First, you might rather enjoy this amzing 18 Gb photo that allows you to zoom in and in and in and in etc. It is here.
Second, this video is really great – no edits, no CGI…..
Any thoughts on how it is done?
Advertisement
First, you might rather enjoy this amzing 18 Gb photo that allows you to zoom in and in and in and in etc. It is here.
Second, this video is really great – no edits, no CGI…..
Any thoughts on how it is done?
December 22, 2009 at 6:48 am |
My guess:
Twin brother, hole in the ground behind the bottle, heavier than air compound that turns into white smoke upon contact with the stuff in the fire extinguisher.
December 22, 2009 at 6:51 am |
No clue how he disappear in that smoke cloud, but it’s pretty easy to see where they make the switch in the end.
December 22, 2009 at 6:55 am |
Another bait and switch as with the last time with well placed hills that cannot be seen by the camera. Two people, the first who does the intro, second at a distance who sprays the fire extinguisher. First guy drops down behind the hill as he’s concealed by the extinguisher.
As the second guy in the mask and raincoat slowly walks up the first guy puts on the same gear then comes up from an off-camera position.
As the second guy gets to the camera he slows down and holds the bottle from the top so that you can only see it not him, the first (now in the same clothes and caught up) then grabs the bottle from the bottom and finishes off the trick.
December 22, 2009 at 6:57 am
So he’s concealed by the extinguisher? I really must learn to proofread my posts. I have no idea how that got in there. He’s concealed by the hill and heads off to the side under the cover of the hill.
December 22, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Bastard Sheep is absolutely correct.
I’m an old-school large-scale illusion designer. And I have to say I’m not at all impressed with the wave of “street magicians” that have been showing up since David Blaine started making it popular.
We have a set of standards to which we can call something a “camera trick” and this illusion falls into that category, although no magician would ever want to admit it to the public.
The illusion here is NOT the trick itself, rather it’s getting the camera angles correct and having a believable audience (acting surprised, even though they can clearly see everything that’s going on). In its current form, this illusion can only be performed with a camera — which is the basis for why it falls into the “camera trick” label. But it’s the fake audience that seals the deal. If he didn’t use a fake audience then this would not be classified as a “camera trick” according to our standards. We call them “in-camera illusions.”
The audience is essentially a lie. Something Chris Angel uses all the time. When you take a lie and combine it with an in-camera illusion the result falls into our “camera trick” classification. Take away the audience and we’re okay with it. But the audience is there to make us all believe that what we’re seeing is genuine.
You’ve probably all heard the following statement, or one similar, during a David Copperfield television broadcast (or many other magician’s broadcasts). it goes something like this: “What you’re about to see is real. It is performed in front of a live studio audience and is exactly what you would see if you were here. There are no camera tricks used in this show.”
Magicians, such as David Copperfield, had to start using those statements because of the evolution of technology. Cameras got better, special effects got better, scientific tricks were being discovered, etc., etc. So, there is a certain “magician’s code” that has to be maintained — otherwise interest in magic on television will die out. If you break a few core “laws” of magic on television, you end up breaking the viewer’s trust. And when that happens they’ll believe what they’re seeing about as much as they believe X-Wing fighters are real and really do fly through space.
It’s sad that the new wave of “street magicians” (on television) have to break this code of trust that has taken so many years to build up. They’re killing their own industry. When I was a child my parents never wanted to see a magic show on TV because they just assumed it was all camera special effects and editing. They didn’t have the “trust” in the magician, so the show was essentially non-entertaining. Would YOU want to watch a one hour magic show if you knew that all the magic was really done in post-production with 3D animation and editing effects? No. It would be pretty lame. That’s what these “street magicians” are doing to themselves. The really sad part of it all is that they’re all usually very talented magicians… so they don’t need to lie in order to work wonders.
December 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm
David, I think you are too hard on this guy’s trick. You go off into an attack on editing, 3D animation, etc. but this guy didn’t use any of that. What he did was a good illusion. It was made more dramatic by the camera, and by the use of an audience, but that was to add drama, not to make the illusion.
