(Close Window)
Topic: Captured
Message: Posted by: bryanlonden (Mar 11, 2008 09:53PM)
Anyone have this yet?

Ad copy from Blacks Magic Group

"CAPTURED is the epitome of visual mental magic.

In this day of digital photography where software can be used to alter images in an instant, CAPTURED uses classic technology to bring a person's thoughts to life on film, right in front of their face.

A familiar object enters play, a deck of cards. It can be any deck at all.

A participant picks a card and retains it for the duration of the presentation, never showing it to the magician until the very end.

The magician brings out a camera and takes a photograph of the participant, which they then hold on to.

As the participant concentrates on the photograph, their thoughts slowly appear in the photo like the image of a ghost captured on unholy ground.

This is an experience so raw and visceral that your participant begins to shake?like a Polaroid picture. All they can do is stare in utter disbelief; their mouth wide open like the foundation of their reality has just been cracked by a 2-thousand pound wrecking ball.

This is hard hitting magic.

And best of all, your participant gets to take the experience home with them and remember it forever.

Strong. Dynamic. In-Your-Face magic. CAPTURED."


http://www.blacksmagicgroup.com/index2.php?pageid=captured
Message: Posted by: millarhouse (Mar 13, 2008 03:14AM)
Here is a video demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rQ_kIji0Q

But hasn't Polaroid going stop production?
http://www.aol.co.nz/news/story/After-60-years-Polaroid-quits-instant-film-business/129751/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7236106.stm
Message: Posted by: bryanlonden (Mar 13, 2008 05:42PM)
Yeah, they apparently did.

Sure you can get one off of eBay..but this is looking behind its time I suppose.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 13, 2008 07:29PM)
It's hard to believe anyone would release a poloroid magic trick.

I mean really. "I have a Nokia N95 that takes 5 mega pixel instant pictures, BUT
I am going to take your picture with this huge contraption. No wait, come back, it's a camera"

I can't wait for their next release "Phonograph magic" That's right, just put this record on any record player and sit back and be entertained.

Cutting edge!!
James
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 15, 2008 01:50AM)
Planning on giving that camera out to someone to take home with them after you take that photo? That's sort of short sighted don't you think Xiqual? And my guess is, if you performed for a living, that might get a bit expensive. ROFLOL.

The effects truly produces fantastic reactions and the spectator gets something to take home with them to keep. You can even write your number for potential gigs on it; I've done this for years and it always gets the reactions I want.

Now, Polaroid has stopped making them, which is certainly true as of this year. Obviously, it will take a few good years before this is an issue, so it is a good time to release it before it is out dated. But with over 100 million in circulation and multiple companies still producing the film, it is still relevant when properly presented. Further, insurance companies, police departments, fire departments, etc still carry them for, well, instant photographs. So until your camera phone produces instant photographs, they aren't going anywhere in the short term. Go to any walmart, target, or CVS and you'll find them there.

I challenge you to try this effect once... just one time... and you'll be pretty impressed with the results. But hey, I'm biased. I just thought it was funny you'd scoff at it when you've not seen it in person or actually performed it.

But I am guessing you don't do book tests because PDFs are all the rage? Or cups and balls because, well, they were used in the middle ages a lot. What about sponge balls? WTF are those? ROFLOL. A dove pan? A deck of cards? Who carries those around except magicians? Heck I met "Jesus", one of the top poker players in the world once and he didn't have a deck on him -- and he actually makes money with those things. Do you have any gaffed half dollars? Silver dollars? Have you met ANYONE, any NORMAL person today that uses them in real life EXCEPT us? Or a silk? Do you know anyone that really has those on them anymore, say, in a breast pocket like they did decades ago when it was in vogue? My guess is you use lots of magic that isn't, well, modern. But none the less, has an incredible impact on an audience.

At the end of the day, some people will see it's value, and others will not. Just the name of the game. But I am not sure why you are so "shocked" we'd release something like this. It's a great effect, and at the end of the day, that's what matters.

BTW, "Records" are sold in the millions each year. A number of major production companies have actually re-released classics on record AND produced new ones too as collector's items. Ever been to a club? Just curious what you see the DJ scratching with out there? Sure, technology certainly has caught up; CD players are now build to be "scratched" for mixing tables. But you go to ANY city and you'll find TONS of records for sale. I was just in Japan not long ago and in Shibuya there was a massive store dedicated to that very thing.

