). Surely some tricks are more elegant than others irrespective of the merits of the performance? Maybe I've been spoiled by Penn and Teller and the cups.
If you strip out Penn & Teller's performance of cup and balls, you are left with putting some balls under a cup!

The psychology behind Derren's trick is fascinating.
Firstly it was obviously designed to offer up various potential ways.
The stand was probably designed with the upright tube big enough to conceivably transport the correct balls to their destination.
The added subtle camera shake.
The writing the numbers down on a strip of card.
The cover and misdirection of the camera at the back of the room (which is only shown to show it's there!) is genius.
The appealing to people's greed by allowing them to think they can try it with the same level of success is a winner for increasing viewing figures for Friday's show.

And there's only a very small amount of people who will apply critical thinking to the problem of 'how did he do that'.
Most people will be more impressed with the outcome than the mechanics of it. :)

There is a lot contained in that very short piece of footage that any magician would do well to study... Well done Derren.

Lothian

10th September 2009, 07:50 AM

skbuncks

10th September 2009, 07:51 AM

Stray Cat

10th September 2009, 07:54 AM

So, why does he do this? Is he performing some sleight of hand at this point or is more mis-direction to take us off the scent?

skb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIzR6GNAXw
I believe the bit I've made bold is correct.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 07:56 AM

If you strip out Penn & Teller's performance of cup and balls, you are left with putting some balls under a cup!

The psychology behind Derren's trick is fascinating.
Firstly it was obviously designed to offer up various potential ways.
The stand was probably designed with the upright tube big enough to conceivably transport the correct balls to their destination.
The added subtle camera shake.
The writing the numbers down on a strip of card.
The cover and misdirection of the camera at the back of the room (which is only shown to show it's there!) is genius.
The appealing to people's greed by allowing them to think they can try it with the same level of success is a winner for increasing viewing figures for Friday's show.

And there's only a very small amount of people who will apply critical thinking to the problem of 'how did he do that'.
Most people will be more impressed with the outcome than the mechanics of it. :)

There is a lot contained in that very short piece of footage that any magician would do well to study... Well done Derren.
All true and we might STILL be wrong about how it's done. He left clues pointing in different directions throughout the performance. Perhaps the odd shaking is another false trail.

If one takes the performance as a whole as the 'trick'. It's very nicely done. If you take the 'trick' to be the method by which he got the balls to have the correct numbers on them, then nobody has yet suggested a method that in and of itself I find very satisfying.

By the way, I think you should add him suggesting he might only get 5 out of 6 balls right to you list of clues.

Cuddles

10th September 2009, 08:12 AM

I guess for me the ideal trick would be one where the magician tells you what he's going to do (without leaving out anything important like a trapdoor, or marked deck), does exactly what he said, and your still left standing there saying "how in heck did you do that?" Down one notch would be tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method, but are still done right there in front of you. At the bottom of the heap are tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method and can't be done in front of you.

This is similar to my thinking. In general, I'd divide magic into two main categories. There's magic that involves personal skill, and magic that involves the kit. For example, taking a coin out of someone's ear is the former. It doesn't depend on there being a specially designed coin used, you can just as easily do it with a stone or piece of paper or anything of similar size you have to hand. Even though I know how it's done in theory, I can't do it and no matter how hard I watch I can't actually see it when done properly.

On the other hand, making a coin disappear and then reappear when a box is closed and opened is purely down to the kit. You can take any random person off the street who has never even heard of the trick before and when they close and open the box, the coin will disappear. I consider the former a decent, entertaining magic trick. I consider the latter a pointless waste of time.

The quality of the performance is separate and, at least as important if not more so (in my opinion).

I disagree here. The performance is an integral part of the difference between the two categories. In the former, the performance tries to distract you from what the magician is really doing. In the latter, the performance tries to distract you from realising that the magician isn't actually doing anything at all.

Obviously there is a lot of overlap. Most magicians will do both kinds of trick, and many tricks require both special kit and personal skill. However, I think most people think along similar lines. You go to a performance to see someone actually do something. You don't go to a piano recital to admire the piano and listen to a recording. You don't go to a race to watch someone drive in a straight line in cruise control. The disappointment when it's all just technical trickery is not that the trick is simple, it's that the magician was a completely unnecessary part of the performance.