As for the statement you say precedes Copperfield illusions, well, I have seen at least one Copperfield television illusion for certain where, if that statement preceded, it was a lie. Especially using your definition of a camera trick. Copperfield routinely uses fake audiences, audiences that are there hours before a trick is performed and therefor never see how the illusion is re-constructed after they sign off on it’s genuine nature, etc.
I don’t know about a magician’s code of not lying, but I do know that most illusions involve lying as part of the set up.
This guy did a pretty simple illusion, but he dressed it up as street magic to add drama and spectacle. That’s all Copperfield does, mostly – standard illusions that he has dressed up somehow to add drama and spectacle. That’s what separates a famous illusionist from a two bit theme park performer – how well they dress up the same illusions.
December 22, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Gus
I’m sorry if my “rant” confused anyone — I may not have been clear. My point, which I failed to sum in in less than a million words, is that when an illusion is seen by someone on television (or the internet, in this case) there has to be some standard rules that are followed by the magician. Otherwise it’s not very magical. Entertaining? Maybe yes… until the individual watching figures out that it was only possible because of the camera.
The difference between this trick and one you would see live is that this trick doesn’t work live. The audience is in on it — so it’s not very “magical.” Anyone watching who wasn’t part of the “audience” would just see some people with a camera running around doing some ‘odd’ activity. Interesting, but not very magical. They might assume someone is just filming some home-made student film project.
Most magicians lie, that’s true…. and Copperfield is not exception. The point, rather, is ‘what’ they lie about. When Copperfield mumbles on and on about how he never saw snow as a child because he was sick and not allowed outside… and then starts to produce ‘snow’ in the theater as part of his illusion — well, that’s technically a lie… but it’s part of the storytelling that makes up the illusion. When you bold-face tell a television audience that what they are about so see is not, for example, a trick that uses mirrors, wires, or camera tricks — you’d better be sure of it. That kind of lie is not part of the illusion ‘story’. You get caught in that kind of lie and you break the trust the television audience has with you. That’s all I’m trying to get at here.
The illusion in this video was good. I really enjoyed it. What I didn’t enjoy was the fake audience reactions (twice) — used to convince me (the television viewer) that the illusion has been validated. It’s something Chris Angel does all the time.
As far as your reference about Copperfield using ‘plants’ in the audience — he does. And, he also uses real audience members who also have to sign a NDA to participate in some of the illusions, as they have to know the ‘secrets’ of the illusion to be able to be involved in it. The difference here, however, is that the audience actually sees the illusion as-is, void of camera trickery (as they’re not viewing it through a camera — they see it live). But when a magician uses a plant AND performs a trick that can only be viewed through a camera’s eye… that’s when the line gets crossed. Not so much because of the ‘lie’ as much as the violation of trust. Granted, it’s a fine gray line… but it’s there. And yes — Copperfield has broken that trust on a few occasions (he used to joke about it in his live performances, although I’m not sure most audience members really understood his reference).
My references to 3D animation, editing, etc. were not an attack on this magician — I was just stating that when you break a certain level of trust with your television audience they might as well be watching a work of 3D animation, or video editing, since they’re not there to see it for themselves and they obviously can’t take the magicians word that they bystanders are not in on it. You can have in-camera illusions… and you have can bunk bystanders… but use both in combination and you risk reputation and trust.
So… I really, really like this guy’s work. I’m sorry if I came off as being too harsh on him. It’s very clever work. I just think he’d be doing himself a favor by not including the fake audience reactions. It’s a bit of a let-down.
December 22, 2009 at 9:21 pm
David – Well, I somewhat disagree with you on the level of Copperfield’s lies. The safe in the building about to be demolished escape is a prime example. But then, I don’t fault him for lying.
In this case though, I’m now inclined toward Tim McGregor’s theory below – the audience is not actually in on it. They see two guys in masks and coveralls, so there experience is less than the camera experience, and maybe it’s a little easier to figure out, but they don’t necessarily see the whole thing.
December 22, 2009 at 9:22 pm
And he must be doing something right, look at all the people here who still think he must have a double.
December 22, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I think I can actually imagine a way to do it with genuine audience:
Imagine there are two more masked/coveralled ‘assistants’ next to a cameraman (never visible on the movie itself). Perhaps even cameraman is all dressed up.