So... while ammusing, not really accurate. :)

Best,

JC
Message: Posted by: Tophie (Mar 15, 2008 02:20AM)
Which model polaroid camera will work?

Will the old sx-70 work?
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Mar 15, 2008 03:16AM)
The link below could be the answer.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/news/2008/02/06/Polaroid-Launch-Instant-Digital-Printer/p1


Quote[The actual Zink printer itself is quite a nifty little gadget. It is about the size of a pack of cards.]
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 15, 2008 05:54PM)
Truth be told, just about any regular sized model will do using standard 600 type film. With a little creativity, you can use smaller models too. Happy to help in our forums. http://www.blacksmagicgroup.com. There is a pre-sales section there.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Mar 15, 2008 06:01PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-15 02:50, jclark wrote:
Planning on giving that camera out to someone to take home with them after you take that photo? That's sort of short sighted don't you think Xiqual? And my guess is, if you performed for a living, that might get a bit expensive. ROFLOL.

[/quote]

My only reply to that...Bluetooth
Message: Posted by: jordanjohnson (Mar 15, 2008 07:24PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-15 19:01, Christopher Williams wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-03-15 02:50, jclark wrote:
Planning on giving that camera out to someone to take home with them after you take that photo? That's sort of short sighted don't you think Xiqual? And my guess is, if you performed for a living, that might get a bit expensive. ROFLOL.

[/quote]

And my reply to that is that not every phone has bluetooth capabilities. I have the iPhone which is one of the top models of cell phones and it doesn't have Bluetooth but has "crippled" bluetooth, which means it can connect to Bluetooth devices but not other phones. Also in the future more new models coming out will also have "crippled" Bluetooth to prevent the sharing of ringtones illegally.
My only reply to that...Bluetooth
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 15, 2008 08:02PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-15 19:01, Christopher Williams wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-03-15 02:50, jclark wrote:
Planning on giving that camera out to someone to take home with them after you take that photo? That's sort of short sighted don't you think Xiqual? And my guess is, if you performed for a living, that might get a bit expensive. ROFLOL.

[/quote]

Exactly Christopher.
I do Optical Delusion and Bluetooth the digital photo to the spectator.
Since everyone in Taiwan has a cell phone, and most have Bluetooth it's a non issue.
James

My only reply to that...Bluetooth
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 15, 2008 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-15 02:50, jclark wrote:
Planning on giving that camera out to someone to take home with them after you take that photo? That's sort of short sighted don't you think Xiqual? And my guess is, if you performed for a living, that might get a bit expensive. ROFLOL.

The effects truly produces fantastic reactions and the spectator gets something to take home with them to keep. You can even write your number for potential gigs on it; I've done this for years and it always gets the reactions I want.

Now, Polaroid has stopped making them, which is certainly true as of this year. Obviously, it will take a few good years before this is an issue, so it is a good time to release it before it is out dated. But with over 100 million in circulation and multiple companies still producing the film, it is still relevant when properly presented. Further, insurance companies, police departments, fire departments, etc still carry them for, well, instant photographs. So until your camera phone produces instant photographs, they aren't going anywhere in the short term. Go to any walmart, target, or CVS and you'll find them there.

I challenge you to try this effect once... just one time... and you'll be pretty impressed with the results. But hey, I'm biased. I just thought it was funny you'd scoff at it when you've not seen it in person or actually performed it.

But I am guessing you don't do book tests because PDFs are all the rage? Or cups and balls because, well, they were used in the middle ages a lot. What about sponge balls? WTF are those? ROFLOL. A dove pan? A deck of cards? Who carries those around except magicians? Heck I met "Jesus", one of the top poker players in the world once and he didn't have a deck on him -- and he actually makes money with those things. Do you have any gaffed half dollars? Silver dollars? Have you met ANYONE, any NORMAL person today that uses them in real life EXCEPT us? Or a silk? Do you know anyone that really has those on them anymore, say, in a breast pocket like they did decades ago when it was in vogue? My guess is you use lots of magic that isn't, well, modern. But none the less, has an incredible impact on an audience.

