info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Paul Daniels make TV camera disappear
720 views
Skip to first unread message
NY
Apr 11, 2013, 11:30:33 AM4/11/13
to
I remember seeing this at the time it was first shown, and thinking "how the
F did he do that"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCXBCD6Ols
Thoughts:
- He stresses that it's a trick involving a camera, not a "camera [editing]
trick". I suppose we have to take this at face value as it would be
trivially easy if he was allowed to stop the tape while the camera was
removed from the shed.
- The studio floor is concrete so the camera couldn't be smuggled out
through the floor.
- Is the footage seen in the "window" actually from the full-size camera or
from a miniature one? Remember that this is 1984 - what technology was
available then?
- Is the audience member a "plant"? Let's assume the worst case that he is,
so he "chose" Camera 4 because he was told to, and there wasn't a free
choice of all five cameras (well, excluding the one on the crane!). And he
wouldn't report any funny business going on behind the shed before the
fork-lift came along.
- The shed is suspiciously close to the steps behind it. There is the
possibility that the pedestal (but not its camera) could be collapsed to a
small enough height to be sneaked out of the back of the shed and underneath
the steps if a suitable panel existed in the back wall and in the steps.
- Camera 4 is proved to be working at 3:00 when it looks at Camera 1.
- http://www.tech-ops.co.uk/page81.html contains a statement from the
cameraman that there were no editing tricks apart from a trivial pickup shot
where he repeated his movement of the camera into the shed because he missed
first time.
- Could anything have happened in the brief instant at 4:10 when the ramp is
removed and momentarily obscures the camera?
- At 4:38 the picture shows some barrel distortion and there is an odd black
border of variable width down the left and right of the hole in the shed. Is
the distortion consistent with the porthole being only about a foot from the
lens? Could a 45 degree mirror be involved with a miniature camera on the
floor/ceiling? Would such a camera be feasible in 1984? No mirror is visible
a couple of seconds earlier or later.
- A period from 5:01 to 6:19 elapses when we don't see the output of Camera
4. This is probably the interval during which the camera is smuggled out.
- If the camera was detached from the pedestal during this dead time, is it
feasible for the cameraman to be strong enough to do it on his own? I'm
assuming that a whole army of helpers didn't emerge from a trapdoor in the
steps :-)
- The balloons on top of the shed would possibly waver if the shed was
knocked or anyone created a draught by moving behind the shed during the
time before the in-a-window footage is seen.
- The shape of the barrel distortion in the vertical sides of the porthole
looks to be identical for the 4:38 and 6:19 shots, though the camera seems
to have moved backwards and left slightly: more of the set on the right hand
side behind Paul Daniels is visible in the "after" shot.
- The synchronisation between the two views of Paul Daniels at around 6:33
seems to be perfect so recorded footage is probably not being used.
- At about 7:05, a faint grey diagonal line is visible on the steps to the
right of the fork lift cab. Is this a gap in the set where the pedestal was
slid after being collapsed and smuggled through the shed wall? Another line
to the left of it is visible to Andy's left at 7:51 and another to his right
as 7:54.
- Through the porthole at 7:55, faint vertical lines are visible which
*look* as if they are consistent with light shining through gaps in the
boards of the front of the shed. There is no sign of a mirror or mini camera
at that time.
- No obvious gaps in the panelling (trapdoor) are visible in the rear wall
of the shed, seen at 8:10. At 8:23 when the boards collapse, no horizontal
lines are visible that could be a trapdoor. There is no sign of a mirror or
mini camera at that time either.
So how/when was the camera removed? I'm able to study the footage frame by
frame, which they wouldn't have allowed for in 1984 because home VCRs had
pretty ropey still-frame facilities, and yet I can't see much that looks
like a clue.
In another Youtube copy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKhXctr-FkU of the
stunt, user sambda draws our attention to the closeness of the shed to the
steps and says that this is a big clue. I can see *what* Daniels probably
did, but not *how* or *when*.
