Thursday 10 September 2009

How Derren Brown "Predicted" The Lotto Numbers

Derren Brown claims to have predicted the UK Lotto numbers last night (09/09/2009) however this is clearly a trick as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it is impossible to do so. So the question on everybody's lips is "How did he do it?". Well.... here's the explanation:

IN SHORT: It's a camera trick, overlaying 2 video streams to hide an assistant putting the numbers on to his stand.

IN DETAIL:

Point 1
- He starts the show talking to a camera man and walks through a door. At this point the video you are seeing is coming from a man holding a camera. I will call him cameraman 1.



Point 2
- Derren and cameraman 1 walk into the open studio space where the video feed switches to a second cameraman in the corner of the room (cameraman 2). THIS IS IMPORTANT for his trick to work. When the video switches from cameraman 1 to cameraman 2, it's actually switching to a pre-recorded video feed. You can see Derren and cameraman 1 walking into the studio and that the studio is empty apart from the TV and Derren's stand with his number prediction balls on. It's imperative that the viewers see this, so that they are convinced that there is no jiggery-pokery going on with special cameras or anything. This scene is easy to pre-record as you don't see Derren close enough to notice any lip-synch issues. Also, think about it - why is this camera even required? It isn't even used after this part of the program! The only reason it is required is for Derren's trick to work....




Point 3 - Derren waves at cameraman 2 and the video feed switches back to..... NOT cameraman 1. It switches back to a 3rd camera ("fixed camera") that is mounted onto a very accurate motorised stand or boom. Remember the video from cameraman 2 (above)? If that was live, you would have seen the fixed camera and the trick would have been ruined. The switch to cameraman 2 is used so that you don't notice that the producers have switched the main video feed from cameraman 1 to a fixed camera, and are pretending that it's the same feed.

Point 4 - The fixed camera uses it's accurate motor to move the camera in has a digital effect applied which produces a very specific series of human-like shakes and nudges to make you believe that cameraman 1 is holding the camera and it's not mounted to a fixed stand (which it is). This series of movements is pre-programmed and can be repeated perfectly, exactly the same, time and time again. This is how the trick fools you.

Point 5 - Derren talks on a bit, and walks over to the stand. This is another subtle ploy to make you think there is no camera trickery going on. He then walks back over to the right-hand-side of the video feed and the TV set.



Point 6 - Using the pre-programmed series of movements on the fixed camera, Derren has pre-recorded the left-hand-side of the video feed. The producers of the program are able to overlay this pre-recorded video feed onto the live video feed. The end result is that it looks just like you are watching a single live video feed but you are not. To explain it a bit better, imagine the screen divided into 2 down the middle, vertically like this:



Point 7 - Derren jabbers on and on about a "delay" people have been going on about in the media. Some people think he used the delay to pull off the trick but the delay is so small it's not possible to use it to an advantage. This is probably a diversionary tactic by Derren to get people to stop thinking about camera tricks. After a while he turns the TV on and watches the Lotto draw. This is where video feed A is turned on and overlayed on top of video feed B. At this point, if Derren were to walk over to the stand, the trick would be foiled because you would see him disappear behind video feed A.

Point 8 - As the numbers are being announced, an assistant places the correct number balls on the stand on video feed B - the live video feed. The viewers, however, cannot see this because they are just seeing pre-recorded nothingness from video feed A. WE CANNOT SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE STAND/BALLS ON LIVE FEED B.

Point 9 - As soon as the numbers are all out, Derren buys the assistant a few seconds by writing them down on a big piece of card. He also reads them out loud - this is probably helping the assistant. As soon as Derren has done this, the assistant quickly runs out of shot on video feed B (the live one). The producers turn off video feed A and blend it seamlessly (almost - see below) with video feed B. Now Derren can walk over to the stand in video feed B without risking "going behind" video feed A.

Watch this video and see the error the assistant made - it's TINY but noticeable. You can see the end ball move upwards when video feed A is blended back to video feed B:





Point 10 - Derren turns around the stand to reveal his "predicted" set of balls. These were, of course, just set in place by his assistant just seconds ago - AFTER THEY WERE ANNOUNCED ON BBC ONE.

55 comments:

  1. I think the left half of the screen was just a "freeze frame" grabbbed when the live camera setled - and then they mixed this back to the live feed ful frame when he moved across to reveal the numbers, after writing them down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I noticed the fake camera movements stopped right after he said "twenty-three." Shortly after I found this site pointing out the ball moving, so I'm pretty convinced it is in fact the moment the change happens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I didn’t spot the rising ball till it was pointed out online, but I did notice a short period where the camera “moved” less right after the draw. It was inconsistent with the movements that were being made (by machine, probably) prior to that, which led me to think there was a split-screen blending, just as you said.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a professional camera operator, particularly of the small camera that you could see in shot of the wide shot, it is obvious that the movement or 'camera shake' of the camera was not human - it just looked far too close to a joystick operator trying to make what looked like camera shake - but it most definitely wasn't.

    My technical opinion is exactly as you've explained - I wish I had access to a remote camera head here so that I could do the whole trick here, and get it on youtube before he spews rubbish on national TV about how he saw into the future or whatever...

    Don't forget, he's an illusionist, not a magician or psychic ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave: He won't spew rubbish about the future. That's never been his style; he's not afraid to reveal how he tricked/misdirected/persuaded people, as the most cursory glance at any of his stage shows or DVDs will tell you. People need to remember that he is an entertainer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. First off, thanks for the beautiful explanation, very well written and clear.

    After watching the trick on YT (I don't live in the UK), the trick seems, interestingly, rather outdated.

    In an age when even the cheapest consumer cameras now have anti-shake tech, a camera shaking about to the extent that Derren's does should be a dead giveaway that something is odd...

    ReplyDelete
  7. its not like darren to do an easy camera trick, its not his style...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the comments everyone.

    @UK Expat - I totally agree with your thoughts on the anti-shake.

    @Dave - I agree. I clocked the over-obvious camera shake when it was going out live. It just looks like they tried too hard to make you think it was a guy holding a camera.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @SEANJACOB - If you watch his latest adverts going round on Channel 4, you will notice that nearly all of them involve camera trickery. Especially the one where he's juggling the 2 lottery balls. I think there are several videos overlayed on top of each other on this ad. It also looks like one of them is filmed with a mirror down the centre of his body. Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S0ybvz7D58

    ReplyDelete
  10. Although i agree with the split screen technique, i don't quite understand what you're on about with the ball being raised after but not before, i've watched it over and over and it looks in the same position when the balls are facing away as to when they're turned around. I can see the ball moving up when the numbers are announced, but that means nothing really, since the cradle could just be slightly too small

    ReplyDelete
  11. Red herring. Of course it can be done like this, its easy, but do you really think he's going to do a one hour show revealing how he did it with a bit of simple split screen camera trickery? Get real!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Maybe you're right. Maybe the misdirection he's been speaking of is designed to make people like me think they've got it all worked out and he's going to reveal all tonight and make us look like dumbasses - lol.... But I can't think of another way he could have done it other than OLED balls that can have the numbers sent to them electronically to display and look like printed text. But that's WAY too simple surely!

    ReplyDelete
  13. In response to this:

    --------------
    Although i agree with the split screen technique, i don't quite understand what you're on about with the ball being raised after but not before, i've watched it over and over and it looks in the same position when the balls are facing away as to when they're turned around. I can see the ball moving up when the numbers are announced, but that means nothing really, since the cradle could just be slightly too small
    ----------------------

    The ball raises because when the assistant places the correct numbers into the stand (whilst you are watching the pre-recorded stand where the balls aren't being moved around) he or she doesn't quite get the end ball (39) into the stand holder correctly and leaves a gap underneath the ball. When the pre-recorded footage is blended into the live footage, the balls need to be EXACTLY aligned for the viewers not to notice anything has changed. Because the assistant made a slight error, we see the ball "raise up" which it shouldn't have done if it had been placed perfectly.

    The ball wouldn't just pop upwards of its own accord. What you are seeing is a video of one ball being replaced by a video of another ball in a slightly different position in the stand.

    ReplyDelete
  14. it's too easy. everyone blabbing on about this "solution" is buying into what Derren WANTS you to believe - that you've cracked it in less than 24 hours.

    Everyone needs to think again, probably outside the box...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hmmmm, so the big 'reveal' is that 24 people managed to correctly predict all 6 numbers. I don't buy it and will stick with the split-screen explainantion. Derren has gone down a couple of notches in my estimation tonight (and I'm a fan).

    ReplyDelete
  16. I didn't see the show on Wednesday and only really got caught up in this on Friday before the big reveal. The trick itself was quite entertaining but the big reveal was a bit of a let down. Also I had to do a double take but when that lady who was scared of mice was just about to choose the first box to stick her hand into did Derren really say "please make sure it's number three"!!!! - greyman

    ReplyDelete
  17. Agreed PeteA.

    "The wisdom of crowds" only works (when it works at all) when we're talking about concrete things like sweets in a jar. A bunch of people guessing random numbers will add up to the square root of bugger all.

    I wish Derren had come clean and used it as a way of promoting the value of scepticism. A real shame!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree with PeteA and Anonymous.... the big reveal show was a complete waste of 1 hour of television. He didn't reveal anything. Half the program was taken up explaining how he can influence humans to choose specific numbers that they think are random..... Errrr... NOTHING to do with predicting the Lotto.

    And the whole spiel about groups of people choosing the next lotto numbers? Seriously? If you believe that you are really gullible! Notice how he didn't show the "predicted" numbers to his special team of 24 people... THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PREDICT ANYTHING - they just picked some random numbers by jumping through some convoluted hoops!

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're all ignoring the throwaway 3rd option that he manipulated the Lottery balls, over the course of maybe, say, a year...

    But that's your choice, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Get this @ 6.41

    As he's going over the balls in the tray, he touches them one by one - he gets to the penultimate ball, sees 39, the last is raised, loses his patter for a second and looks up off screen - he's aware of the balls up (pun intended) pretty soon in.

    ReplyDelete
  21. referring to this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmxua_V1AcM&feature=related

    Sasha

    ReplyDelete
  22. I can read this man like a book, he's looking up to the monitor to see if the raised ball is visible on-screen. Could've done a better job in disguising his reaction.

    Fail.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Damn, now I know how Richard Dawkins feels after he drops his first bishop of the day. Love it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sasha - you bringing Richard Dawkins into it sums up the essence of why I feel so frustrated by this! Like I said earlier, I expected Derren to give us a lesson on the value of scepticism. (His book TRICKS OF THE MIND holds Dawkins up as an exemplar in this regard.)

    And then what does he do when it comes to the crunch? He feeds his audience mumbo-jumbo! And the sad fact is that SOME people out there WILL swallow it!

    He's sold out! I don't care that he's peddling "entertainment" to us. It would have been just as entertaining had he levelled with us, demonstrated how it was done and told us "Be sceptical, kiddies!" I'd have continued to give him my respect. Now? Not so much.

    Thanks Owen for the great explanation here - much appreciated!

    - Grateful Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  25. ^ I agree with the poster before me. His "reveal" was absolute rubbish. I saw this site before tonight's episode and just didn't want to believe it - just because it's Derren Brown. The evidence is overwhelming though. I watched the special tonight expecting him to offer a mumbo-jumbo explanation for the first 40 minutes and then say "All of what you just saw is a lie" and then give this explanation. I expected too much. If he would have done just that, I would have been happy.

    He's in the same boat as Blaine and Angel now - relying on camera tricks and not admitting it. You have to wonder how honest he has ever been with his claims of not using stooges.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The thought occurs that he severely underestimated the power of the internet "hive mind" - he honestly thought people wouldn't figure it out (or, if they did, they wouldn't TELL!) so he trapped himself in a corner by getting the 24 random people and telling them they were the source of the prediction.

    Since he's gone to all that trouble, he can't backtrack and tell us how he really did it. He'd have to admit he planned to use those 24 people as a smokescreen, and that the internet forced him into the truth, and... No, he couldn't do that. So he had to carry on as normal, spout the fail and end with a statement like "Maybe you won't believe me and think it's all just a trick."

    That, I'm sure, will be his get-out clause when people tell him to his face how disappointed they are. The poster above is right - he's now down there with the guys who use camera trickery and don't admit it. All that good work he did promoting rational thought in THE SYSTEM has been nullified by all the freaky woo-woo in this!

    - G.A.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Heh, you're all so convinced you're still right, aren't you. Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh look, someone who believes in freaky woo-woo. Bless!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Who said I believed in his power of crowds guff?

    All I said was /you/ still might not be right :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. This blog provides a flawless step-by-step analysis on how DB did it.

    Where's your alternative theory? Details, please!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well, Mr Anonymous, I could tell you, but maybe Derren has asked me not to.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And maybe you're trolling. I wonder which it is?

    Put it this way: if this wasn't the way DB did it, then why is this blogger's theory such a seamless fit? Not a flaw or loose end anywhere, as far as I can see...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Don't get me wrong; I think the work done here is tremendous. However, I just wouldn't be so certain that you are all entirely correct. That's all. No trolling intended, I'll leave you be now.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This is the only theory I am left to believe with. Coming from watching his show yesterday, I was even more confused about how he did it then before! I really belive this blog is the truth because at the very end of last nights programme, he said 'maybe it was just a trick'

    ReplyDelete
  35. OK, my point is this: he has a whole series of 'Events' coming up. If people start from the position that he is happy to use camera tricks, it devalues the whole series, even if the rest of the shows are /not/ based on that premise. Whilst I cannot offer any further explanation at the moment, it would seem rash of him to lob this out first, knowing that the sceptics are certainly not going to take in his 'Power Of Crowds' idea and will endeavour to prove that it /could/ have been done with cameras - even if it wasn't. He's cleverer than that and I don't buy it wholesale, at this stage...

    ReplyDelete
  36. In that case, fourstar, he should have started with another of his four premises, used "Win The Lottery" as his grand finale - and then come clean about the camera trickery in that one event!

    It would be nice to think DB was "cleverer than that", but from the evidence he was vain enough to think he wouldn't be caught out (and to give him credit, had the assistant not left the "39" ball raised by a few mm, it would have been far harder to catch him out!) But he got caught with his hand in the jar, and it's the lying/promotion of mumbo-jumbo which has proved so disappointing to his fans.

    "It would seem rash of him", "I cannot offer any further explanation", "I don't buy it wholesale, at this stage" - these phrases suggest you don't quite possess the direct hotline to DB you were claiming to have previously! Next time, I would suggest not entering discussions with patronizing assertions ("Bless"!) if you can't then back your arguments up with anything other than faith.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "the direct hotline to DB you were claiming"

    Er, that was a joke? Jeez, get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Get a life," says the person monitoring this online discussion avidly. (Pot, kettle...)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I hardly think getting an email whenever someone hiding behind the cowardly mask of anonymity manages to spectacularly miss the point falls into the category of avid monitoring. But yes, I was aware of the irony. Glad you spotted it too.

    My point is that whilst you /think/ this is how he did it, and it is a very plausible explanation, well argued and documented, and in your mind there can be no other method, you don't actually /know/ how he did it, as you are a) not him and b) were not there. So whilst we can sit here and argue until the cows come home, only a very small handful of people actually know, and they aren't telling.

    You might be right. But also, you might be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "someone hiding behind the cowardly mask of anonymity"

    It's really getting your goat that you don't know who I am, isn't it? How marvellous, that our little chat means so much to you!

    "I was aware of the irony. Glad you spotted it too."

    You knowingly handed me a stick to beat you with? OK...

    For the rest, it was indisputable - and it was what you should have come out with earlier. "You might be right. But also, you might be wrong" is fair enough (although this statement would have far more weight if you could point out any flaw in this blog's theory - which you can't.)