At the end of the day, some people will see it's value, and others will not. Just the name of the game. But I am not sure why you are so "shocked" we'd release something like this. It's a great effect, and at the end of the day, that's what matters.

BTW, "Records" are sold in the millions each year. A number of major production companies have actually re-released classics on record AND produced new ones too as collector's items. Ever been to a club? Just curious what you see the DJ scratching with out there? Sure, technology certainly has caught up; CD players are now build to be "scratched" for mixing tables. But you go to ANY city and you'll find TONS of records for sale. I was just in Japan not long ago and in Shibuya there was a massive store dedicated to that very thing.

So... while ammusing, not really accurate. :)

Best,

JC
[/quote]

Well, I do earn about a third of my income from performing magic, I think that would count. I don't need to pay for my give aways since they are sent via Bluetooth or MMS.

I have already performed the effect. The information how to doctor the film is in
the reprint of "The Chronicles" by Karl Fulves on page 1259 under the title "Psychogenic" by FR. Cyprian. Optical Delusion plays much better!!

Your example about going to Japan and findind a shop for records used in "scratching" is perfect James. A niche market for outdated technology.
Well done Sir!!

James
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 16, 2008 12:51AM)
James,

Records are a multi-million dollar niche market that everybody has heard of; they are familar to everyone EVEN IF they don't have a player. So, how does that make it any less relevant or useable if you don't happen to have a record player yourself? In the same manner, how is using a traditional camera any less effective or impactful for spectators and clients?

Answer: it's not. Just like the point about magicians using older things, like coins, etc. But I didn't see you address that point.

Your whole inital post was intended to be insulting and detract from an otherwise excellent effect by making fun of the fact that an older technology was used, as if that was a bad thing.

You said, "It's hard to believe anyone would release a poloroid magic trick." Followed by the "Cutting edge!!" quip as your sign off.

How exactly is that helpful? How is it even relevant?

To put it bluntly, if you really performed anything like Captured for people and didn't have great reactions, which is really what it is all about, then I'd be more concerned about your abilities as a performer than the type of camera you are using my friend. Maybe that's why you only make 1/3rd from performing, whereas I have friends making 100% and they use the this effect. LOL <wink, wink>

BTW, do you actually have Issue 19 in front of you? Clever of you to pull a reference that few people have as you proof of useage, but that doesn't actually mean you've performed what is on the Captured DVD my friend.

JC

PS - Ahhhh Chris, decided to join the fun did you?
How's life there Mr. President? :)
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Mar 16, 2008 07:46AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-16 01:51, jclark wrote:

PS - Ahhhh Chris, decided to join the fun did you?
How's life there Mr. President? :)
[/quote]

Ahhhh James, still the comedian. I guess you think that any comment I make on one of your products will now be seen as an attack...taking away my personal opinions or views on effects. As for life with me, it is all going very well, thank you so kindly for asking, nice to see there are people out there courteous enough to ask. What about yourself James?
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Mar 16, 2008 08:11AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-13 04:14, millarhouse wrote:
Here is a video demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rQ_kIji0Q

But hasn't Polaroid going stop production?
http://www.aol.co.nz/news/story/After-60-years-Polaroid-quits-instant-film-business/129751/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7236106.stm
[/quote]

I would have been more impressed if the video would show us what the spectator's are seeing that makes them swoon.
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 16, 2008 02:41PM)
Daffydoug: That is a very valid point, and thank you for the contribution. We discussed that a number of times after we cut the first demo, and did another to reflect what they see. I'll check on that, as I thought my IT guy was putting it up for us. Either way, will let you know.

