After initially thinking that it was a smart undertaking, I'm now of the thought that video stoogeing is not condusive to quality magic.
I consider Video Stooging as being shots of a performer actually doing something like a levitation with a body worn gimmick, or a King type effect....and then those shots are edited in with shots of the same performer doing a distinctly different effect with far more elaborate apparatus. Both shots are edited to appear as one.

Levitation comes to mind as the most abused. The actual performer will be doing a King in front of real people, and then will be intercut with the performer levitating far, far higher than any gimmicked levitation would make possible.......the audience is long gone, and the second effect is probably a w--e rig, but the edits make it look as if the audience are watching the 6 foot levitation when they're really not.

I now consider this the worst of all scams, and that's a video trick foisted on the public as real magic.

The performer can still say with all truth that what you're viewing on TV is what you would see live.......because it really is......you really would see each effect just as it looked on TV, it;s just that they're being done hours, or even days apart.

The usual *street magic* suspects are the two most guilty parties, and I'm thinking that this video stooging is creating unachievable expectations from audience about what's actually possible to do live and in front of real people.

I don't think video stooging has much more to offer anybody, it's old already.

Nuff said.

I'm going to play devil's advocate just for the sake of argument. This isn't because I agree OR disagree with what you've said, just to offer another viewpoint.

When movie studios have an interesting pipeline for their shots. Take a simple dialogue shot. Most of the time (due to budgets) they set the camera up looking over the shoulder of actor "A" looking at actor "B". They both act out their parts. Then, the camera is moved to the other side and looks over actor "B" focusing on actor "A" and the actors go through the whole scene again.

Now, take into consideration that while the camera is pointed at one actor, they will do multiple takes. I recently worked on a film that shot for literally 12 hours. The scene itself (once cut into the film) is 3 minutes. And this shot was with only TWO actors! Just imagine a larger shot!

Get the extended DVD series for Lord of the Rings. In one scene (in the third film) where Frodo and Sam are talking on a cliff. Sam was filmed on the first day of pricipal production. Frodo's shots were filmed literally one YEAR later. So each time the camera cut back and forth, you're jumping back and forward in time one year!

Now, is this a scam? No. It's just what they do. And they do it for one reason: to get the BEST FOOTAGE. Television and film are both very different from real life performances. So much needs to be done to get the "perfect" shot.

Without going into too much detail, take a "typical" shoot of one performer on stage performing a one hour special. They will shoot several nights of the same show and cut them together.

When I'm editing for a promo video, for example, I'll talk to the performer ahead of time if there are bits he'll do that he doesn't really need or want to showcase in the video. During those bits, I'll aim the camera at the audience to get reaction shots. These shots are then cut into other routines.

Is this a scam? No. It would just be too expensive to hire three or four camera operators to get every shot. So shortcuts are taken to keep costs down. The audience was still laughing during that time, I just wasn't aiming the camera at them at that time, so I get them laughing or clapping later. Their reactions are still the real deal (I don't say "Ok everyone, now clap!").

I've also done this after the show is finished and the audience is gone. I'll have the performer set up a specific trick and I'll get some footage that would have been impossible to get with the audience there. For example, I'll be onstage with the performer getting a shot moving across the stage in an arc or even completely around the performer. (FYI, the lights shining into the camera obscures the dark room and you can't even tell there is no audience in the room, just what the performer sees in a normal theater anyway).

You're creating an experience for a different venue, not a video deposition of the actual event. Live magic just different from video.

Cheers!
Scott

Scott,
As usual, great advice.

Silverking,
You have a point... Scott's scenario is not the same as shooting footage of one effect and editing in footage of another (less angle-friendly) effect.

In the "Golden Days" of live television, the magician would say that no camera tricks were used and there would be no cut-away shots from other cameras... you would see the illusion just as the audience sees it. This actually worked to the magician's advantage, since the camera could be set at the optimum angle.

Latter day magicians (Copperfield, lance Burton) made use of the same concept with a steadicam operator. Again, angles were to the performers' advantage.

Some of our currrent miracle workers use multiple cam-corders to capture multiple street performances and edit the best cuts together. Whether these finished products accurately reflect what an audience actually sees is open to interpretation.

Using footage of different effects edited tother to make the magician seem capable of the impossible is where "cheating" comes in. But like it or not, someone will do it.

Is it the worst of all scams? I find it less objectionable than the Masked Magician, but that's me.

David

My question is what is the purpose of the television show in the first place? It's too entertain the audience, that's the main use of television in the first place. If the audience is entertained then who is harmed?

Heck even the fast food commericals show you a hamburger that looks nothing like the kind you receive at the actual restaurant.

Just a thought,

Doug

Silverking I agree with you. As a Cable T.V. Producer I never allowed any Magicians to do SUPER NATURAL magic stunts on my T.V. shows. I met many magicians that one made the statue of liberty disappear another made an island disappear and worst levitated a foot off the ground. All use the editing of the camera shots. Mr. devil's advocate their are many Magicians that just don’t care for this type of magic on T.V. so for the BEST FOOTAGE I will say it’s the true footage.
Doug the harm is Magicians trying to look like GODs,
Entertainment like that should be left to Harry Potter.

That’s one of my pet pees of Magicians that do the camera edit magic. ScottRSullivan is showing me my second pet pee.

Very interesting points all round on this. With so much faking going on in modern tv magic (by faking I will even go so far as including sneaky editing) it is hard to know what you are really watching at all.

My simple thought on this are if you want to be a pretty cheap special FX technition then fake it - if you want to peform that art of magic then let's see the whole trick!!!! A magician (in the modern sense of the word) is someone who 'performs magic' - an artist. You wouldn't watch a singer who only sang 'clilps of songs' and edited out all the tricky high notes!

This sound like I am saying if you can't do it live then don't do it at all - but this is not true - many a David Copperfield stunt would not work 'live' but the effect we are seeing on screen (all be it carefully framed) is at least the whole picture.