    However, plunging in with a statement like "Heh, you're all so convinced you're still right, aren't you. Bless" and bringing nothing to support your position but uncertainty isn't the most savvy thing to do, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "It's really getting your goat that you don't know who I am, isn't it?"

    Nope, couldn't care less. I'm sure you have your reasons.

    As for how I should have structured my argument, I'm not obliged to offer any counter theory to point out that you still might be barking up the wrong tree. And if you can't take a bit of mild banter, you're taking the whole thing way too seriously IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I had never knowingly heard of Derren Brown until the internet seemed to stop doing anything else in order to discuss the lottery prediction. (Well, I lie, I thought he was one of those hypnotists whose faces you see on the back of buses saying I CAN HELP YOU STOP SMOKING.) But then I watched the lottery 'prediction' and some Youtube clips of other programmes he's done, and thought they seemed interesting, and likeably low-key compared to all that David Blaine Messiah bollocks. (The 'secret' behind the betting system was great.) But agreeing with others that the lottery 'reveal' programme was a bit blah, and a lot less elegant than his previous misdirections (as cobbled together by me from Youtube anyway...) I wondered whether, given that it really didn't come off as a successful piece of television, and there still more programmes to come, it will be revealed as all part of some other grand misdirection...?

    Otherwise, I haven't seen anything more convincing as a theory that what's on this blog, which is pretty impressive. Although I have a soft spot for theories of the people who are claiming that the mice in the 'reveal' programme were a clue...

    ReplyDelete
  43. "As for how I should have structured my argument, I'm not obliged to offer any counter theory"

    Well, really, the burden of proof IS on you here. Without a good solid reason for your contradiction, you're as much use as the chocolate fireguards who wander into theological discussions with nothing more to say than "Ah, ah, you'll never really know if there is a God or not, will you!"

    Such views don't really help, do they? We're aiming for a rational explanation here, and as such we prefer the analysis of facts to vague statements of faith in Derren Brown.

    As for your "mild banter", let's see: first you provocatively taunt those who like this theory, offer no reason for your contradiction, claim you're in like Flynn with Derren himself (which you later come clean on), use grandiose language like "cowardly mask of anonymity" when you get riled... That's not "banter", it's just annoying.

    But thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Riled? Don't make me laugh. The fact that I had to explain to you that I had made a 'joke' (which you're still trying to use against me, sadly) does explain a lot. But thanks for trying. If this is how he did it, then you were right, bingo, spot on, full marks. But you still don't actually know, do you? That must rankle. That and not having an identity, of course.

    All the best.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Now now children - it's just a silly trick. Chill!

    ReplyDelete
  46. And in 30 years time when you grandchildren check you out online what will you answer when they ask "Why were you such a tit on the internet grandad?"

    ReplyDelete
  47. That was quite funny, Anonymous. Shame you'll never get any credit for it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I doubt whoever said it is particularly bothered about getting their name behind every single witticism they come out with.

    It was quite funny; I agree with you on that at least.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Their name is legion. Or indeed, 'Anonymous'.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Is that really the best you can do?

    ReplyDelete
  51. No, but it's as much as I'm prepared to offer to this now passé discussion. Cheerio.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If you two could stop flirting it'd make it alot easier for some of us to read about a theory.

    I'm very impressed with this considering you came up with it so quickly. Great stuff, I'm a huge fan of DB and have seen him live twice, this is doubtlessly the most unbelievable (quite literally) act he is yet to pull of, I'm glad someone proved it

    ReplyDelete
  53. Great explaination of a great trick.

    A bit harsh calling it Derren Brown 'Fail' I think he achieved exactly what he wanted to.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thanks for the comment, Paul. I think, however, it was definitely a 'fail' because it was essentially such a cheap trick to do. It's not like the Penn & Teller bullet trick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDcARq8ty8) - how they do that I don't think we'll ever know!

    It wasn't even a clever psychological trick which is what we usually expect from Derren Brown. As such, I brand it a FAIL :)

    ReplyDelete
  55. p.s. Sam - thanks for your comment too! Nice for some positive feedback instead of childish arguments :)

    ReplyDelete