F did he do that"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCXBCD6Ols
Thoughts:
- He stresses that it's a trick involving a camera, not a "camera [editing]
trick". I suppose we have to take this at face value as it would be
trivially easy if he was allowed to stop the tape while the camera was
removed from the shed.
- The studio floor is concrete so the camera couldn't be smuggled out
through the floor.
- Is the footage seen in the "window" actually from the full-size camera or
from a miniature one? Remember that this is 1984 - what technology was
available then?
- Is the audience member a "plant"? Let's assume the worst case that he is,
so he "chose" Camera 4 because he was told to, and there wasn't a free
choice of all five cameras (well, excluding the one on the crane!). And he
wouldn't report any funny business going on behind the shed before the
fork-lift came along.
- The shed is suspiciously close to the steps behind it. There is the
possibility that the pedestal (but not its camera) could be collapsed to a
small enough height to be sneaked out of the back of the shed and underneath
the steps if a suitable panel existed in the back wall and in the steps.
- Camera 4 is proved to be working at 3:00 when it looks at Camera 1.
- http://www.tech-ops.co.uk/page81.html contains a statement from the
cameraman that there were no editing tricks apart from a trivial pickup shot
where he repeated his movement of the camera into the shed because he missed
first time.
- Could anything have happened in the brief instant at 4:10 when the ramp is
removed and momentarily obscures the camera?
- At 4:38 the picture shows some barrel distortion and there is an odd black
border of variable width down the left and right of the hole in the shed. Is
the distortion consistent with the porthole being only about a foot from the
lens? Could a 45 degree mirror be involved with a miniature camera on the
floor/ceiling? Would such a camera be feasible in 1984? No mirror is visible
a couple of seconds earlier or later.
- A period from 5:01 to 6:19 elapses when we don't see the output of Camera
4. This is probably the interval during which the camera is smuggled out.
- If the camera was detached from the pedestal during this dead time, is it
feasible for the cameraman to be strong enough to do it on his own? I'm
assuming that a whole army of helpers didn't emerge from a trapdoor in the
steps :-)
- The balloons on top of the shed would possibly waver if the shed was
knocked or anyone created a draught by moving behind the shed during the
time before the in-a-window footage is seen.
- The shape of the barrel distortion in the vertical sides of the porthole
looks to be identical for the 4:38 and 6:19 shots, though the camera seems
to have moved backwards and left slightly: more of the set on the right hand
side behind Paul Daniels is visible in the "after" shot.
- The synchronisation between the two views of Paul Daniels at around 6:33
seems to be perfect so recorded footage is probably not being used.
- At about 7:05, a faint grey diagonal line is visible on the steps to the
right of the fork lift cab. Is this a gap in the set where the pedestal was
slid after being collapsed and smuggled through the shed wall? Another line
to the left of it is visible to Andy's left at 7:51 and another to his right
as 7:54.
- Through the porthole at 7:55, faint vertical lines are visible which
*look* as if they are consistent with light shining through gaps in the
boards of the front of the shed. There is no sign of a mirror or mini camera
at that time.
- No obvious gaps in the panelling (trapdoor) are visible in the rear wall
of the shed, seen at 8:10. At 8:23 when the boards collapse, no horizontal
lines are visible that could be a trapdoor. There is no sign of a mirror or
mini camera at that time either.
So how/when was the camera removed? I'm able to study the footage frame by
frame, which they wouldn't have allowed for in 1984 because home VCRs had
pretty ropey still-frame facilities, and yet I can't see much that looks
like a clue.
In another Youtube copy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKhXctr-FkU of the
stunt, user sambda draws our attention to the closeness of the shed to the
steps and says that this is a big clue. I can see *what* Daniels probably
did, but not *how* or *when*.
John Black
Apr 11, 2013, 5:09:08 PM4/11/13
to
In article <UKmdndGgBOm-SvvM...@brightview.co.uk>, m...@privacy.net says...
I think the camera was piece by piece moved into a compartment in the forklift during the
couple of minutes that the forklift is sitting there pressed against the shed before it lifts
it up.