Now, when the extenguisher/disappearance act happens, the audience is probablr (hopefully for the performer) to absorbed with it, to pay much attention to the rest of the ‘crew’, who are basically free to roam around in and out of their view. It’s just a matter of good timing for main performer to swap places with one of them.
Granted, that would be more difficult to perform, and there’s always a risk of some people in the audience looking the wrong way in wrong moment, but I think it could be done.
December 23, 2009 at 5:07 am
Yeah this one is a lot more obvious after knowing how the second works as it uses a similar principal, however personally I have a lot more respect for the first trick as it doesn’t require an audience of stooges.
December 23, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Gus – I think we both agree about Copperfield. Like I said, he’s had his share of ‘camera tricks.’ As you mentioned, the vault escape/building implosion (XI – The Explosive Encounter) is an obvious one (with the use of pre-recorded video). Very lame attempt. The special he jokes about on stage, referencing it simply as a “bad career move” was his 10th special (listed as 10th, but actually his 11th special — ABC didn’t start numbering them until after the first) which was “The Bermuda Triangle” special. For the final illusion sequence he used camera edits — which were so bad as to, at one point, cut from a night time shot to a day time shot. Horrible. A more recent example can be found in his 14th special, “Flying: Live The Dream” at the very end of the show — he says goodbye to the television audience outside the theater where he shot his special, with a hundred people behind him (supposedly members of the theater audience leaving directly after the show) and he levitates up and out of the camera frame. Obviously anyone there could see him being hoisted up, so they were all in on it. In 2001 he did some similar “levitation outside” tricks for his “Tornado of Fire” special (number 17) where he levitated “random” people outside in broad daylight. Their reactions were real, but only because they were being hoisted up quickly in the air on a couch — so their reactions were more like that of being on a theme park ride, and not reactions based on them magically floating in the air. His “Portal” illusion in this special also used pre-recorded video laced with some extremely expensive special effects. Cool effects work, but not good illusion as far as “magic” goes. But, other than a few examples like this (which came back to bite him) he’s been modestly straightforward with his television audience.
Mchl – You’re absolutely right… this trick can be done with a ‘real’ audience. It just takes some variation and a few additional ‘props’ to keep people distracted from what is happening. Magicians pull this “switch” all the time. It’s become so common, in fact, that whenever I see a magic show on television where the magician (or one of the assistants) has a ‘covered’ face I already know that the ‘surprise ending’ is going to be a switch/reveal of the magician. But… they do it successfully all the time. It’s all about putting the right props and distractions in place to insure the audience doesn’t see what’s happening.
For this trick, however, I just can’t agree with the thought that the audience could see a second person come up dressed in a protective suit, switch out with the first guy in the suit, and then “reveal” himself as the magician — and be surprised at all. Considering the surroundings, this just doesn’t make any sense. The only amazement from the audience would be the amazement of someone expecting them to be amazed — since what they see is very clear and obvious.
If you look at the surroundings, it’s all pretty open. The magician stands at the edge of a small “hill” or “bump” — when the fire extinguisher goes off you can actually see the magician ‘fall’ down into the ditch (watch his head as he does a slight bounce, like he’s doing a small ‘jump’ into the ditch). Once in the ditch the magician must crawl a good ways in the ditch towards the left of the screen. Once he’s out of camera range he is handed a suit and mask to slip into. Then he has to run up to meet the other guy in the suit and perform the switch. He actually has a good amount of time to do all of this, since the video has been “sped up” during this time. If you slow the video down to regular speed (from the time the bottle is picked up to the time the guy in the suit comes up to the camera) you’ll note that the magician actually has plenty of time to crawl out of the ditch, put on the suit and still make it to the camera operator with time to spare. Obviously they sped this portion of the video up so people wouldn’t get suspicious. If they left it at regular speed you would start to wonder why the guy in the suit was walking so deliberately slowly. I think the guy in the suit was walking in such a way as to make his walk seem ‘normal’ when sped up in post-production. Unfortunately, the camera operator isn’t steady, and the double-time jerkiness of the camera gives the post-production effect away.