And I think this is even more the case when it's things like TV trickery. Even when using kit, the magician usually needs to at least do something, even if it's as little as closing and opening a box. When it comes to TV stuff though, the magician actually does nothing at all, while some other people behind the scenes make it look as if he did. That's why people tend to dislike this kind of trick. It doesn't just rely on you using kit to make yourself look good, it relies on someone else using kit to make you look good.

This is one reason why I hate magic on TV and don't generally bother watching it. Even when they're doing something that could be done as a real magic trick, there's always the nagging suspicion that they'll just use some fancy editing to make it look "better" and cover up any mistakes.

Pup

10th September 2009, 08:17 AM

Couple of questions which may, or may not, have some bearing on how Derren pulled off his little illusion.

I think it's much simpler than that. The numbers were stuck on the balls from behind. He couldn't use a live audience, because the successful angles were too small. The rod with the sticker had to access the balls directly from behind so the balls concealed the operation. Other than that, everything we saw actually happened. Waiting for the last number but not including it in the prediction gave enough time for the stickers to be stuck on in the right order.

Simple, low-tech, and actually easier than the famous iron rod poking out of a bookcase, that Houdini's assistant used (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/houdinirsquos_impossible_demonstration/) to write with magnets on a hanging slate.

I'm still waiting with anticipation for the "explanation," whether real or convoluted, though I'm suspecting convoluted due to the "year of my life" thing. Even if that's all he gives as an explanation and/or that is the explanation, it would seem an elegant and fair trick in the classic sense, i.e. not just video manipulation.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 08:22 AM

I disagree here. The performance is an integral part of the difference between the two categories. In the former, the performance tries to distract you from what the magician is really doing. In the latter, the performance tries to distract you from realising that the magician isn't actually doing anything at all.
Well, maybe it isn't magic, but I admire the skill in taking a turd of a trick and polishing it into something worth seeing.

Of course we're only 10 minutes into and hour and 10 minute performance. Getting an hour and 10 minutes of TV with what I presume are decent viewing figures out trick that I wouldn't piss on if it was on fire is a trick in itself.

volatile

10th September 2009, 08:29 AM

http://derrenbrownlotteryprediction.wordpress.com/

Darat

10th September 2009, 08:31 AM

No mention of the obvious answer - trained ants.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 08:32 AM

I think it's much simpler than that. The numbers were stuck on the balls from behind. He couldn't use a live audience, because the successful angles were too small. The rod with the sticker had to access the balls directly from behind so the balls concealed the operation. Other than that, everything we saw actually happened. Waiting for the last number but not including it in the prediction gave enough time for the stickers to be stuck on in the right order.

Could be. No way to judge the weight, or composition of the balls, or whether they were fixed in place. The balls and stand could have simply been capable of displaying what ever text Derren chose to put on them.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 08:34 AM

No mention of the obvious answer - trained ants.
Holding teeny tiny pens?

Stray Cat

10th September 2009, 08:35 AM

Could be. No way to judge the weight, or composition of the balls, or whether they were fixed in place. The balls and stand could have simply been capable of displaying what ever text Derren chose to put on them.
He gently moves (one of?) the balls at the end of the piece... they look to be ping pong balls, they weren't fixed in place.

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 08:37 AM

He gently moves (one of?) the balls at the end of the piece... they look to be ping pong balls, they weren't fixed in place.
OK, but looking like a ping pong ball and being a ping pong ball are two different things.

edd

10th September 2009, 08:42 AM

The stand was probably designed with the upright tube big enough to conceivably transport the correct balls to their destination.

They clearly forgot to explain the reasoning behind that to whoever actually made it then, as whoever made it used a transparent material.

Stray Cat

10th September 2009, 08:53 AM

They clearly forgot to explain the reasoning behind that to whoever actually made it then, as whoever made it used a transparent material.
Have you ever seen Teller's goldfish tank trick?
Or seen a crystal tube where the magician puts some coloured silks in to a clear plastic tube and when when pulls them back out they have turned into a single multicoloured flag?

Lothian

10th September 2009, 08:54 AM

They clearly forgot to explain the reasoning behind that to whoever actually made it then, as whoever made it used a transparent material.Perhaps not. It may have had a mirrored core allowing balls to pass up the tube to line up behind the half ball cut outs that were in place at the start.

