Check out this cool video clip.
http://www.magicvideodepot.com/view.php?a=v&t=4825

Sorry to be a party pooper but the method is too ovious. Just like their appearing care illusion. Its also ovious that the timing has been edited to help hide the method.

Nathan

How do you see it you have to log in

I can assure you that there was no edit involved! its all real time!

Its same effect Copperfield did way back.

If you watch it real slow you can see the bike driving away j/k

My computer was originally playing it jerky so I thought it was edited. Its still a forced persective camera trick. The sound is removed to hide the sounds of the bike driving away.

The method is so ovious but my complaint is not as much that but rather the fact that its just another camera trick. Not edited maybe but a forced perspective and NOBODY who saw it live would be fooled. that's not magic.

Maybe it should be submitted to a filmmaking forum instead ?

For all those who are going to chime in to defend camera tricks I ask " what would magic be like if we all spent our time with camera tricks and not performance?" We'd all be virtual magicians wouldn't we ?

Nathan

Gary Ouellet had, I think, the best stance on performing magic for the camera. In theaters, things can hide behind curtains, etc... the performer can use wings, curtains, and angles to hide whatever need be. That is the proscenium. For TV, the camera decides the proscenium. The performer can use the perspective of the camera to hide what he needs to, etc. I don't think its wrong; Just a different performance medium.

I was waiting for someone to make that point.

In the theater we use wings and such to create illusion for a live performance to a live audience.

Pre-recorded filmaking is not magic. If it is then Yoda ( he levitated a space ship ) is a better magician than David Copperfield and Christopher Reeve can fly better. Oh and Samathan from Bewitched ...well ..she tops them all. She did every type of magic.

Oh...and don't forget what great singers Millie Vinili ( sp?) were.


Nathan

If you look on there, theres one with the car I know magic and I know that's camer casuse theres no why he could of done that
Kyle

All those things are video effects. So what if someone uses the camera to their advantage? It is no different than what someone does live. A live performer knows that the audience will see certain angles and he uses that to his advantage. Also, some things have to be done differently for the camera or else it won't have the desired effect.

Video effects ? Isn't that just another type of camera trick.......just like forced perspective ? If forced perspective is ok then so are other camera tricks. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Your argument comparing the 0 degree variance of angle that a camera gives you to a live magician working with the wide variety of angles found in an audience is silly.

Lets test your theory..... If a live performer uses BA, lighting or some other method to hide a string then its ok for a camera performer to erase a string or cable digitally from the video image ? Isn't that just different methods of hiding something ? Your arguement says that if the performer can make it so the audience won't see it on stage then its ok to use the camera to make sure that the audience won't see it either .

I love it when magicians have to explain to a client who requests an effect they saw on video that they can't really do it. Lets see how well your " its the same thing" theory flys with the client.

Nathan

Well DC uses camera perspective illusions too! canish the train, statue of liberty, across the grand canyon. He used perspective to an astonishing degree when he emerged thru the steal plate after the building imploded.

You aren't calling my ideas silly, but Gary Ouellet's. I never said editing was okay, simply using the proscenium of the camera. The guy who did this motorcycle thing didn't edit afterwards, he played to his medium... the camera. I agree to disagree, done posting on this thread.

We as creative minds must take advantage of any and all advantages the stage, we are currently on, may hold for us. This includes off-camera assistance/assistants.

There are box type illusions that use forced perspective, without a camera present, just becuase you use a technique in front of a camera, to accomplish a trick, does not make it a camera trick. The definition of a camera trick (in my mind) is any trick that would appear differently if a person was substituted for the camera, and moved exactly as the camera moved. Forced perspective works so long as the person stays where the camera is. Is this cheating? No, it is smart. How do most people get rich? They take advantage of every little oppurtunity that comes their way. Likewise, we must take advantage of every oppurtunity that our performing circumstances allow us, in order to create a truly successful effect.

And come on guys, how many times must we have this debate?

Nick Fox

Hi Magic 559,

Agree to disagree ? You took the words out of my mouth exactly. I realized I had trapped myself into this endless debate right after I posted. I came home an logged on to post an " agree to disagree " line and you beat me to it!!!!

Sorry if I got a little hot there. If I have one more client ask me to Levitate with both feet a foot off the ground in his living room like " that david blaine guy does " I'm gonna scream!

Nathan

The debate is cool - it brings to light things you never thought off- and that's a learning experience.

I believe if an illusion can be pulled off live as it can on t.V then its viable.

blatant cheating like editing work is unacceptable

If it is forced perspective, then I am dissapointed. I thought it was something more to it. So, it ends up being so simple.