Still… it’s a great concept, and one that is very do-able (even with a ‘real’ audience). Copperfield did it in 1986 with the Great Wall of China (when he walked through the wall)… so I’m sure this guy could find a clever way to pull it off as well.
December 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm
David – I haven’t watched any Copperfield in about 14 years, and it was re-runs in Germany then. I was working as a technician for an illusionist and Copperfield was quite popular in Germany. We sat around watching the specials and laughing. Some things are so obviously fake that the audience just doesn’t notice. That was the first time I saw the Great Wall illusion, and it’s so obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the most basic illusions, but it was well executed. Since that time I’ve come to appreciate small magic and sleight of hand more because I think it requires greater skill and imagination. There’s some of that that I still can’t figure out. I do like these videos, I think they are at least original and creative in some ways, and for a general audience, I think they’re probably really amazing.
December 23, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Gus – A technician for an illusionist? Sounds like fun. Unfortunately, I was always stuck in the ‘design’ end of it all. Still, it was something that I greatly enjoyed. Like you, I also appreciate the smaller slight-of-hand magic. The skill involved and the “magic” is much greater than that of a large-scale illusion (there are only so many ways you can build a ‘base’ illusion to hide a person before people start catching on). When I was a child I LOVED magic — whenever I saw something that I couldn’t explain it would give me a thrill. It inspired me to eventually design illusions (which I only do as a hobby now). The worst part of getting into the magic ‘industry’ is that it’s difficult for me to see something that amazes me and brings back the awe that I had as a child. Most of the time, when that does happen, it’s due to a very clever “small scale” illusion — slight of hand.
I’m not sure if you know this, or not, but if you were in Germany at the time the Copperfield shows were on television you were lucky, since the version of the show that aired in Germany usually had additional footage/illusions that were not shown elsewhere… certainly not in the States.
December 22, 2009 at 7:03 am |
The audience are all stooges, there to disguise the switch at 56 seconds. Kind of banal really. It is essentially a camera trick, in that the switch is performed in full view of the “audience”.
December 22, 2009 at 9:14 am
I agree. The grass is quite clearly on two levels of depth. The magician hides there, then switches with the masked guy behind the camera. In fact one is holding the bottle by its neck, then the magician puts his hand under it.
December 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Pretty sure that’s it. The hill edge is clearly visible, he ducks behind the hill when obscured by the smoke, then runs around behind the camera, tosses on the coverall and mask, then takes the bottle from the original masked man when the camera is just on the bottle and it switches from one hand to the other. Unless there’s something else I’m not seeing that hides this switch, the live “audience” has to be in on it. Classic Copperfield trick – use fake audience for TV illusions.
December 22, 2009 at 11:02 pm
That’s it. Poor.
David L Good is so right about camera trickery and the increasing lack of trust. Orient Express, demolished building… It’s sad, that even Copperfield has fake audience for his TV Shows. It is a hard time now for magic on TV. I thought that at least the shows with great audience are believable until I have read that i.e. Copperfield performed his “Voyeur” differently for his TV show than live on stage for greater effect and therefore uses hundreds of stooges…
Please don’t link to the fake magic of Chris Angel & Co!
There were even greater Illusions back in the good old days:
Any idea how this could be done??
December 22, 2009 at 7:06 am |
Easy: He goes away with the cloud, which is why those bushes are there to the right.
The guy is his identical twin.
December 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm
There’s no identical twin. Just a switch when he gets close to the “audience”.
December 22, 2009 at 7:14 am |
Bastard Sheep is correct – you can see the slight difference in distance blur between the hill/ridge and the ground behind it. It’s most obvious if you pause around 30-40secs and look at the frame by frame of the extinguisher smoke. You can also look at the base of the bush, which appears marginally concealed.
December 22, 2009 at 7:36 am |
Agree that Bastard Sheep got it right with the well placed hill, and that the audience are stooges. Switch was done at 0:57.
December 22, 2009 at 7:58 am |
Clearly conclusive proof that Aliens are among us
December 22, 2009 at 8:10 am |
He is out of breath at the end which he shouldn’t have been if he’d just walked across a bit of grass.