Chris: As I told you before, you're not a blip on my radar unless you put yourself there. And of course, you always seem to do so, which doesn't make a lot of sense given our previous dealings and your history. To put it bluntly for the second time, I don't like you and your views really don't matter to me. Given that you're not a customer, a potential customer, an artist who generally uses our products, someone who positively contributes to conversations or threads related to our business or products, or even a friend that I have emotional interest in, why bother post at all? I certainly don't go where you are to "put my two cents" in. In my view, there really isn't any reason to exacerbate existing friction, unless you're just in desperate need of increasing your post count to continue the illusion that you're a "Top Pro" and not just some kid with an overblown sense of entitlement that does a few gigs once in a while.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Mar 16, 2008 04:02PM)
Previous dealings with your comapany? After the way you spoke to me in the emails James, I would never shop at your company, nor would I recommend anyone to shop at your company. You are very rude and can twist things better than any person I know! Now...i said good things about the torn and restored card effect you guys released. Now, just because you have a lot of posts, does not make you a top pro, and when have I ever said 'I am a top pro'? As for kid...i am 21, making me an adult in any country in the world. As for performing, I actually perform a MINIMUM of 4 hours EVERY week professionally. May not seem much to some pros out there, but that is their sole job. I have a day time job, and perform in the evenings. I actually get rather a bit of work here where I live, due to the few amount of pros that are in the city or area I live in.
When I perform, I am not just performing in front of friends and family like most Magicians, I am actually performing in the real world, for strangers all the time, and not just in my city, but all around the country. Stop thinking you are something that you are not
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 16, 2008 04:06PM)
You make my case perfectly; maturity is not dictated by the law. That's the point, you don't understand that. We're not peers Christopher; you're not even riding in the same boat. Give it 15 years or so, and it'll make more sense to you when you've actually done something worth bragging about. Only then, your background will speak for yourself and you won't have to puff up and pretend. I imagine you were looking in the mirror when you chose the words for your closing sentence; it's incredibly apropos.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 16, 2008 04:16PM)
The effect is dated Unpractical and un original in my view.

Alan
Message: Posted by: Paul Emanuel (Mar 16, 2008 04:21PM)
Here is what I donít understand. Why release an effect that will not stand the test of time? If Polaroidís will be discontinued in ten years what is the use? The best effects stand the test of time and are performed and handled by many magiciansí years down the road. I would not want to have this sitting on my self and be worthless. Letís look at this effect logical. Digital cameras are made small and portable. The Polaroid 600 is obviously not. This effect might work great in a Stage or Parlor type environment but not much elsewhere. How crazy would it look lugging around that big camera strolling from table to table or even working in the street? Really ask yourself this James how probable is this effect in a spectatorís mind? You are right in stating that at the end of the day what matters is a great effect. There is a lot more that goes into an effect that just how shocking the ending result may be. Presentation in my opinion will make and break an effect. It makes much more sense to present and unknown item such as a sponge ball to a spectator. It is then your job to show them what it can do. When they see this camera they are going to think "Is this guy crazy or is he just that cheap?Ē When and where is this effect truly probable? Who would use this in there performing arsenal? Besides the reaction what makes this effect worthy of publication?
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 16, 2008 04:23PM)
Alan, thanks for the post. Dated and unpractical? How so?
Message: Posted by: The Mac (Mar 16, 2008 04:31PM)
I can see both sides of this and do not wish to get into the mix here( my left hook aint what it used to be)

If you're gonna do a photographic trick with an electronic device such as my beloved n95 8gig ( :D ) I think people may suspect electronic trickery. The old style camera might negate that thought.

Just adding a positive to the some of the valid negatives brought up.
Message: Posted by: dreamadream99 (Mar 16, 2008 04:37PM)
I wish both of you would cease with the personal attacks.

JC: Don't take it personally. Not everyone will like all your products. It's not necessary to reply to every negative post to "set the record straight", and certainly not advisable to retaliate insults with insults. Yours are now on record in open forum for any potential customer to read and be discouraged by.

Chris: Don't take it personally. It's his product. He has a vested interest in it's success. You've already made your point, and made it well. Please don't contine to pander in retaliations.