Stray Cat

10th September 2009, 08:55 AM

OK, but looking like a ping pong ball and being a ping pong ball are two different things.
Yes, but there is no reason to suspect that they were anything other than ping pong balls with numbers stuck on them. Again his handling of them was dilliberately minimal to leave their ambiguity intact. :)

edd

10th September 2009, 09:07 AM

Perhaps not. It may have had a mirrored core allowing balls to pass up the tube to line up behind the half ball cut outs that were in place at the start.

No, look at the time he picks up and turns the stand around. It's transparent.

Kuko 4000

10th September 2009, 09:25 AM

The simplest method I have come up with is some kind of electric balls. Derren reads the numbers, assistant sends a signal to the balls, done.

Why I wouldn't put much money into this or the split screen method is that Andy and Derren are capable of coming up with more elegant methods than these. And afaik, they actively want their "art" to be elegant rather than a "mess".

Kuko 4000

10th September 2009, 09:30 AM

On the other hand, making a coin disappear and then reappear when a box is closed and opened is purely down to the kit. You can take any random person off the street who has never even heard of the trick before and when they close and open the box, the coin will disappear. I consider the former a decent, entertaining magic trick. I consider the latter a pointless waste of time.

Before going further, am I correct that you consider magic tricks that require virtually no skill from the performer to be a pointless waste of time?

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 09:37 AM

If you can fill an hour and ten minutes of television by making a coin disappear and then reappear when a box is closed and opened, and you do the trick in the first ten minutes and people are still watching an hour later, then the performance as a whole has as much right to be a magic trick as anything.

Kiosk

10th September 2009, 09:55 AM

shuttlt

10th September 2009, 10:04 AM

I would not like to be the T-shirted lackey who put that last ball on the stand so wonkily. Something tells me his employment with Derren Brown Productions may just have been terminated without notice...
Unless it was intentional. There isn't a frame where we can see the ball pop up is there? It doesn't seem to happen in the footage I've seen.

leafman91

10th September 2009, 11:46 AM

I have to agree that I quite like good magic, it can be very entertaining. Which is the whole point. Derren Brown is doing this for the audience. Anyone clued in to what his dayjob is? I think you will find it is making TV series, starring him and magic tricks. In the past he has admitted to Neurolinguistic programming, psychological misdirection, and his tricks have been criticized as mutton dressed up as lamb. Derren Brown is a skeptic and atheist, he isn't 'sharing his magical knowledge', far from it. He is trying to build a new reputation for himself that doesn't include pyschology. Hence, lottery numbers.
So there's the why.

As to how...

The old fraudsters gimmick, 'The Wire' has been suggested several times, but I doubt this- He is a magician. To risk his legal hind and his reputation on a stunt as such would be,frankly, a pretty dumb idea.

Southwind17

10th September 2009, 12:25 PM

No - as I explained in my previous posts - one says he is an entertainer the other claims he is real and makes claims outside his performance e.g. he can heal people with his powers - it really is like comparing apples and pears. One is a magician, the other claims he has magic powers, the two things are not the same so I don't even know why people keep trying to compare the claims made by Geller and Brown.
So you're not prepared to consider the quality of a stunt on its merits, electing to judge it on whether the illusionist is a sincere chap instead. Interesting position.

Ashles

10th September 2009, 12:40 PM

In the past he has admitted to Neurolinguistic programming,

Small point - he hasn't actually claimed to use NLP, although many people assume he has (or have accused him of using it).

He stated this in his book Tricks of the Mind, along with the fact he doesn't actually think much of NLP.

Southwind17

10th September 2009, 12:53 PM

Couple of questions which may, or may not, have some bearing on how Derren pulled off his little illusion.

1) Why is the back of the card he write the numbers on black?

2) When he is writting the numbers (1min 56 secs) it looks like he may be doing something to the back of the card with his left hand.

3) When he goes up and stands behind the balls he is initially holding the card edgewise between the palms of each hand. At 2min 13sec he drops the card from his left hand, it appears to then the briefly touch the right hand ball before he brings his left up under the card and runs his hand underneath until it is in the centre of the card, which he then raises. He then removes his left hand from the card, so he is holding it only with his right, and turns the stand the balls are on with his left.
So, why does he do this? Is he performing some sleight of hand at this point or is more mis-direction to take us off the scent?
Honestly, I think your imagination has a little too much free reign.