December 22, 2009 at 9:00 am |
Bastard Sheep has it right. There’s no need for the audience to be in on it, nor is there any need for camera trickery. The audience sees the switch, may be confused as to why it occurs, but don’t care and are still surprised because a guy (in the same outfit as extinguisher guy, possibly the cameraman) who’s seemingly been standing with them all along, suddenly turns out to be the magician.
December 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Interesting though on the audience. I like it. They get an illusion, just not quite as dramatic an illusion as the camera gets.
Reminds me of a Copperfield illusion where he gets on a motorcycle, gets lifted up into the air, and disappears. Then he instantly reappears on a motorcycle in the audience. Of course he never really got on the motorcycle on stage, it was a double. But Copperfield has to walk through a row of audience seating to get the the motorcycle in the audience. The rows right around there know that he didn’t magically appear on that motorcycle. But they still don’t know how he got into their row in the first place.
December 22, 2009 at 9:27 pm
How is the disguised magician standing with the audience, if he has to run from his hiding place behind the hill top while the camera is following the bottle?!
There’s another video by this magician where the stooge his quite clearly standing behind him, and I’d say the audience *must* be in on it.
December 23, 2009 at 7:49 am
The cameraman is similarly suited and has dropped back out of the audience’s line of sight. While the audience is carefully watching the guy who operated the fire extinguisher slowly walk toward them, Ilya runs around out of sight, throws on the mask/suit, and switches with the cameraman. Then he switches with fire extinguisher guy in full view of the audience but off camera. The audience are still surprised because they think that guy has been there the whole time.
December 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm
It seems to me the cameraman is in front of the audience all the time. I don’t think one more switch, magician-cameran, could surprise the audience as they are watching the whole scene.
Plus the replay of the audience reaction is clearly two cuts! First there are just girls, then a couple, then girls again…
December 24, 2009 at 2:01 pm
What convinces you the cameraman is definitely in front of the audience? There are even a couple of obvious zooms as the camera points away from the magician for the first time, and lots of camera jiggling that could indicate movement, giving the cameraman opportunity to step back out of sight, and ample opportunity for Ilya to move forward again when you take into account the speeding up of the film during the long walk back.
The second audience shot doesn’t prove anything, I just means he did the trick a number of times to different audiences; he may even have been caught at it a couple of times. I suspect the only reason the other shot is included is to show the extreme surprise reaction on that guy’s face as to encourage us to believe (as I do but for different reasons) that they weren’t stooges.
It’s a clever trick, no stooges are needed.
December 22, 2009 at 9:59 am |
A brother (not 100% similar) and a ditch
December 22, 2009 at 10:04 am |
It’s a little hill, so he’s just down the hill,, the other is his twin…
December 22, 2009 at 10:27 am |
Also in the beginning around 5 seconds you see something white in the grass in the bushes (not the bag) that could be a suit they are wearing because at 0:55 it’s gone
December 22, 2009 at 11:42 am |
Yep. With the help of the comments it’s pretty clear to me.
1) Haha – Hill
2) Stooges
3) Swapping bottle from one guys hands to the original guy (around 57seconds). He had loads of time to run round out of shot get suited up and do the swap where the camera pivots.
December 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
the slight hill definitely and could be twin or the switch at the end… the hand…mostly the fingers holding the neck of the bottle and the hands of the magician look different… length and size of joints in the fingers look different…. so could be either way….. BUT what I like is the 360 view photo!!! WOW super cool spent a hour messing around with it…lol…. :} … Lila
December 22, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
Definitely a drop in the land where the initial trick occurs: Ilya ducks back down it under cover of smoke.
Sticks the costume on and runs back out of sight, hence the other guy walking slowly and being sped up on camera.
Transfer occurs at the 0:55 mark.
Only real question is whether the audience are in on it. If yes, it’s not that great. If no, Ilya appears somewhere behind the camera position and swaps for a guy the audience has already seen but lost track of. Either way – and I loved the ‘running man’ illusion they did, it’s not that great.
December 22, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
It’s a good trick, but Bastard Sheep has it right and with those comments in mind, it’s pretty easy to watch the trick again and see how it’s done. I like that it’s not a twin, as that seems like cheating as much as a camera trick would be. Very clever.
