The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » CHANGE over @ Ellusionist (275 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14..19..23..27..31..33~34~35 [Next]
Jack Straw
View Profile
Special user
Wichita
870 Posts

Profile of Jack Straw
I don't see it as being gullible. I see it as being lied to. There's a difference.
Jack Straw from Wichita, cut his buddy down
And dug for him a shallow grave, and laid his body down
Half a mile from Tucson, by the morning light
One man gone and another to go, my old buddy you're moving much too slow
We can share the women, we can share the wine
robwar0100
View Profile
Inner circle
Buy me some newspapers.Purchase for me 1 Gazette and
1748 Posts

Profile of robwar0100
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Merenkov wrote:
This thread should receive a sticky. It’s got everything: the over-hyped product; the perfectly filmed video trailer; the dreamy, defensive early adopters; the quick “sell-out”; the immediate second batch of product (to ease the pain of those who missed out on the first batch); the slight delays; and the inevitable, crushing disappointment. It’s perfect, lol…

Love this!

Bobby
"My definition of chance is my hands on the wheel," Greg Long.
Calvin826
View Profile
Elite user
422 Posts

Profile of Calvin826
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2015, Magic.Maddy wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2015, Magic.Maddy wrote:. This is the kind of visual madness people would expect REAL magic to look like. I'm pumped about it still despite the various extremely negative comments that don't seem to be backed up with anything of substance.


Respectfully Maddy, restrictions on exposure in this forum may be the reason for lack of substance, as you put it. Let me put it this way....
Assuming that this is achieved with LP techniques(most likely), the 'visual madness' that you speak of exists only in the demo, because:

A. No way the gimmicks look anything close to natural/normal.

B. The visual madness would only be apparent to those viewing from a very particular angle. Better be prepared to hold the card frozen in the vertical, slightly backward tilted position until everyone walks away. Putting it back on the deck, or handling the card casually might cause the 'change' to reverse itself.

C. As I recall, they don't show the get ready for the headphone trick. Most likely because it involves an extremely awkward and unnatural bit of fiddling. And if you don't think that people would insist on examining the gimmick, well what can I say. Good luck with that.

Again, all this conjecture on my part, as I do not own this item. If I'm wrong, perhaps somebody who knows better will set me straight.



Nope! The lack of substance I'm referring to are your comments clearly knocking a product which hasn't even been shipped yet.

A. There is absolutely a way the gimmicks look normal. Just as normal as they do on video. I am not at all concerned with the "normality" of the gimmicks.

B. I understand their may be restrictions with angles. I'm totally okay with that. To me the visual is worth the slight audience management which is necessary. I have complete faith that Lloyd has thought about how to clean up, I can easily think of ways that would not cause the change to 'reverse' itself. It's sad if you can't.

C. They practically show the get ready for the headphones. If you pay attention, you can see exactly how the setup would or could be achieved. In the action of going from an eye level position to a waist level position, the move could be done. What makes you think it would be awkward, unnatural and fiddly?

I'm aware people will want to examine the gimmicks just like how they want to examine almost every gimmick I own... It's the ability to give them the gimmick to examine. With a simple switch, everything can be examined which will add to the mystery.


I'm pretty sure I know what I'm getting with this. I'm prepared to have the right angle and I'm prepared to switch the gimmicks. I'm excited about getting this. If it's what I think it is, great! If it isn't, great! I will find a place for it.

The only way this could be a problem is if the gimmicks are just awful and I don't expect that to be the case with Ellusionist or Lloyd.

Again, I'm still not understanding the negativity.