To JC, Chris, and James: If these insults continue, none of you will benefit. You will all seem a little less ethical and credible in the eyes of the readers.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Mar 16, 2008 04:41PM)
Agreed Dream, I just don't appreciate being wrongfully bashed, especially by someone who doesn't know me. My main point is, had ANYONE other than myself have said Bluetooth, it would have been a valid answer to James post, as it was me, it was supposedly an unfair and invalid point. I don't actually ever remember bashing James company or any of their products. This, the effect sounds nice, but as a 'worker', I can't be carrying round a large camera from table to table. It will be fine for some, just not for me, my only one real post in this thread, was answering James post of 'Planning on giving that camera out to someone to take home with them after you take that photo? That's sort of short sighted don't you think Xiqual? And my guess is, if you performed for a living, that might get a bit expensive. ROFLOL', merely stating that todays technology has Bluetooth, which is fair point
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 16, 2008 04:41PM)
Your Welcome.
we are all aware of the state of poliriod just now. The technology in it is dated. A Camera phone which 90% of People have these days and soon 100% of mobile/cell uses will have as it is becoming industry standard Is more compact and user friendly in that sense. FAR more easy to customise for the effect desired and SO much easier to pass on that picture for the spec to keep via Bluetooth. Now I know apple made a bad decision with the "crippled" bluetooth BUT an mms with ALL uk companys just now IS far cheaper and more cost effective than giving away a poliriod.

I think that covers both points.
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 16, 2008 05:07PM)
Alan: Was just curious as to what the specifics were in your view. Helps me understand the point made, that's all. I think the issue we are dealing with here is more about venues too. See the following response to Paul.

Dream: You are right. My response to James was designed to convey sarcasm in a joking manner. Clearly, I missed the delivery. I've sent an apology by PM and happily make that known here. As to my other remarks, some people just need to know that poking a sleeping bear is both inappropriate and unwise. There's certainly no need for it, and I am no more tolerant of it than most people are; I just hold no reservations in voicing my position publically. Of course, if that offends anyone other than the intended recipient, then I will gladly apologize to them too as that isn't my intent. Your admonishment is both welcome and accepted. Thank you for the reminder.

Paul, now that's a good post.

I prefer addressing real questions rather than statements with no substance behind them, or those intended to resound as quips. I totally value other people's views, I just don't think negative attacks without logical discourse offers any substantive value. Thanks for adding to the discussion. It makes for much more interesting dialogue.

So to answer your questions directly:

I can name a handful of effects that will, as you put it, stand the test of time. Logical arguments abound regarding using unfamiliar objects (i.e. sponge balls) vs more familiar ones that audience members are used to seeing or handling, so I'm not sure it is worth our time to entirely rehash them. I think both arguments have their merits, to be honest. It just depends on the performer.

While marketers and strategic planners try to predict trends and how a market will change in 10 years, nobody really knows for sure what will happen. So for me, 10 years is a long time. I can't possibly estimate how many times you could use the effect during that period, but I'm willing to wager that it could be as often as you chose and have a venue for. And in that respect, any effect you enjoy (be it sponge balls, a dove pan, or a trick with an outdated camera that is starting to see it's final days) is really up to you and how you play it.

Generally speaking, I don't know that it is a street type effect to be honest; that is a good point you make. However, during our filming it went over great in that kind of setting. I've always used it for other locations and it does, as you noted, go over very well in parlor and for stage. In fact, that is a point addressed on the DVD. You were dead on to recognize that.

I would not recommend it for part time performers who do walk around or restaurant gigs. It is instantly repeatable, but I don't personally feel it would be the right venue. Though, enterprising performers can make of it what they want. I had a guy walk up to my table once and do silk from thumb tip and a pretty weak sponge ball routine; he must have been in his late 40s. To be honest, it was sad. But that's just me. That reeks of the most common forms of amateur magic on the market, magic that many people have seen before. That's not to detract from that magic per se, only that I don't see the point and tend to do routines that most people do not do. Namely, my own creations.

In my view, and it is obvious a personal opinion just as yours are, magic is much more than tricks. It's the experience you provide, the joy you bring, et cetra. Far more than we could share in one thread like this. So while sponge balls may indeed work for some people, when (as you noted) presented by a skilled performer, an effect using a camera like this can be as well. It all depends on the hands holding it.

The rest is speculation and conjecture at best, wouldn't you agree? Having personally performed this for a long time, nearly 20 years now (which sort of does show it's age... lol), I have come to truly appreciate the effect and the results it produces. Even when filming this DVD (obviously we feel it is worthy of producing, or we'd not have invested in it) we were getting ready to do another segment and looked down the street to see a previous couple we did it for still, nearly 10 minutes later, staring at the photo and discussing it. That for me is the prize. We created a memorable experience for them.