I think it's much simpler than that. The numbers were stuck on the balls from behind. He couldn't use a live audience, because the successful angles were too small. The rod with the sticker had to access the balls directly from behind so the balls concealed the operation. Other than that, everything we saw actually happened. Waiting for the last number but not including it in the prediction gave enough time for the stickers to be stuck on in the right order.
Rod with stickers? Sounds very clumsy to me and a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

I would not like to be the T-shirted lackey who put that last ball on the stand so wonkily. Something tells me his employment with Derren Brown Productions may just have been terminated without notice...
The "pop-up" ball issue has troubled me since first spotted. Makes me think - the only way a ball can be raised like that is if they're a very tight fit in the rack. Why would they make the rack such a snug fit? To prevent the balls from moving/rotating easily maybe? This possibly ties in with some form of print process (but not stickers and rod). The actual presentation of the numbers on the balls seems a little odd to me. Not nice bright numbers proportional to the size of the balls, but fairly bland, black, relatively small and all angled upwards slightly. And I think the number "2" printed as "02" seems somehow suspicious. Very "mechanical" presentation it all seems to me. 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. :D

Southwind17

10th September 2009, 12:58 PM

Actually, watching the video again after my last post it seems that the last ball as actually sitting proud because it's being pushed up slightly by something (the printing wheel?). Derren touches and moves each ball slightly, including the last, as if to show that they're all normal balls, but the last ball doesn't settle back down into place, as you might expect.

Southwind17

10th September 2009, 01:04 PM

THAT'S IT! I'm convinced now. If you look very closely (replay it repeatedly) you can see the last ball actually rise up slightly immediately after Derren announces ball number 23, at 2:04.

laca

10th September 2009, 01:53 PM

I've noticed some things I haven't read yet.

1. He seems to side-step something when he's walking over to the balls (around 2:11). What could that be?

2. Why does it say "02" on the "2" ball?

Tapio

10th September 2009, 02:32 PM

So you're not prepared to consider the quality of a stunt on its merits, electing to judge it on whether the illusionist is a sincere chap instead. Interesting position.

It seems to me you're mixing two essentially different things here. Might be wrong, but I'll give it a shot. Do correct me if I'm way off.

One is the fact that most people can and will enjoy a great show regardless of the whys/hows and who was behind it. Another thing completely is evaluating the performer on a more personal level. So I might like some of Geller's stuff 'on stage', but knowing he doesn't admit to them being just tricks and acting as he is, it certainly lessens my respect towards him as a person and artist. The stunt can be of great quality, but if the performer doesn't admit it to be exactly that, a stunt, well...it becomes more like distasteful fraud.

So while Derren Brown and Uri Geller can, in my book, be (clumsily) placed on the same field of entertainment regarding the stuff they perform (well, Derren is mostly light years ahead, but anyway), they most definitely can not be seen as even worth comparing because of the different ways they bring forth aspects of their personality through those performances. You get my drift?

Darat

10th September 2009, 02:35 PM

So you're not prepared to consider the quality of a stunt on its merits, electing to judge it on whether the illusionist is a sincere chap instead. Interesting position.

It might be but it is not the position I have taken.

Agatha

10th September 2009, 02:58 PM

I've noticed some things I haven't read yet.

2. Why does it say "02" on the "2" ball? The lotto balls used in the actual draw have 01, 02 etc for the numbers below 10.

Ambrosia

10th September 2009, 03:09 PM

THAT'S IT! I'm convinced now. If you look very closely (replay it repeatedly) you can see the last ball actually rise up slightly immediately after Derren announces ball number 23, at 2:04.

I can think of several ways to do this - none of which match with whats seen though.

Notice that in the spiel before hand he says that after the meeting with Camelot that the BBC have the rights to announce the results.

i.e. DB goes to Camelot and explans what he wants to do and Camelot say - well as you are predicting nothing and simply cleverly announcing what the result is after the fact, you can't do that cos of "legal reasons"

If the clever printer angle was used then why no studio audience? Such a device would have been able to be watched from all angles, so he'd likely have bussed in an audience to make things look more convincing.

At the start he claims there is only him and 2 cameramen, 1 of those cameramen gets used twice only(!) and what about soundmen or the person whispering into his earpiece when he can turn the TV on?