John Black
couple of minutes that the forklift is sitting there pressed against the shed before it lifts
it up.
John Black
NY
Apr 11, 2013, 5:52:38 PM4/11/13
to
"John Black" <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2bd0e271a...@news.eternal-september.org...
I'll take another look at the video and see if it's plausible.
And whichever way they did it, they'd need a substitute miniature camera for
the POV video through the porthole. They did a good job of hiding the
evidence of it as the shed "exploded".
news:MPG.2bd0e271a...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <UKmdndGgBOm-SvvM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> m...@privacy.net says...
>>
>> I remember seeing this at the time it was first shown, and thinking "how
>> the
>> F did he do that"?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCXBCD6Ols
> m...@privacy.net says...
>>
>> I remember seeing this at the time it was first shown, and thinking "how
>> the
>> F did he do that"?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCXBCD6Ols
>> So how/when was the camera removed? I'm able to study the footage frame
>> by
>> frame, which they wouldn't have allowed for in 1984 because home VCRs had
>> pretty ropey still-frame facilities, and yet I can't see much that looks
>> like a clue.
>>
>> In another Youtube copy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKhXctr-FkU of the
>> stunt, user sambda draws our attention to the closeness of the shed to
>> the
>> steps and says that this is a big clue. I can see *what* Daniels probably
>> did, but not *how* or *when*.
>
> I think the camera was piece by piece moved into a compartment in the
> forklift during the
> couple of minutes that the forklift is sitting there pressed against the
> shed before it lifts
> it up.
Ah, I hadn't considered that he might have done it that way. Good thinking.
>> by
>> frame, which they wouldn't have allowed for in 1984 because home VCRs had
>> pretty ropey still-frame facilities, and yet I can't see much that looks
>> like a clue.
>>
>> In another Youtube copy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKhXctr-FkU of the
>> stunt, user sambda draws our attention to the closeness of the shed to
>> the
>> steps and says that this is a big clue. I can see *what* Daniels probably
>> did, but not *how* or *when*.
>
> I think the camera was piece by piece moved into a compartment in the
> forklift during the
> couple of minutes that the forklift is sitting there pressed against the
> shed before it lifts
> it up.
I'll take another look at the video and see if it's plausible.
And whichever way they did it, they'd need a substitute miniature camera for
the POV video through the porthole. They did a good job of hiding the
evidence of it as the shed "exploded".
bill page
Apr 11, 2013, 11:36:43 PM4/11/13
to
william...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2013, 5:16:46 PM6/7/13
to
william...@gmail.com
Aug 12, 2013, 11:32:43 AM8/12/13
to
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:30:33 AM UTC-4, NY wrote:
aidan...@gmail.com
May 6, 2016, 4:50:42 AM5/6/16
to
1) No, one person would not be able to lift a Link 125 from the pedestal - that's at least a two or three man job!
2) The curvature of the porthole as seen by the camera is because, like most *studio* cameras there is a wide angle lens on the front to make any studio set look larger than it actually is (like a magic trick, this is another confidence trick). However, when you put a camera with such a lens within 10-20 inches of anything with straight edges or lines, the distortion introduced by the angle of acceptance in the lens will distort the straight edges as the light passes through the lens. These lenses are not designed to be used in such close proximity with straight edged items with the straight edges seen towards the edges of the screen, any camera operator when instructed to focus on such a thing will always attempt to get the straight edge or line as near the centre of the picture as possible.
Also realise that the curvature is accentuated by the fact you are watching a programme made with cameras that were designed to be viewed on curved-screen CRT TVs - the curvature of the viewer's screen at home would actually lessen the effect of the curvature you see here. When you watch this on a modern flat panel, you see all the lens distortion in all its glory - there is no curvature of your own screen to lessen the effect.
Chris Parish
Dec 10, 2023, 11:46:56 AM12/10/23
to
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 4:30:33 PM UTC+1, NY wrote:
0 new messages