Hi Everyone,

Here's a recent video of a "performance" of Quantum Mechanics from Jim Steinmeyer's brilliant book on Illusion-- Technique and Understanding. I placed "performance" in quotes because this video was designed to showcase the illusion (which I had never before seen in completion) and principle involved, but the routine I use on stage is ENTIRELY different. I think some of Steinmeyer's best designs require a live performance thanks to the psychological presentational elements that make the effect seem flawless in front of a viewing audience. Unfortunately (and by that I mean HIGHLY FORTUNATELY for an art meant to be seen live) these performances would not stand up to the continual youtube scrutiny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMMeLnl_gro

Incidentally, when I perform this live, I use it as a follow up to Modern Art (which is suggested in the video) as an "explanation" for how magician's saw people in half. The joke is that rather than sawing someone through a person--a.k.a. committing a crime-- all you really need is an assistant who can make part of her body disappear, then pass the blade through the empty space. I then talk my way through the effect using mostly Steinmeyer's original script.

There were some components of the design as it is presented in the book that did not work on stage, but after a few minor adjustments and re-routining, this illusion is a treat to perform and I stand behind it (pun intended) 100%. Angles are a problem, but can be fixed in a live performance with routining and lighting.

Would love thoughts on the video specifically if folks think certain parts need to be refilmed to prevent certain questions from being asked... people who watch it closely and know the method will know what I mean.

Cheers!

Thanks for the share!

B

Beautiful illusion. I don't know how it's done. But if I were to modify it, I would do something with the feet. You know what I mean.

Im my sincere opinion the Quantum Mechanics is strong effect in audience and is one of my favorite effects. I have the book Technique & Understanding also and I loved to read it.

But, see this illusion performed strengthened my belief, it is really spectacular and very deceptive indeed.

AEvens, yes, liked very much to see this wonderful effect performed by you.

It was you that built it?

Falconer

Posted: Aug 27, 2011 8:20pm
I forgot to say that in the plans of Mr. Jim Steinmeyer the sides is not problem because they are covered, I did not understand your point!

Falconer

Posted: Aug 27, 2011 8:27pm
And Lou Hilario have reason about the feet. But, is something easy to achieve with current technology!

Falconer

I would not worry about the feet, as long as the head does not move much either. For costuming I would add a little something "fuller" around the neck, a scarf or something (you know why).

Personally I have never liked all the "real" movement of body parts in some of the newer illusions.

B

Yes, I do built all my illusions myself... This was by far the most challenging, but quite fun to play with such a wonderful concept. As for the sightline issues, the sides are closed... Although there is an inherent problem associated with the method when viewed from any angle other than straight on. I was unaware of this until we finished construction, but it can be essentially corrected with proper staging.

With regards to the feet, they are significantly less suspicious with the full routine

Generally quite pleasing although there is a bit of 'distortion' at the apparent hip line starting at 1:36, when the performer squats slightly.
This would be less of a problem depending on each performers unique physiognomy.
If you want to make video adjustments in a re-filming...here is where I would give a bit of attention.
Best of luck
JNeal

You have built a great illusion, also checkout Topas on youtube, he also does some unique presentations with this method of madness. check out his girl from Foam, and his speaker production as well, this is a great technique, and has tons of possibilities, I love JS book, very creative. Thanks for sharing your work with us.

AEvans, thank you so much for sharing this. It really is a fantastic principle Jim has conceived.

Nice job with the video of the effect. When you said there are angle problems, does that mean viewing from sides and not perfectly center like the camera angle? Does that make the illusion difficult to perform in a normal theater setting?

I believe the effect works best facing dead-on and would be ideal in a side-show setting where focus is controlled tightly.

Thoughts?

Very cool .. nice job! Now I've got to dig out that book again and take a closer look.

Thanks for sharing!

S

Well well done !
Thanks

Great principle... To be expected of Mr. Steinmeyer...

However, imho it is being underused if that is what it is being used for.

Andrew, congratulations on your new build.
I was waiting to see this ever since it was published. Great job!!
On your video we never get to see the full body of the assistant, and also never see her enter or exit the box. I think these elements are important.
On the angle issues, what happens if you watch the illusion from a high or low angle? I assume there must be a limit to the see-through.
Cheers!
RR

Congratulations for your work, AEvans!!!