I couldn't ask for anything more.

Again, thank you to nearly everyone here; I enjoy learning from and hearing your views.

Regards,

JC
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 16, 2008 05:14PM)
Yet again your welcome I just went ove rmy first post and relised it was rather short and I really did not mean it to be.I just think that the formatt could be better thoguht out. As always I wish you all the luck in the world with the project and with future projects.

Alan
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 16, 2008 05:18PM)
Cheers Alan, now I am back to the grind. The Cafť is a mental break from the reality of owning a company and managing a magazine; both of which are killers. LOL. Best to you. JC
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 16, 2008 05:23PM)
Be safe
Message: Posted by: ted french (Mar 16, 2008 05:32PM)
Here's an idea, why not play off the fact that the Polaroid is an old and rarely used camera and build the routine around that. Maybe work in a comedy angle where you talk about not being able to afford one of those fancy schmancy digital cameras so you had to go with the Polaroid.

BTW check out Christopher Williams "Bright Ideas" from Alakazam to see the young pro in action.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 16, 2008 07:25PM)
Actually, I should not have started in with the sarcastic comment.

I apologise for the attitude.

I do feel that this technology is outdated. I have performed this for paying audiences way back in 1993.

I mentioned one source of this trick another is Lee Earle's excellent prediction effect that goes a bit different route. Ted Lesley also has a lot of underground work on this effect.

I actually used an ESP card for the revelation.

The bottom line? This idea is not new, the technology is obsolete. If you live in a place where digital cameras are common I think this would be a strange thing to carry around.

Good luck to JC with this effect though, I'll stick with my Nokia N95 and Bluetooth.
James Linn
American living in Taiwan
46 years old
Part time pro magician
Teacher
Strength coach
Father of four
Fluent in Mandarin Chinese [self taught]
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Mar 16, 2008 07:31PM)
The "young pro?" That's humorous!
Message: Posted by: ted french (Mar 16, 2008 10:28PM)
Why is that humorous?
Shaun Dunn
Unemployed ninja
High School Dropout
2nd rate video producer
Out of shape break dancer
Father of ???
Master of Destruction
Party Animal
Professional Bikini Inspector
Whup A** can opener
Message: Posted by: Tophie (Mar 16, 2008 10:35PM)
Actually, I am going to try and see if this wil work with the old SX-70 Polaroid.
THe antique appearance of that camera can be used to create a spiritualistic frame for the presentation.
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 17, 2008 12:41AM)
Tophie: bravo, and that's the point. It will work for some, not for all. Drop me an email at jclark at blacks magic group (dot) com. I'll hook you up with some crazy routines that I use that will scare the bageezus out of people (in a good way). :)
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 17, 2008 06:38AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-16 23:28, ted french wrote:
Why is that humorous?
Shaun Dunn
Unemployed ninja
High School Dropout
2nd rate video producer
Out of shape break dancer
Father of ???
Master of Destruction
Party Animal
Professional Bikini Inspector
Whup A** can opener
[/quote]

And only 14 years old! Wow, you should be proud.
James
Message: Posted by: ted french (Mar 17, 2008 07:16AM)
I forgot to add fitness model stand in and dance contest winner. 14 I wish, I would trade 28 for 14 in a heartbeat with what I know now.
Shaun Dunn
http://www.papercraneproductions.net
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 17, 2008 08:50AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-17 08:16, ted french wrote:
I forgot to add fitness model stand in and dance contest winner. 14 I wish, I would trade 28 for 14 in a heartbeat with what I know now.
Shaun Dunn
http://www.papercraneproductions.net
[/quote]

I know one you forgot to add. Total nonsense demo maker.
James
Message: Posted by: ted french (Mar 17, 2008 11:44AM)
Whoa, taking things kinda personal don't ya think? I wasnt attacking you personally I was having fun on here I don't come on here to start fights.
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 17, 2008 01:26PM)
What's up Shaun? Been a while. Hope you are well. Don't take it like that, James is just playing bro. It's all fun and games until someone loses a sponge ball.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 17, 2008 01:43PM)
I cant get your demos to work mate.
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 17, 2008 05:12PM)
Alan, where at bro? From the home page? PM me and I'll see if I can help. JC
Message: Posted by: Irishghost (Mar 17, 2008 05:47PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-17 09:50, Xiqual wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-03-17 08:16, ted french wrote:
I forgot to add fitness model stand in and dance contest winner. 14 I wish, I would trade 28 for 14 in a heartbeat with what I know now.
Shaun Dunn
http://www.papercraneproductions.net
[/quote]