Care to weigh in on this again Maddy?
taller8
View Profile
Inner circle
Olympia, Washington
1078 Posts

Profile of taller8
I'll wait for a few more opinions.
robd
View Profile
Loyal user
250 Posts

Profile of robd
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Merenkov wrote:
This thread should receive a sticky. It’s got everything: the over-hyped product; the perfectly filmed video trailer; the dreamy, defensive early adopters; the quick “sell-out”; the immediate second batch of product (to ease the pain of those who missed out on the first batch); the slight delays; and the inevitable, crushing disappointment. It’s perfect, lol…


Best post on the thread, right here.
Magic.Maddy
View Profile
Inner circle
1861 Posts

Profile of Magic.Maddy
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2015, Magic.Maddy wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 27, 2015, Magic.Maddy wrote:. This is the kind of visual madness people would expect REAL magic to look like. I'm pumped about it still despite the various extremely negative comments that don't seem to be backed up with anything of substance.


Respectfully Maddy, restrictions on exposure in this forum may be the reason for lack of substance, as you put it. Let me put it this way....
Assuming that this is achieved with LP techniques(most likely), the 'visual madness' that you speak of exists only in the demo, because:

A. No way the gimmicks look anything close to natural/normal.

B. The visual madness would only be apparent to those viewing from a very particular angle. Better be prepared to hold the card frozen in the vertical, slightly backward tilted position until everyone walks away. Putting it back on the deck, or handling the card casually might cause the 'change' to reverse itself.

C. As I recall, they don't show the get ready for the headphone trick. Most likely because it involves an extremely awkward and unnatural bit of fiddling. And if you don't think that people would insist on examining the gimmick, well what can I say. Good luck with that.

Again, all this conjecture on my part, as I do not own this item. If I'm wrong, perhaps somebody who knows better will set me straight.



Nope! The lack of substance I'm referring to are your comments clearly knocking a product which hasn't even been shipped yet.

A. There is absolutely a way the gimmicks look normal. Just as normal as they do on video. I am not at all concerned with the "normality" of the gimmicks.

B. I understand their may be restrictions with angles. I'm totally okay with that. To me the visual is worth the slight audience management which is necessary. I have complete faith that Lloyd has thought about how to clean up, I can easily think of ways that would not cause the change to 'reverse' itself. It's sad if you can't.

C. They practically show the get ready for the headphones. If you pay attention, you can see exactly how the setup would or could be achieved. In the action of going from an eye level position to a waist level position, the move could be done. What makes you think it would be awkward, unnatural and fiddly?

I'm aware people will want to examine the gimmicks just like how they want to examine almost every gimmick I own... It's the ability to give them the gimmick to examine. With a simple switch, everything can be examined which will add to the mystery.


I'm pretty sure I know what I'm getting with this. I'm prepared to have the right angle and I'm prepared to switch the gimmicks. I'm excited about getting this. If it's what I think it is, great! If it isn't, great! I will find a place for it.

The only way this could be a problem is if the gimmicks are just awful and I don't expect that to be the case with Ellusionist or Lloyd.

Again, I'm still not understanding the negativity.


Care to weigh in on this again Maddy?


Of course I'll weigh in again once I receive the product. My estimated arrival date is Monday.
Robmonster
View Profile
Elite user
455 Posts

Profile of Robmonster
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:

Care to weigh in on this again Maddy?


What exactly are you hoping for? I doubt Maddy has even received her copy yet.
Magic.Maddy
View Profile
Inner circle
1861 Posts

Profile of Magic.Maddy
Quote:
On Jul 2, 2015, Robmonster wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:

Care to weigh in on this again Maddy?


What exactly are you hoping for? I doubt Maddy has even received her copy yet.


*clears throat* HIS *Cough Cough*
Robmonster
View Profile
Elite user
455 Posts

Profile of Robmonster
Sorry! I know a few Maddy's, all female.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
My dad's name was Courtney.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Calvin826
View Profile
Elite user
422 Posts

Profile of Calvin826
Quote:
On Jul 2, 2015, Robmonster wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:

Care to weigh in on this again Maddy?


What exactly are you hoping for? I doubt Maddy has even received her copy yet.


Eh- I actually regret posting that. I was rereading the thread, and felt that Maddy's reply to my original post(which,according to Mr. Chessmann, was spot on) was a bit petulant. Having just got back from a business function with a few drinks in me, I thought it would be fun to break b&*@s a little.