Nice building of a really difficult illusion. Good job!

For your question, yes, I think certain parts need to be refilmed to prevent you know what. It's a really strong effect, but there are slight discrepancies that can weaken it, specially if it can be watched again and again, you know what I mean... Again, the principle evolved is such a strong one, I think you tend to "overuse" it. I don't want to give detaills in an open forum, but I've found that it's better using it more casually, it's not necesary recreating in it so many times. It works alone, it's not necesary drawing attention on it, even it can not be seen, could be suspicious(I think you know what I mean) I think Steinmeyer has given to the magic comunity such a new and brilliant principle that we should do an special effort to protect it.


When I bought "Technique&U" I inmediatelly fell in love with this principle. I I've been using it for one illusion from about two years ago. I'm very familiar with it. I think I know exactly what problem you have when it's viewed from any angle other than straight on. I had that problem too, and after a bit of tryal I fixed it, mine can be viewed almost any angle. If you want to talk about it, please PM me.

Greetings

Excellent build AEvans! As others have said, it's nice to see this amazing principal put into play- very brave of you to share and ask for feedback, it's appreciated.

As for tweaks, honestly I imediately noticed what Blair shared above (good advice Blair!); unfortunately this position gives the whole illusion away, putting the heat right where she's hot leaving only the science of "but how?" to be guessed at. Everyone knows where she is but they just don't see how (yet). Which brings me to the second tweak...

I agree with what Sorcerer suggested; not to "overuse" the the technique. I know it's fun to exploit and play with but IMO anymore than twice allows the spectator to make more critical optical judgements.

With only a couple tweaks this could be one of the most baffling illusions of our time

I completely agree with all the thoughts, ESPECIALLY the overusing comment. In actual performance, I step behind three times, at very strategic times, that seem necessary in the scope of the routine. This is plenty!

The neck issue is slightly more complex. I use her long hair to cover the "neck plunge" (as I call it), but, regardless of whether or not you see that, the head never quite looks "reclined" without something else being compromised. The full routine helps this when you actually see her whole body on the table without boxes, but that was not something I wanted to put on youtube for fear of people having the opportunity to truly compare the covered/uncovered positions. (Rolf Reiner, this is why those parts were omitted, but I completely agree they are incredibly important when actually staging the effect)

Incidentally, to use a little magic theory, this was the main reason for using the Modern Art Clip first--conditioning. Video audience sees girl already in box, then cut in half, frame of black with text, then the full reveal with Modern Art doors open. The Quantum Mechanic section of the video then parallels this editing: girl in box, shadow section, frame of black with text, then full reveal. My hope was that construction simply becomes a convention of the video so people don't ask "why don't we see her getting in and out..." But I know it would be stronger the other. Sigh. Youtube.

Thanks again for all the feedback, I think we'll take the video down soon to do some reshooting then put a new version back on line leaving a little more mystery rather than highlighting the principle.

Posted: Aug 28, 2011 3:03pm
Oh, and just to clarify, I believe Topas is using a slightly different principle: the one discussed just before Quantum Mechanics in Steinmeyer's book. Although I think his Foam Illusion is a brilliant solution which disguises the "wedge" principle as the "slot." This would help the angle issues alot!

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Andrew, you could also take advantage of the previous concept in the book and rebuild your container to produce the effect of cutting out the middle section of your assistant. The idea of having living hands and feet, but no head, showing from the box is interesting and might provide a stronger effect than the one you have now, and without the drawbacks mentioned above.
Get some cardboard and give it a try... I would if I had the base! This has to look great.
RR

Thanks for the video link. This is an excellent illusion. I've seen already Topas version of this effect technique. Yours looks great aswell.

Oliver.

The wonderful principle of "The Optical Slot Table" can be applied an Asrah table or used in one table to vanish or for a production, or applied in stair like wrote Mr. Jim Steinmeyer in "TECHNIQUE & UNDERSTANDING".

In my opinion, this principle has so much potential!

Falconer