Talk:Quick-change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject: Magic, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the WikiProject: Magic page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Quick-change article.
  • Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
  • Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.

Contents

[edit] How It's Done

I would like to know how is it done, I think it will be a very interesting feature in this article.

I don't think it really belongs in the article, but here's a link to someone explaining it, there explanation seems to make sense, coupled with the video clips. http://home.comcast.net/~x.watermist/Change.html Riphal 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Riphal
Why would you say it doesn't belong in the article? Are you referring to the link itself, or the information. I'm just curious, because a lot of other magic related articles here on wikipedia have the "secrets" of how the trick/illusion is done, within spoiler tags. And that precedence would make me think that it should belong in the article. Emmyceru 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read alot of wikipedia articles on magic tricks, so I was not framilliar with the precedence of explanation of how they're done. I guess it makes sense for that info to be in there. Riphal 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that link would be an excellent addition. Unfortunately, the link appears dead now. Google cached it, but the pictures are missing. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:H9wYKRa0_8MJ:home.comcast.net/~x.watermist/Change.html

[edit] OLED fabric

I seriously doubt they use OLED fabric. Are you kidding?! Magicians utilize very simple technologies. That OLED fabric link must be a joke.

It seems plausible to me. I assume they just use the OLED fabric to supplement traditional techniques. I guess that is why they are so popular; their use of OLED fabric gives them an edge over the competition (or at least it did while it was secret).
For anyone who doubts the existence of OLED fabric, my company has been manufacturing OLED fabric since late 2005 for use in cockpit interiors.
I can't argue for or against the OLED fabric suggestions but will say that I'd noticed that the first outfit that Dania has on in their routine was very bulky, big. It made her look very big but as she ends the routine, she's back to her normal size. So, given that, it is quite likely that the concepts in the URL given above might have some bearing about layers of clothing. --speedoflight | talk to me 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Organic light-emitting diode technology is still in development and the trick has been around since the 19th century so it must be all sleight of hand. Anyway, the original Yahoo! Answers link provided by Mighty librarian (talk • contribs) fails Wikipedia:Reliable source because it is original research. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers is a bit better than personal research. I replaced the original Yahoo! Answers citation with one that lists the source of the information and provides a few additional details. No one is disputing that this type of act has been around since the 19th century or that it can be done successfully without OLED fabric, etc. However, stating that it has been around since the 19th century combined with the belief that OLED technology has not sufficiently developed does not lead to the conclusion that it must be all sleight of hand. Although the source implies certain aspects of the act wouldn't be possible without OLED fabric, it does not say the act would be totally impossible without it. While it is true OLEDs have not yet sufficiently developed to be commonplace, OLED technology might be a bit more developed than you think. I am a corporate librarian for a company who produces OLED products, and I've seen them in action. They will be commonplace within a few years. Mighty librarian 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
A post by someone in a yahoo discussion thing doesn't really count as a reliable resource, and as near as I can tell, DOES violate Wikipedia:Reliable source , I think the link should be removed, replaced with a more reliable source containing the same info, or atleast edited to state that this is also simply a theory. Riphal 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This source isn't just "a yahoo discussion thing." This is Yahoo! Answers! Plus, the person who provided the answer clearly has firsthand knowledge, so this isn't "simply a theory" either. Mighty librarian 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
From the Yahoo! Answers link: "Best Answer - Chosen by Asker" and "I don't know if it's true, but it sounds the best, so enjoy ten points." That doesn't inspire much confidence since the "correct" answer was the one which sounded most impressive technobabble wise. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Technobabble... This is interesting. This does sound a bit like this technobabble. It reminds me of Rockwell Automation's Retro Encabulator. Perhaps we should form a committee to investigate. Mighty librarian 03:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks, the OLED fabric business is completely made up. If you read that Yahoo answers article closely, you can tell that the writer is just playing games, making up more and more BS as they go along. "Electronic muscles"..."onboard computer"..."Secret Service"... Give me a break! I'm going to remove it from the article. --Michael Geary 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the information about OLEDs back. I don't know why anyone would scoff at things like onboard computers. Onboard computing is no longer an exotic thing. Things as mundane as coffeepots have onboard microprocessors now. Relatively powerful microprocessors can be purchased in bulk for a few cents each nowadays. Muscle wires are very real too now. Jameco sells a mucle wire book and sample package for under $35. You need to stay up on technology before you suggest something is bunk just becuase you've never heard of it. I have no idea why mentioning the Secret Service would discredit the information. Truth533k3r 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the OLED story is a hoax. The writer spun a fine yarn, but it's a complete fabrication. Pull out a few threads and the whole thing unravels:
David and Dania have been doing the same act for 15 years. Where did they get OLED fabric 15 years ago?
On America's Got Talent, they performed under bright television stage lights. How much light does the OLED fabric need to produce to overcome the glare of these lights?
In the A.G.T. video you can see the hemline and neckline of Dania's dress change every single time. Why does the length and position of her dress need to change if it's just a matter of lighting up different OLEDs?
They perform most frequently at half time shows and on cruises. How are these kinds of bookings supposed to pay the salaries of "several computer engineers, programmers, tailors, technicians, a chemist, a physicist, and several others."
The article claims that David and Dania performed before President Bush. Is there any other reference to this performance to be found anywhere?
The article claims that the presidential performance failed because of Secret Service radio jamming. Is there another source that can confirm that the Secret Service routinely engages in radio frequency jamming of this sort?
Finally, is there any other source, anywhere, that can confirm any of the claims in the OLED article? --Michael Geary 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Where does the author say they have been using OLED fabric ever since they started their act? Where does they author say all their acts are totally reliant on OLED fabric? The author never says they don't use other techniques as well. The author never claims they employ all those people fulltime. Employing someone fulltime and paying them on a consultation or contractual basis are very different things with very different costs. If the Secret Service does use jamming, do you honestly think they would officially admit to it?
You are imagining things the author never claimed. You also seem to lack sufficient knowledge about OLEDs to discredit the author's information based on OLED limitations. Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia OLED article as a starting point.
I am restoring the information. Truth533k3r 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed it. OLED and electronic muscles? You're going to have to cite more reliable sources than Yahoo! Answers. As for the Yahoo! Answers' author's grasp of facts, I point you to his other answer [1], to which I point you to MythBusters (season 4)#Episode 60 .E2.80.94 .22Earthquake Machine.22 -- Gogo Dodo 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
How does that have any bearing on the author's knowledge of the matter at hand? The author simply suggested that as a possible answer. He or she does not claim or imply to be an authoritative source. Furthermore, do you really think the fact a couple of guys on a television show couldn't achieve resonance means anything? The guys on that show are hardly scientific. They certainly couldn’t hold a candle to the mind of Tesla. This television show is purely for entertainment and lacks scientific credibility. This is all irrelevant to the matter at hand though.
I think the term "electronic muscles" the Yahoo! Answers author used might be throwing people. These “muscles” are actually fairly simple and work very differently than real muscles. They are little more a muscle than other mechanical actuators. They aren't very high tech. I suggest people read more about them before jumping to any conclusions.
I am once again restoring the information. Please discuss this matter here in the future before taking such unilateral action, which essentially amounts to vandalism. Truth533k3r 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Now be nice. You called me ignorant and now you're calling Dodo a vandal. We have been discussing the matter here, and we've both been polite to you as far as I know.
But the Yahoo article? It's a hoax.
Forget all these theories for a few minutes and watch the video. Watch Dania's neckline and hemline with each costume change. This is a pleasant task and illuminating too.
The first few changes take place inside various enclosures, and each time Dania's neckline and hemline shrink toward each other. The changes after that are more in the open, and her neckline and hemline both get lower after each one. When I saw that pattern I thought "She's leaving something behind in each enclosure, and then flipping down layers after that." I'd seen ballroom dancers with two-layer flipdown dresses before; Dania was just doing the same thing with more layers.
I hadn't seen this Wikipedia article or any of these other sites when I figured it out. It's interesting that I came to the same conclusion as the watermist site - and it matches David's patent too.
If they are using OLEDs and muscle memory wire, why are all the changes so easy to explain with stripping and flipping? Where is the effect that couldn't be done with 20th century fabric technology?
The Yahoo writer would have us believe that David and Dania switched from their proven, tested (and patented) fabric technology to OLEDs and muscle memory - and then they didn't do anything new with it! Why couldn't they use those muscle wires to make the hemlines vary instead of dropping consistently? How about doing a change with the OLEDs only, so the hemline and neckline don't change at all? That team of experts with the radios that don't work when the Secret Service is in town sure haven't paid for themselves.
It's the Secret Service thing that clinches it. The Yahoo writer says that David and Dania performed before President Bush. That should be easy to verify if it's true. Where is there any other reference to that appearance?
Without confirmation of that presidental appearance, I'll stick with my assessment: The Yahoo article is a hoax. And it's not even notable, because the only real attention it's gotten has been from this article and talk page. It doesn't belong in the article at all. --Michael Geary 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn’t mean to offend you and apologize if I did.
