Yeah. I really don't see where all the gripes were coming from with this effect. Josh has created a winner, in my book.

I love this trick! Total ease of handling.

It has always worked beautifully for me, too. Smooth as butter. Slick as lightning. And for those who say the gimmick wears out, mine is fresh as new. A little care goes a long way.

This effect is awesome. Just wondering if anyone has had the deck spread and had the gaff separate revealing the specs card? Spreading the cards is the only part that make me nervous because of this . . .

Even if the gaff spreads, they won't see anything, just card backs. Just square everything up. Does that make sense?

Yes, thanks Cameron! I think my problem was that I was spreading the cards face up. I watched Joshua do it again on the demo tonight and realized this. Other than this issue, I've had no problems with this effect. Nice job JJ!

Coming late to these posts - which I've enjoyed reading - I'd like to take up the issue, raised several times, concerning favourable camera angles on the Transporter demo. Paul Richards, of Elmnwood Magic, made the point that you would not show a camera angle that favoured the palm of a magician's hand when palming a card, and he's right, but this misses the point. Yes, camera angles are very important in demos, but just as important - and in this case more important, is the editing. I will not be buying Transporter because, at the crucial point, the camera cuts away and confuses the most important part of the action. Let me explain; at approx 1.35 on the demo the all important close-up of the dummy card in wallet is revealed. We then cut away to a reaction of the spectators (at approx 1.36) and when we cut back to the wallet close-up, (approx 1.38) the switch has been made or is in the process of being finished.

So the switch has happened *across the edit* i.e across one shot ending and another beginning. This has the effect of helping to hide the magician's move.

To be frank, this is quite common in magic demos and whereas one can attempt to justify it creatively by saying moody lighting, the venue atmosphere or misdirection could achieve similar results, it's a little naughty because you can bet the video editor and director of the demo know exactly why they have placed the cut at that exact juncture, (and before anyone chimes in - yes *dramatically* it's exactly the right place for the cut - the wallet is opened, the card is 'revealed' - it's only natural to want to see the spectator's reaction), but video demos should weigh dramatic editing against playing fair with their buying public and - with apologies to Josh, who I think is a really talented performer - that video cut at that juncture does him no favours. Especially as, given his talents, I'm sure he doesn't need it.

There's lots more that can be said about the pros and cons of video demos. It's changed the way we assess the craft and, in the main, has been a huge shot in the arm for magic. My purchasing has increased dramatically over recent years because of it, but there are pitfalls. Advantageous editing is one, and used cynically, (not the case here I'm sure), can badly mislead. The best demos are the single shot see-it all-before-your-eyes type, which remain blissfully edit free. I'm always ready to part with my cash following these demos. And there's always a middle road; let's be given a choice. If the video producers really want to lay on repetitive oohs and aahs of astonished onlookers, (and let's be frank, some demos really go overboard), then somewhere in the mix, why not give us a clean version? Far from damaging the effect I'm betting sales would increase.

Your not missing anything. The move is very easy. I do it slightly different than taught on the video but there's really nothing to it.

Pete B - I am not suggesting you should buy this, but in fairness, I think the demo lets you know what the spectator will see and this is pretty true in real life performance. However you cannot misdirect a camera, nor can you create that offbeat moment. There is no real angle issues and in the grand scheme of magic demos, this one is honest. I also think you need to consider that the method does need to be protected for the sake of the creator, meaning it is not always possible to show the dirty work in its entirety. I personally think the internet age would be disasterous for magicicians if it weren't for sites like this one where woefully dishonest marketing is quickly highlited and on the whole keeps creators on the right track.

In response to Cameron Francis. Thanks. Although not the focus of my post, it's reassuring to know that the move is easy. As for missing anything. Yes, one does, both in the camera angle (at 1.36) and in the edit, as explained above.

In response to Paul S Wingham; you make some very fair points, especially the one about protecting the method. It could be that holding a continuous shot looking directly at the wallet at the point of the switch, would, in these days of frame by frame playback, be too revealing and therefore open to abuse. However, that's what a percentage of eagle-eyed spectators are going to do when the trick is performed in real situations. Sure there will be those that look to each other in amazement, or momentarily at the performer, giving him or her that all-helpful off-beat, but, on occasions, there will be an unblinking spectator who's eyes are glued to the wallet, and the performer must find a way of coping with this - be it a small body move or perhaps a moment when the hand obscures the switch? Whatever, (without owning Transporter I can only surmise), and I wonder if this (or similar) would be a better alternative than 'obscuring' the moment with an edit.

I realise it's a difficult call, however my money is always on keeping any shooting or production artifice out of magic whenever possible.

