Aaron Fisher's Outjog Hermann Pass

Mar 11, 2008
5
0
First the praise. The Outjog Hermann Pass is great, and Aaron's explanation is clear and concise. His handling of the pass masterful (I'll start practising now. Catch up with me in five years to see how I'm doing!) His additional references to other magicians and background on the effect, illuminating. What more can I say? - Oh and the price is right, which is why I'm sure this site is going to grow from strength to strength.

The criticism? Please fire the cameraman.

The following is a plea for better presentation. After 17 minutes of the cameraman deliberately and constantly focusing and then defocusing (at least one can only hope it was deliberate) I was left with a headache. (That's a real, physical headache, not a metaphorical one for the purposes of making a point). Why is it that no-one has faith in magical effects alone? It's a great slight, well presented, but appallingly let down by the cameraman and/or director. OK, so we're all having to come to terms with documentary style shaky camerawork (well, actually not all of us. See the stunningly good Tivo2 for a presenter who has faith in straightforward, ungimmicky clean presentation), but to constantly focus and defocus for over 17 minutes..... It's mind-boggling. Does the cameraman understand that we buy these videos for the information they are meant to convey, and that clear, sharp and steady pictures actually help this process?

The editing was thankfully restrained, but there is one bad moment (at 6.53 minutes in) where instead of letting the demonstration play out on the one shot, we get three cuts in quick succession. I urge Theory11 to take a look at this moment and resist it in future. For the experienced magician I'm sure it looks like a slick and sexy throwaway moment, nothing more, but for someone who actually wants to learn the effect, those cuts come at EXACTLY the wrong moment, destroying the continuity of the move at a crucial junction. Anybody well versed in editing for dramatic effect, will tell you - the mind's recovery time from those cuts is not sufficient to take in what's going on at the same time. That cutting technique is widely used in film drama to obscure, speed up and condense time. This is the very reverse of what's needed here.

Aaron is obviously hugely talented so I find it difficult to believe that he would need to dress his piece up unnecessarily - but perhaps he's not aware of the frustration it causes? Surely he's aware that we are going to add all the mood and atmosphere and throw in our own diversions and personalities (the equivalent of the restless camerawork) once we have mastered the moves? But maybe not. Maybe I'm completely wrong - hey, maybe he should get some rappers in on his next session, let's drown all his great work out with some hip-hop while we're at it and if the camera focuses on him occasionally - well... That's a bonus!

So please. Joking aside, a plea to everyone at Theory11, from someone who thinks the magic is great. Resist going down the MTV Music video, attention-span-of-a-goldfish-route. Resist pretending you are doing street magic and being jostled at every turn! You're in a teaching environment, trying, on occasion, to convey some very complex moves. Leave the jostling to us!! From the youngest to the oldest of magicians we are all hard-working dedicated souls, always prepared to put the extra time and effort into the craft. So i say to Theory11, be brave. Resist the nonsense (and save my headache) and everyone will stay with you.

I was on the point of making a serious commitment and purchasing Dan and Dave Buck's Trilogy. All three discs. It really looks great. The quality of this site tells me the tricks will be fantastic, but I need people's advice; how much of it is shot by a cameraman with the flight co-ordination of a Kamikaze pilot and the wish to reinvent him/herself as a lurching toddler straight out of diapers? Seriously, this may come over as a flip remark, but I genuinely would like to know.

And for those of you who are happily wedded to the music video generation of camerawork, revisit the Outjog Hermann Pass video. Honest, sharp and clearly shot it aint. It's a great slight of hand, but the camerawork persistantly gets in the way.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,241
1
I agree that video has a lot of focusing and unfocusing. But the Trilogy has absolutly none of that.
 
Aug 31, 2007
467
1
Canada
I must agree on the current phase of camera work. The MTV generational influence. As for the Outjog Hermann Pass, it is a great move. Although I did not purchase the 1 on 1 for it, as I own The Paper Engine where it is discussed in detail, I have been using variations of it for years.