The trick must involve some method of either marking the balls in the 25secs or so he has after they come out of the machine to when he reveals his balls (ooer missus) - or switching the balls with correctly marked ones after the draw. He also never shows us that whats in the rack at the start of the show are infact balls, they are never touched or examined by anyone prior to the reveal. Tho close analysis of them shows the one at the end jumps, very shortly after some (intentional?) camera wobble, a little.

Other oddities. The back of the card he writes the result on is black, and doesn't look like a real piece of white card. He goes quiet with hand over mouth when the BBC announcer is doing the first announcing bit, after manically talking over the TV pictures up to then. The numbers are pointed upwards, and not at the camera directly and the balls are never moved into a more camera friendly position after the draw by Derren. The brick wall behind shot has a solid black line above the balls, and no other solid black lines anywhere on it of comparable size.

Could be highly trained fleas, I don't think ants would be quick enough to move into position in time - whereas fleas can just jump onto the balls from further away. :)

Guess 1: involves an accomplice hanging above the ball rack attaching numbers to each ball using some low tech means whos hidden behind a mirror/freeze thats lowered into place after the initial "camera2" establishing wideshot, then winched out of the way afterwards. which would mean that a studio audience would rumble it in no time - hence they are not there.

Guess 2: Variation of the split screen freeze camera trick (note that in a trailer you can view on DBs site that presumably aired on C4 tonight he is holding a snowflake, indicating freeze? as in frozen camera, or a "freeze" being lowered down to obscure an accomplice?, or just yet more misdirection) when he is quiet with hand on mouth the whole screen image is frozen he himself runs around to the other side to switch/mark the balls, hence the need for the black line and a dude talking into his ear that positioning is good for him to run back to his place and some slight camera wobble to disguise the fade back into live coverage, also meaning no live audience is possible.

meh, probably fleas :)

Or I could be completely wrong.

Ashles

10th September 2009, 03:37 PM

THAT'S IT! I'm convinced now. If you look very closely (replay it repeatedly) you can see the last ball actually rise up slightly immediately after Derren announces ball number 23, at 2:04.

Yes absoutely. Whatever the trick is it happens at that second.

I just watched it further. The screen 'locks' between the second or two he says '23' and when he says '39'. For those few seconds it does not move, even though the camera has been up till that point moving a little. For those seconds it absolutely locks.

Perhaps somone places a rack on the stand during those few seconds.

If that is how he did it, it is very quick, and it is bloody bold for a live stunt on three channels.

ETA: Rewatching it, it really is a very short period of time, but the camera does 'lock'.

Uncayimmy

10th September 2009, 03:52 PM

Yes absoutely. Whatever the trick is it happens at that second.

I just watched it further. The screen 'locks' between the second or two he says '23' and when he says '39'. For those few seconds it does not move, even though the camera has been up till that point moving a little. For those seconds it absolutely locks.

Perhaps somone places a rack on the stand during those few seconds.

If that is how he did it, it is very quick, and it is bloody bold for a live stunt on three channels.

ETA: Rewatching it, it really is a very short period of time, but the camera does 'lock'.

What do you mean by quick? The only thing a person needed to do was put the balls in an empty rack and move out of the picture when he was done. He could start doing that once the first number was called. There was plenty of time for that. The side of the stage with the rack was filmed in advance. The only thing left to do was switch from split screen to full screen - not terribly difficult so long as you have the shot lined up.

db2431

10th September 2009, 03:54 PM

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

xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=KcMg9LtDH30

Ashles

10th September 2009, 04:16 PM

What do you mean by quick? The only thing a person needed to do was put the balls in an empty rack and move out of the picture when he was done. He could start doing that once the first number was called.

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

10th September 2009, 04:18 PM

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.

Ashles

10th September 2009, 04:37 PM

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

10th September 2009, 04:40 PM

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. :D

I could see that. My only question would be what Ambrosia said:

If the clever printer angle was used then why no studio audience? Such a device would have been able to be watched from all angles, so he'd likely have bussed in an audience to make things look more convincing.

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

10th September 2009, 04:45 PM

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

Ashles

10th September 2009, 04:57 PM

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.

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.

StanBearclaw

10th September 2009, 05:01 PM

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.

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

10th September 2009, 05:05 PM

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...

Uncayimmy

10th September 2009, 05:16 PM

What I noticed was the screen actually 'locking' for the few seconds I described.
That could probably be automated.

Even if they just used that period to swap stands it was pretty damn smooth and bold.
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.