"You vait a veek," -Max Malini. If that doesn't work, completely fooling everyone but one person in an audience is a gamble I would take.

Poor choice of wording, I suppose. What I meant by "you're not missing anything" is that the "move" happens in the wallet. In other words, the spectators don't see anything except your fingers reaching into the wallet. You then pull out the card.

I just watched the video. The angle is over his shoulder. It cuts to a wide shot as he removes the card. In the wide shot, you still see the wallet, btw. So you're saying you'd rather the camera stay on the moment when he does the move? That would expose the method! I really don't understand what the issue is. The effect looks like how it would from the spectator's point of view. Granted, Josh's handling in the video is bold as he angles the opening toward the specs and waits for the off beat to remove the card. I angle the base of the wallet toward the specs when I do it so they can't see inside as I am removing the card. But the demo is very honest.

Douglas is completely right (and a great Malini quote!) It's worth pointing out that I am specifically addressing aspects of video production and not live performance.

In response to Cameron, who says "... the spectators don't see anything except your fingers reaching into the wallet", but then says, "you're saying you'd rather the camera stay on the moment when he does the move? That would expose the method!" In response, (and leaving aside that these two statements appear contradictory), yes, if your first comment is correct, I would rather hold an uninterrupted shot on the magician as he puts his hand in the wallet AND withdraws it. However, if your second comment is correct, then no, you are right, another way of demonstrating the trick would need to be found.

I've probably exhausted my comments on this topic. To sum up: it looks like a great trick and I'm a big fan of Joshua Jay, (I'm currently learning his bluff shift pass and would heartily recommend his $10 download. I'm also looking forward to viewing his three disc set, 'JJ Talks About Tricks' just arrived from L&Lpub). So I've lots of time for the man and will be making many future purchases. That said, of all the places to place a video edit in Transporter, across the 'switch' has to be, well ... a lot less than ideal. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last, but as previously mentioned, I prefer it if shooting or production artifice is kept out of magic whenever possible.

Pete, I see what you're saying. The issue is that the spectator cannot see your fingers once they are in the wallet. Therefore, the camera cannot stay on that image.

It's not contradictory, really. You show the card. Then angle the wallet as you reach in with your fingers to remove the card. To look inside the wallet at that moment would expose the method. The switch happens in the wallet. Hope that clears it up.

I think they did the best they could with the video. It's a very accurate representation of how the tricks looks from a spectator's point of view. There are demos which show much less. At least in the "edit" you still see Josh and the wallet. And the performance is in real time. They are just cutting from one angle to another. Not from one performance to another.

I will say this, the method is terrific and while the trick isn't "self working", it's really, really close.

This is a fantastic effect. It is quite easy to perform and with any effect the more you practice the easier it becomes. If you can do Scotch and Soda you can do this with the same "wow" response from your audience.


Good magic to all,


Eric

Cameron; I'm afraid we will have to differ on this. You are responding to my comments on the basis of Performance, whereas all my comments are addressing the fairness and representation of how that performance was Captured on video for the demo. There's a thousand ways you can skin this particular cat, but the bottom line is that a picture edit right at the point of the switch is best avoided. Ask anyone making this kind of demo and they will tell you the same - ask Joshua - if he could have showed you that moment, unblinking, in front of your eyes, you can bet he'd want to. Anybody would. Whether the cut itself was a contrivance or not is up for debate. Whether the makers of the demo preferred the audience reaction over holding on the 'money' so to speak, or it was necessary to cover that moment with the cut, is all up for debate, and without seeing the original footage or knowing the makers intentions, that's probably how it will stay. However, as mentioned, it's my belief that a performance route to showing a fair video representation of one's work is the better route to take, rather than relying on advantageous cutting and overly sympathetic angles. And without wishing to bludgeon this small (and somewhat technical) point home. A change of shot just as you 'pull the rabbit from the hat' is always best avoided.

I think this topic has been exausted now and is just going over the same thing again and again. There are many many dvd's and video clips that are far more decieving than this one. It would be good to move on !!!!

Not to fan the flames...but I actually wrote about this topic on our blog back in August 2009. Since I'm the producer of Transporter, you might find it interesting:

http://blog.elmwoodmagic.com/content/buggles-were-something

Paul - thanks for the link. Very interesting. I can understand how tough it is to produce a good demo while retaining the secret. Rowland; you are absolutely right on both counts. Let's move on.

Video or no video this effect is very nice. ALL the moves are natural and done for a reason so there is no suspicion associated with them. You guys will really like this if you give it a chance.


Good magic to all,


Eric