Apologies, sir- though I stand behind my original posts.
robwar0100
View Profile
Inner circle
Buy me some newspapers.Purchase for me 1 Gazette and
1748 Posts

Profile of robwar0100
I received an email the other day from Ellusionist telling me the effect was sold out. I was hoping I was going to get my money back because of the negative reaction here.

However, today I received another email from Ellusionist informing the package has been shipped.

When I purchased Change I did so with the same mindset used when purchasing stocks: Don't buy them unless you are willing to lose the entire investment.

Let's hope it is better than I think it is.

Bobby
"My definition of chance is my hands on the wheel," Greg Long.
mantel
View Profile
Special user
519 Posts

Profile of mantel
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Dougini wrote:
They got me with "Fraud", "KAOS" and "Sinful" and I will never regret those purchases!

I don't hate them at all. I just do thorough research before buying most things like this.

Doug


While heavily marketed through the site Sinful isn't an Ellusionist product.

Also I would like to thank Ellusionist for entertaining me with the hype for the past two weeks. But its not like it there new thing. They've always done it. Even going as far as boasting they didn't creatively edit the Greek Switch trailer. As they have creatively edited trailers for some of their past products.
taller8
View Profile
Inner circle
Olympia, Washington
1078 Posts

Profile of taller8
I don't care about hype, but I do care about an honest promo video, since that is what I base my purchasing desicion on.

I guess I'll just have to stick with more reputable dealers and creators, but it seems that list is getting smaller and smaller.
scott0819
View Profile
Special user
Toronto, Ont.
753 Posts

Profile of scott0819
Unless the gimmicks don't work as advertised, I don't really see what is deceptive or misleading about the promo video? Sure there are no live performances shown in the promo but there are tons of effects out there that don't show that. The effects themselves are shown as plainly as possible with only one cut. Am I missing something?

Are there live performances on the instructional DVD?
Slackerking
View Profile
Special user
612 Posts

Profile of Slackerking
As usual, so much whining. As with all the other "evil empire" companies, I've rarely been burned by Ellusionist products even with their fancy modern trailers and extravagant advertising prose that confuses people so easily around here. No wait, I've never been burned by them or by Lloyd Barnes whose work is always clever and rarely less than interesting. At $6 a gimmick it's worth the gamble to me. Unless they're just terribly made (highly unlikely from Ellusionist), it's quite obvious what they are. Maybe the tech won't be functional in the real world, worth it to me to find out.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On Jul 2, 2015, scott0819 wrote:
Unless the gimmicks don't work as advertised, I don't really see what is deceptive or misleading about the promo video? Sure there are no live performances shown in the promo but there are tons of effects out there that don't show that. The effects themselves are shown as plainly as possible with only one cut. Am I missing something?

Are there live performances on the instructional DVD?


There are no live performances on the instructional tutorial.

Let me address a couple of issues re: "unless the gimmicks don't work as advertised". Yes, they *accomplish* the things you see in the video. However:

There are very serious lighting/reflection/angle/spectator height considerations (if you haven't read some of the tests I did with the cards, please do).

Let's use the transposing angels as one example. The images are so very sensitive to change that it would be incredibly difficult to find a "starting position" for the effect. Do you want to have the spectator (as in the trailer) first see 1 circle with an angel and the other circle without on angel, and then have that angel move to the other circle? This would be extremely difficult to control, not just because angles must be perfect, but also because angle adjustment will be different with each individual based on spectator height, and you must know that angle for each person (and accounting for angles is MUCH different with this set of effects than with most effects, as we know them)....let alone trying to perform when some are sitting and some are standing. The spec is just as likely to see "half angels" in each circle. This is likely why the effect is taught in the instructional video with no starting point and no ending point as we see in the trailer - it is virtually impossible to have them, even for a single spectator. Lloyd simply produces the card and does the necessary a few times, showing the angels moving back and forth (which, to me, gives away the game) and then puts the card in the deck. Virtually the same thing happens with the Color Changing Card, and for similar reasons (see the tests I did of it and other cards, above). I remember as I watched the video instruction, thinking, "Is this really the best Ellusionist has come up with re: effects for the angels and cc card? Just do the necessary with the card, showing a back-and-forth change, and then sw***h the card?" But it makes sense.