I know one you forgot to add. Total nonsense demo maker.
James
[/quote]

OUCH
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 17, 2008 06:40PM)
No problem JC it was my codecs. All updated now
Message: Posted by: jclark (Mar 17, 2008 07:56PM)
Coolio. Glad it's ok.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 18, 2008 07:34AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-17 12:44, ted french wrote:
Whoa, taking things kinda personal don't ya think? I wasnt attacking you personally I was having fun on here I don't come on here to start fights.
[/quote]

Not at all Ted. Just playin. Sorry if you felt I was attacking you.
James
ps
You have to admit that your demo doesn't really show the effect.
It's all just "Oh my god" and freaky L&L faces.
Message: Posted by: JamesChen (Mar 18, 2008 03:57PM)
Hello James,
does this effect work with Fuji's Instax100?
Message: Posted by: ted french (Mar 19, 2008 07:20AM)
James those are teasers, Full demos with more of the effect are coming soon. Now back it Captured.
Message: Posted by: niva (Mar 24, 2008 05:37PM)
I would prefer something with a mobile phone. Bluetooth is the answer to giving the phtot away as a souvenir.

And I believe the same effect was already on the market. I found it at hank lee's: http://www.hanklee.org/xcart/product.php?productid=1455&cat=0&page=1
Message: Posted by: Tim Ellis (Apr 10, 2008 12:14AM)
Mike Bent's effect uses a Polaroid Joycam... even harder to find than regular Polaroids now... ;)

As you can see here http://www.ecamerafilms.com/product_p/634939.htm the film for them is no longer made.

Here is the version Dave Lord brought out in 1996.. and even then, it wasn't original

http://www.davelord.com.au/magicworks/dl/inpic.html
Message: Posted by: Tophie (Apr 14, 2008 08:20PM)
Has this been released yet?
I ordered this and bought a polaroid camera ready to go?
Message: Posted by: Keith Raygor (Jun 24, 2008 12:23AM)
I have been performing this for several years now at the restaurant. It is one of my most requested effects, though I use it sparingly. I started years ago with Ted Lesley's Ted Serios Outdone, then purchased Mike Bent's version, which is the version I still perform now; though I did change the camera and the gimmick when the Joycam was discontinued. Now I use 600 film. It is my hope that someone fills the void left by Polaroid Corp.

The ZINK printer will be available at Best Buy in July for $149 and may offer an update to this effect if someone uses further technology to allow the same outcome as Say Cheese or Captured.

There is a review of Captured in this month's Genii.
Message: Posted by: Dave Lord (Feb 23, 2009 09:37AM)
Sorry for the late post on this topic, but I just discovered this thread.
Tim Ellis referred to my effect "In The Picture", and commented that it was released in 1996, and that it was not original.
Sorry Tim, but you are wrong on both counts! The effect "In the Picture" was created by me in 1995. I shared the effect with an exclusive few magicians, and then released it in 1988 as a printed manuscript. I then produced the effect as an instructional video in 1996.
The method for "In the Picture" is entirely original. I am not aware of any other version of the trick that uses my method. If you know of one, I would love to hear about it. (Sean Taylor included a version of my effect in his lecture notes, using a Joycam. He asked for my permission prior to including it, and I agreed.)
I have now discontinued the effect as Polaroid film is no longer available.
Message: Posted by: Tim Ellis (Feb 24, 2009 07:47PM)
Sorry Dave, the only reason I said "it was not original then" is that I performed the effect at The Magic Castle in 1989 or 1992, and it was old then...
Message: Posted by: Dave Lord (Feb 24, 2009 11:50PM)
OOOOPS! Just found a typo in my earlier post.... Thanks Tim.
It should read <The effect "In the Picture" was created by me in 1985.> NOT 1995!
*** Gremlins!