In the book, Fisher discusses the inherent, um, not sure what to call it, as it is not really a discrepancy, or a flaw really, but it is discussed, and "solved," but in a manner that has more cons than make it worth while.

However, I have discovered that if you combine it with a spread pass, that is, in the action of having a card returned to a spread, or even just while having it selected (ie, ask them to touch a car, you separate the fan there and raise their card for them to see) then you actually can end up with something that "solves" the angle jogging (again, not something that really needs to be solved) and also maintains the cleanlyness of the OJHP.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,595
0
Venezuela
Dana do u have something to say? :O

Hey I think that on the whatistheory11.com vid, when they are explaining the style or something like that, I THINK that they talk about it, not sure...

Personally, I love ur work Dana (I dont wanna get banned 4ever =( )

Aris
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ace

Sep 2, 2007
30
0
I'd have to agree with PeterB. The focusing and unfocusing is extremely annoying. Trilogy is an excellent example of perfect, clean camera work for learning. I think T11 is catering to the highschool crowd.
 
Oct 3, 2007
173
0
germany
Personally, the style of filming doesnt bother me at all. However, I see how it could be restricive when it comes to some of the more complex moves. I wouldn't mind a change either way.

Zep.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
1,529
1
33
San Francisco, CA
Hey guys, just wanted to clear some things up. The constant refocusing where the screen goes blurred for a moment is not the editor's fault.

Many new cameras have an autofocus feature, where the camera readjusts to what's going on. Obviously, Theory11's cameras have this feature. I don't know if there is anyway to turn it off, so sorry if it is giving you guys headaches.

As for the editing, the editor may have thought the shots that were cut to would give you a better viewing angle. I personally don't own the 1 on 1, so I can't say. Also, Aaron may have made a mistake in the presentation, so they reshot it from a different angle and spliced the new shot in for the messed up shot.

Possibilities, possibilities...

Hope that helps!

David
 
I totally agree with PeterB. It was so fustrating watching this the first time. I was already tired and couldn't finish watching it - cos I thought it was my eyes! Although I do like T11's music. But please, refrain from that style of camera work in the future T11.
 
Mar 11, 2008
5
0
> Hey guys, just wanted to clear some things up. The constant refocusing where
> the screen goes blurred for a moment is not the editor's fault.

Agreed and never suggested otherwise. The mention of focusing was completely separate to the issue of editing.

> Many new cameras have an autofocus feature, where the camera readjusts to
> what's going on...

I'd suggest otherwise. The focussing issue wasn't an servo hunting for focus, it was a deliberate stylistic manually operated focus 'throw' carried out by the cameraman.

> As for the editing, the editor may have thought the shots that were cut to
> would give you a better viewing angle.

Clearly. Hence my suggestion that he's in error.

> I personally don't own the 1 on 1, so I can't say. Also, Aaron may have made a
> mistake in the presentation, so they reshot it from a different angle and
> spliced the new shot in for the messed up shot.

Not so. The shot was a close-up of Aaron's hands, so definitely not a mistake in presentation. That only leaves a mistake in demonstrating the move, which is hardly likely...

> Possibilities, possibilities...

In other circumstances I'm sure, but perhaps best to have seen the video first.
 
Sep 4, 2007
131
0
The Trilogy definitely has no such problem. When you're taught a move, the demonstration is shot from a good angle, without any sudden movements, allowing you to focus on the move itself. In a large number of cases you get closeups where only the hands and the deck can be seen.

I enjoyed learning from the Trilogy.
 
Aug 31, 2007
807
0
interwebz
> Hey guys, just wanted to clear some things up. The constant refocusing where
> the screen goes blurred for a moment is not the editor's fault.

Agreed and never suggested otherwise. The mention of focusing was completely separate to the issue of editing.

> Many new cameras have an autofocus feature, where the camera readjusts to
> what's going on...

I'd suggest otherwise. The focussing issue wasn't an servo hunting for focus, it was a deliberate stylistic manually operated focus 'throw' carried out by the cameraman.

> As for the editing, the editor may have thought the shots that were cut to
> would give you a better viewing angle.

Clearly. Hence my suggestion that he's in error.

> I personally don't own the 1 on 1, so I can't say. Also, Aaron may have made a
> mistake in the presentation, so they reshot it from a different angle and
> spliced the new shot in for the messed up shot.

Not so. The shot was a close-up of Aaron's hands, so definitely not a mistake in presentation. That only leaves a mistake in demonstrating the move, which is hardly likely...

> Possibilities, possibilities...

In other circumstances I'm sure, but perhaps best to have seen the video first.


You say fire the cameraman...but the focus/unfocus effect might have been added during production...so then that wold be the producers fault not the cameramans....so fir the producer. But in the case you would probably be firing the cameraman because they are probably both Dana or Wayne...you never know.

Confusing eh?

I like the style.
-Brad
 
Mar 11, 2008
5
0
You say fire the cameraman...but the focus/unfocus effect might have been added during production...so then that wold be the producers fault not the cameramans....so fir the producer....
-Brad

Agreed, it could have been anybody's decision behind the camera, from cameraperson, director or producer. It could even have been applied in post-production. Depending on the sophistication of the camera, the irritating effect could even have been achieved by throwing the camera's *backfocus*, (cameramen out there with this facility will know what I mean). None of which seemed necessary or relevant to include, but sure, as you say - fire the producer. The point being that the effect was extremely irritating and - when you have such a great presentation, delivered so effortlessly by Aaron - quite unnecessary. The words 'style over content' spring to mind. And I'm heartened to see that others agree.
 
Aug 31, 2007
807
0
interwebz
Agreed, it could have been anybody's decision behind the camera, from cameraperson, director or producer. It could even have been applied in post-production. Depending on the sophistication of the camera, the irritating effect could even have been achieved by throwing the camera's *backfocus*, (cameramen out there with this facility will know what I mean). None of which seemed necessary or relevant to include, but sure, as you say - fire the producer. The point being that the effect was extremely irritating and - when you have such a great presentation, delivered so effortlessly by Aaron - quite unnecessary. The words 'style over content' spring to mind. And I'm heartened to see that others agree.

You quote me and say that I said fire the producer. That was part of my hypothetical situation. I love that style...it even says so in that post.

I would hate to say Dana and or Wayne go bye-bye, they are doing a great job!



-Brad
 
Mar 11, 2008
5
0
You quote me and say that I said fire the producer. That was part of my hypothetical situation. I love that style...it even says so in that post. I would hate to say Dana and or Wayne go bye-bye, they are doing a great job!

-Brad

I understood that you were being hypothetical, which is why I agreed with you - (you're right, it may well have been the producer). And I note that you like the style, which is fine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

As for Dana or Wayne "going bye-bye", (apologies, I'm new to the site. I assume these are production people). Perhaps they are having too much fun and being a little self indulgent? It's great when you can stamp your personality on something and producing these video clips is certainly an opportunity for this, but they are also commercial products for sale to a paying public and on that score I would rather they left the 'art' behind and concentrated more on actively promoting the performers work. Besides - and I understand there will be differing opinions out there - I personally find the MTV-style of shooting so yesterday. So 90's. So been done to death a thousand times before. To me, it feels stale and the very reverse of new and refreshing.

But then I'm someone who hates to watch a movie near some dysfunctional person spoiling others enjoyment by calling people on their cell phones. Watching Aaron felt similar. While I was trying to concentrate on him elucidating on his art, I was constantly aware of the cameraperson waving around, focussing and defocussing. Saying, in effect, look at me! Don't look at the performer, look at what I'm doing - I'm more important!

So, as mentioned, irritating to say the least.

But I'm sure there are other opinions out there, and it's always good to hear them.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results