December 22, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
Ha! I’ve just phoned Houdini.
December 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
This is all covered in ‘The Prestige’.
December 22, 2009 at 2:03 pm
That’s what i was thinking. Luckily it didn’t involve any guns or knives.
December 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Unfortunately this works for the camera only
Love “The Prestige” and spent years inventing my own “transported man” illusion…
December 22, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
Oh, THAT was bloody obvious! Look to the right side of the screen as he goes back; you can see the continuation of the grassy ridge he hides behind.
December 22, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
Look behind him at 1:24. You can see someone in black hiding in the bushes after the switch. I don’t see how the audience could not be in on it. The running man was better, I think.
December 22, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Hah! I had figured the trick out, but didn’t even see that. Slight flaw in the execution there.
December 22, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
The guy is definitely standing on a mound/ridge, and simply ducks behind it when the smoke appears. He runs round, dons the suit and then there’s a switch between him and the first guy in the suit.
December 22, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
Twin brother and ran away in smoke cloud? Definitely possible…
Magic?
December 22, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
There’s an even larger (26 gigapixels) photo of the German city Dresden: http://www.gigapixel-dresden.de/dresden26GP, also with navigation features.
January 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm
ha! that’s brilliant.
did you find the sign for the ‘Erotic Car Wash’?
Could spend an hour or two looking at that!
January 10, 2010 at 2:13 pm
http://skitch.com/michaelrose/nq3jm/gigapixel-dresden.de-large-size-panoramas
December 23, 2009 at 12:31 am |
[...] Genie in the bottle illusion First, you might rather enjoy this amzing 18 Gb photo that allows you to zoom in and in and in and in etc. It is [...] [...]
December 23, 2009 at 1:22 am |
When it requires a fake audience it is not an illusion; it is utter bullshit… and this is a large part of the reason TV magicians rank only slightly higher than mime artists on the entertainment scale.
If the audience is legit then the only way I can see it working is with twin + either (incredibly coordinated) smoke to bushes run, or, concealed hole in the ground (he does begin to crouch as soon as the extinguisher starts)
December 23, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
Oh my god! That trick in a video was awsome!
December 23, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
There also a second ‘out-of-frame switch’ that happens right at the beginning. The bottle the ‘audience’ examined leaves the frame and gets exchanged for the one with the smoky stuff in it. When he runs back towards the hill, he’s already the carrying the second bottle, the one shown at the end.
December 23, 2009 at 7:04 pm |
There’s a ha-ha behind them- a depression in the ground that gives the illusion of unbroken field. He stepped back into it. The switch is the only difficult part.
December 24, 2009 at 10:14 am |
Him donning the spare suit in super quick time also explains why he is out of breath after the reveal. It’s a cool illusion which can immediately be explained by a camera trick or editing in post, but it’s more impressive that all they really had was a great idea and a bunch of stooges. Shame they had to speed up the footage to obvious levels but still a great trick nonetheless. The switch is obvious now I’ve watched it a few times, but without the benefit of a review I’d still be wondering how it was done.
December 24, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
I actually tried to create “double reality”. People in the park saw it a little bit differently than people at home, but take my word, they were amazed as one, watching it. So, I have to admit, no stooges:)
December 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
My guess:
The original masked man sprays the fire extinguisher and he gos with the smoke to the pushes dresses up as the masked man and at 0:56 to be precise they show only the bottle that’s when the switch happens and the original masked man gos behind the camera and llya catches the bottle and that’s how its done!!!!
December 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
ya and the people where acting
January 19, 2010 at 7:16 pm |
lol look at the mans face in the replay whos beside him :O lol
March 25, 2010 at 7:10 pm |
Lets make it easy:
First, he had an identical twin, that weared the suit from the beginning.
Then, when getting blowed at with the smoke thingie, the first guy ran with the smoke, that he hided in, until he was close enough to jump behind a bush or something without getting noticed… Then, they finished the trick… Voila…
May 5, 2010 at 9:47 am |
[...] | Entrada original y discusión del truco [...]