So, you cannot really do this effect as it is on the trailer (on video, YES!).

I looked at the Color Changing Card in a room with multiple lights, holding the card the same distance and angle from my face, and got the angle where I wanted it. I moved a few feet and the card took on a blackish appearance (see further tests, above on this page). Also (moving to 'better' light), only a very small movement caused the card to change from blue to red. For this reason, it is very difficult to have any certainty that a) the spec will be seeing fully blue or fully red at any time; they may see it half blue and half red. This is why, again, that the effect taught for this on the instructional tutorial is simply to make the card change back and forth a few times and then sw***h it out....

Now, I feel that I *can* produce the cc card, hold it 1 foot from someone's face and get it at the correct angle for them to see a single color, and then have it change fully to another color. This is doable. However, it can become very problematic with more distance. I just tried doing the above, holding the cards as far out away from me as I could (about 3 feet), and in 3 different rooms. It was difficult to get a complete transition from blue to red. It was more blue to blue with somewhat of a reddish tint. I tried various angles from the lighting, and did get a decent change, but also had light and reflection difficulties. You can't overstep your action with the card, either, or you'll give the game away.

I can be in the same room with the same lighting and see the card as normal, as reflecting light oddly, and as a Crackerjack toy. Management is very problematic, and involves multiple factors. Managing light/reflection with IET is SIMPLE compared to this set, IMHO.

Angle considerations and spectator positioning are nothing new to magic, but to me, this set takes them to an entirely new level. Then you add the lighting considerations.

So, can the cards do the effects as shown in the trailer? Yes, they can. Can the cards appear normal? Yes, they can. Would I rely on these cards to do these same effects as in the trailer, and look appropriate while doing so? Sometimes meh, sometimes no, sometimes not just no but HECK no. There are so many variables and sabotage points.

I sound like I ordered Forrest Gump's box of chocolates.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Ray Chelt
View Profile
Inner circle
Changing the world with my
1278 Posts

Profile of Ray Chelt
Quote:
On Jul 2, 2015, Robert M wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2015, Calvin826 wrote:
Conventional wisdom suggests that Magicians would be the hardest to fool. From what I can see, that's hardly the case. I think it's because those of us who are attracted to this particular endeavor are prone to fanciful senses of wonder, and are much more susceptible to the Grand Marketer's Pitch.


Truer words were never spoken. I've said it before... magicians are the most gullible people in the world - myself included sometimes.

Robert


The thing is that I'm not sure whether it's gullibility or wishful thinking.

Even when an item first gets mentioned on these forums some of the questions asked make me wonder whether people are looking for real magic.

In fact I tend to know or have a good idea how a trick is done before I buy it. If you go into these things blind and hopeful you're going to get burned.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
This sounded a bit muddled, so I'll re-word it.


"So, can the cards accomplish the things shown in the trailer? Yes, they can. Would I rely on these cards to do these same effects as in the trailer, live and in-person? Sometimes meh, sometimes no, sometimes not just no but HECK no. There are so many variables and sabotage points."
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
scott0819
View Profile
Special user
Toronto, Ont.
753 Posts

Profile of scott0819
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2015, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

These are 100% real world practical. We have live performances videos coming over the next coming weeks. We held back because the main video speaks for itself and this is what your audience will and does see. These can be performed from a multitude of practical angles and everything is explained from myself and Daniel Madison in the explanation videos in great detail.

Quite simply; My creation would not be on the market if I did not perform it for real people and get incredible reactions For me, to release magic which is impractical is totally pointless. I leave that sort of business to other companies.


If there is some doubt circling about the practicality of these effects, now's the time to release those live performance videos.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » CHANGE over @ Ellusionist (275 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14..19..23..27..31..33~34~35 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL