26 replies to this topic

[curzon]

Although many people hated it, I found, in places, Woman In Whites projections to be amazing, the train affect at the end was brilliant.

I loved the projections in WIW. Bill Dudley also did the projection of the girl in the shower effect in Hithcock Blonde. Having done a few shows with projection and knowing what an amazing pain in the ass even quite simple effects can be I was breathless with admiration for those involved in WIW. The synchronisation of the solid set and the projections would have required split second timing. Even sa light mistake would have mean the projections would not have worked. Glad I didn't have to do that technical rehearsal!

Sebastian

[ianianian]

"Our House" always impressed me - for instance when Joe Casey "split in two" near the start. Very simple to see how they did it, but when you weren't expecting it, it was very effective.

Lots of great fast costume changes in that show too.

[Matthew Winn]

I remember a panto in Manchester where this happened.  Think it might (but not 100% sure) have been Billy Pearce in Aladdin.  Anyway, the flying carpet was unbelievable and to this day I can't think how they did it.

That may the production I'm thinking of, as it was Billy Pearce in Aladdin in Northampton.

I'll describe how I think it was done (and the way I would attempt it) below. Anyone who doesn't want to know, skip the rest of this post. I wasn't sure whether I should post this, but I'm doing it anyway because (a) I want to show off and (b) part of the fun of magic is seeing it first and then discovering how it was done and how easily you were made to believe in the impossible.

First of all, the effect as I saw it. The flying carpet took off from the stage and went swooping out over the audience. It was very brightly lit, but despite the bright lighting there was absolutely no sign of any support for the carpet. With the bright illumination there ought to be something of the support visible, as even the blackest of black paints still reflects a couple of percent of the light falling on it. Witness Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, where the arm supporting the car stuck out ... well, like a great hydraulic arm. But despite my best efforts I couldn't see any support.

So, how can it be done?

The first thing is to support the carpet with a black-painted arm as usual, but to make sure that there is no light spill at all. All lights in the theatre are extinguished and the upper side of the carpet (and the people on it) are lit by very tightly focused and shielded followspots that light just the people and the middle of the carpet. The movement of everything is controlled by pre-programmed instructions, so the carpet can fly around with the spots tracking it precisely. Because none of the light is spilling off the carpet on to the support the support can't be seen. (A very small amount of secondary light may spill off, but too little to make the support visible.)

But that just looks like a carpet with a bright spot in the middle of it, and the effect was that the entire carpet was lit. To fix this you use fluorescent dyes in the carpet, and you back this up with ultraviolet light directed at the carpet. The UV makes the carpet shine as if it were being lit by the followspots, but because the black paint on the supporting arm doesn't fluoresce it can't be seen. Without the UV it might still be possible to see the support, but the glare of the carpet right next to the dark support hides the latter. The contrast is too great for the eye to cope. The result is that the audience sees a brightly lit carpet surrounded by absolutely nothing, floating in empty space.

My original thought was that they were using a followspot with a very sharp edge to it, but I'm not sure that's practical. It would be easy enough if the carpet were stationary, but to achieve the same precision on something that's moving and spinning would be exceptionally difficult. By using UV to light the edges of the carpet and visible light only for the people there's no need for that precision, and so long as the followspot doesn't stray too near the edge of the carpet there's no chance of it illuminating the support.

I don't know if that's how the effect was actually achieved, and I wish I'd gone back for another look so I could see whether the followspots did spill over the edge of the carpet and whether they were using UV: if the answers were "yes" to the first or "no" to the second then I'm wrong. But I think it could work my way.

[M George]

That may the production I'm thinking of, as it was Billy Pearce in Aladdin in Northampton.

I'll describe how I think it was done (and the way I would attempt it) below. Anyone who doesn't want to know, skip the rest of this post. I wasn't sure whether I should post this, but I'm doing it anyway because (a) I want to show off and ( part of the fun of magic is seeing it first and then discovering how it was done and how easily you were made to believe in the impossible.

First of all, the effect as I saw it. The flying carpet took off from the stage and went swooping out over the audience. It was very brightly lit, but despite the bright lighting there was absolutely no sign of any support for the carpet. With the bright illumination there ought to be something of the support visible, as even the blackest of black paints still reflects a couple of percent of the light falling on it. Witness Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, where the arm supporting the car stuck out ... well, like a great hydraulic arm. But despite my best efforts I couldn't see any support.

So, how can it be done?

The first thing is to support the carpet with a black-painted arm as usual, but to make sure that there is no light spill at all. All lights in the theatre are extinguished and the upper side of the carpet (and the people on it) are lit by very tightly focused and shielded followspots that light just the people and the middle of the carpet. The movement of everything is controlled by pre-programmed instructions, so the carpet can fly around with the spots tracking it precisely. Because none of the light is spilling off the carpet on to the support the support can't be seen. (A very small amount of secondary light may spill off, but too little to make the support visible.)

But that just looks like a carpet with a bright spot in the middle of it, and the effect was that the entire carpet was lit. To fix this you use fluorescent dyes in the carpet, and you back this up with ultraviolet light directed at the carpet. The UV makes the carpet shine as if it were being lit by the followspots, but because the black paint on the supporting arm doesn't fluoresce it can't be seen. Without the UV it might still be possible to see the support, but the glare of the carpet right next to the dark support hides the latter. The contrast is too great for the eye to cope. The result is that the audience sees a brightly lit carpet surrounded by absolutely nothing, floating in empty space.

My original thought was that they were using a followspot with a very sharp edge to it, but I'm not sure that's practical. It would be easy enough if the carpet were stationary, but to achieve the same precision on something that's moving and spinning would be exceptionally difficult. By using UV to light the edges of the carpet and visible light only for the people there's no need for that precision, and so long as the followspot doesn't stray too near the edge of the carpet there's no chance of it illuminating the support.

I don't know if that's how the effect was actually achieved, and I wish I'd gone back for another look so I could see whether the followspots did spill over the edge of the carpet and whether they were using UV: if the answers were "yes" to the first or "no" to the second then I'm wrong. But I think it could work my way.

That's a good enough explanation for me.  Thank you!

[Jonesy]

"Our House" always impressed me - for instance when Joe Casey "split in two" near the start. Very simple to see how they did it, but when you weren't expecting it, it was very effective.

Lots of great fast costume changes in that show too.

The actor who played Joe (Michael Jibson I think) got in the Guiness Book of Records for the amount of costume changes. I think there were almost 30 in total?

[pesa]

I thought the flying scenes and the lost boys diving into and out of the sea in the National Theatres production of 'PETER PAN' was the most amazing special effects/theatre magic I have ever seen.

[Wickalot Q]

The magic i cant get is in Beaity and the beast the tour when he changes back into a man.