Video of recursive hand illusions

"Screengrab" by Willie Witte. "None of the visuals are computer generated. All the trickery took place literally in front of the camera."


    1. Black and White makes it easier to match the transitions.  Otherwise color management would be a bitch to get right.

  1. There may be no computer generated trickery but there is a ton of editing trickery!  It’s awesome, but the title led me to expect something different.

    1. Yeah.  I’ll be buggered if that was a single continuous shot.
      I’m sort of left thinking, what’s the illusion?  That people won’t be annoyed by the deceptive title claiming there was sleight of hand when it’s obviously just very well done frame matching?
      It is impressive though that he was able to so perfectly frame match.  I’m guessing he had a friend who could slide in new photos and take snapshots from the camera.

    2. This. Like hell there’s no computers in the way. Show me a side shot of the sleight of hand, and i’ll believe you. For now, i can see a lot of editing tricks. Looks amazing! But don’t lie to me. 

    3. I came here to say the same thing: Unless the video was edited on tape, with razor blades and splicing tape, it involved a computer, so…

  2.  No computer generated trickery… unless you count the use of video editing software.

  3. I think “not computer generated” means two things to two audiences. To filmmakers, it means “this is not a computer animation.” To the general public, it likely means “a live continuous take, ie. no editing.” Of course, it’s an editing film. The static camera is not that interesting, nor imaginably, what is happening in front of the camera. The editing is where the magic happens.

    People often update the info attached to the video based on people’s questions or misconceptions. This can cause further misconceptions.

Comments are closed.