I've seen this topic come up in various places in these forums and I thought it might be a good one to call out and specifically discuss.

As others have said, we dwell in an industry that is in many ways based on taking the mundane and making it seem exciting and special. Magic is often sold from the POV of the spectator and the whole point is that what the spectator believes they are seeing often isn't whats really going on. Additionally bombast has *always* been part of magic and its not unreasonable to see some in how magic gets sold.

The problem is that this can walk a fine line. Well meaning (and not so well meaning) vendors can overdo it and us, the customers, can end up feeling we are not getting what we thought we were paying for.

One traditional way to avoid the above problem was sales 'by demonstration.' We know the impact of the effect on an audience because we have *been* an audience. Unfortunately, in today's world where face to face interaction is becoming increasingly rare, performance video is taking the place of performance. performance video is *ripe* for abuse due to the incredibly inexpensive video post production tools available on anyone's PC. (Even without post-production, video can easily hide angle issues, cleanliness issues, etc.)

I'd like to suggest that maybe we, as an industry, could start thinking about a "code" for describing and demonstrating magical effects. These could also be used in reviews. Just off the top of my head here are some thoughts on what a "good" ad or review might contain:

(1) The effect as seen by the audience.
(2) The angles and situations in which the effect must be performed.
(3) The manpower required to perform the effect.
(4) Time/situation needed for set up/reset/tear down.

A "good" video demonstration might include the following:
(1) Performed in a "real" setting matching the intended setting for the illusion
(2) Shot in one take. No cuts or edits. No post production or in-camera effects.
(3) No props or slights employed other then those being sold.
(4) Performed in front of a real, unrehearsed and unpaid (or otherwise unnaturally friendly) audience.

Thoughts? Are these off base? Are there other things that should be included or restricted?

~removed by JRob when he realized it was tangential to the topic.

I recently released a video the way you described.I have not had real great reviews on the video.I think people expect the kind of high tech.aproach.I may have to turn this over to a pro.
Gimpy

I'm sorry to hear that.

Maybe I'm unusual, or just a bit more sophisticated in my demo viewing because I have a film degree, but highly produced magic demo videos REALLY turn me off. I *watch* carefully for cuts and every cut makes me wonder what was happening in the in between time that was cut out. Post produced effects are even worse as AFAIAC all they do is get in the way of seeing whats really going on.

The worst example I just saw recently was an effect I was interested in but the video was awful. 5 to 10 second snippits of video with fade down/fade up between each one. That's just enough time to start getting interested and its gone It gave me zero confidence in the effect.

For the intro and text screens? Sure, jazz em up. Give them slitscan tunnels and whatever. But any demo footage that shows me anything other then what the live audience is seeing immediately raises my warning bells. I don't think any of us honestly expect a TV viewer viewing such obviously manipulated video would accept it as a magic performance-- why then do we??