Of course, you are ignorant. However, I don't wish to be mean about it. I didn't use the term "ignorant," because it has a negative connotation and is inflammatory to some people. However, it is perfectly okay to be ignorant; I don't know a single person who isn't ignorant. The only way not to be ignorant is to know everything. No one knows everything, so everyone is ignorant, including you and me. The only thing we can (and I believe should) do is to do our best to shed as much of our ignorance as possible by learning. So, please don't feel bad because you are ignorant! :-)
I don't think the article says anything about their abandoning their old methods. My understanding is the new methods simply complement and enhance the old methods. This would explain the evidence you cite of their using older methods. I don't disagree with the Watermist explanation. I think its information is accurate but incomplete. It is certainly still a worthy source for the article here though. I have no interest in removing or censoring valid information, so I do not challenge the inclusion of the Watermist information. It does seem they have come to rely on the new methods to pull off their show, as the Secret Service incident shows.
One can't say Bush was never at one of their shows just because one can't find confirmation he was. This would be like saying it is a fact there are no such things as ghosts just because you have never seen one and can't find one. I will leave the burden of proof to you since you are challenging the article as a hoax. Perhaps you could find a complete list of their show locations and times and compare that to a complete record of Bush's whereabouts since he has been in office.
I will restore the information until sufficient proof is brought forth to discredit it. Truth533k3r 07:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works: From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". --  Netsnipe  ►  08:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I am simply using the Yahoo! Answers article as a citation for David and Dania's use of OLEDs. I made no claims about the Secret Service information in the Wikipedia article. This Wikipedia article is about quick change artists. It is not about David and Dania's problems with Secret Service radio interference. Truth533k3r 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No offense taken, Truth533k3r, no worries there. I know you mean well, but does the Yahoo article deserve the kind of credibility you're giving it? "It does seem they have come to rely on the new methods to pull off their show, as the Secret Service incident shows." What Secret Service incident? Where's the evidence that this actually happened? One random guy writing on Yahoo is hardly evidence.
Back to the video: Show me just one costume change that is explained better by OLED fabric than by strip and flip. Why on earth would David and Dania want to use all this newfangled technology only to perform the same act that could have been performed more easily with David's proven methods?
Wait a minute... Maybe the Yahoo guy was right! Listen to what I overheard before a half-time show David and Dania did in early April: "Dania, honey, I know it was embarrassing when your fancy new OLED costume wouldn't work for the President. What, Sos and Victoria have been teasing you about it again? I told them to stop calling you! Now look, we can't go back to those old flip-down dresses. Sure, they worked fine for years, but ordinary ballroom dancers use those things now! We've got to have a competitive advantage. We've got to use the OLEDs on America's Got Talent! Nothing will go wrong this time. I promise." And nothing did. --Michael Geary 09:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to avoid any ill feelings, maybe I should mention that I didn't mean the half-time story as sarcasm, but as humor. I want to keep everybody in stitches. --Michael Geary 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And read the US patent held by David Maas that I've linked to in the article. It explains that everything is done using fasteners, not futuristic OLED fabrics. And take a look at http://www.plasticlogic.com/hi-res.php#images which demonstrates what the state of commericially available OLED material is at -- they're using to simulate a greyscale newspaper! Not the bright colours you see in the videos. --  Netsnipe   ►  15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not obligated to patent all their methods. Just because a method is not included in their patent, does not mean they don’t use it.
How does that link demonstrate the current state of commercially available OLED material? That page has absolutely nothing to do with OLED displays. That page is about E Ink, which is not related to OLED displays.
I thought you disagreed with the Yahoo Answers! article in good faith before, but now you seem to be resorting to deception. Truth533k3r 07:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Deception? Errr, no. You're a bit out of your league calling a Wikipedia administrator a liar and having an agenda when the only article you've ever edited is this one. I'm an editor who's been on Wikipedia much longer than you have and like the majority of editors here, I agree that the Yahoo! answers link you've provided does not qualify as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources and including it is a flagrant breach of the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. I suggest you read those policies and guidelines carefully. You're forgetting that a lot of people refer to the information that we provide as a source in their research and it's our responsibility not to propagate unverified statements or rumours from unauthoritative sources. If OLED fabrics are as advanced as you think, find me anything else out there that demonstrates the same capabilities. --  Netsnipe   ►  08:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never called you a liar. I only said you seem to be resorting to deception, which is a reasonable conclusion considering your claiming the current state of E Ink somehow mirrors that of OLED displays. Deception is possible and often done without lying. People do it with statistics, charts, graphs, and so on all the time. I said you seem to be resorting to deception because I am not sure what your exact thought process was. For all I know you were just confused and thought E Ink and OLEDs were the same thing, although that seems unlikely. The simple fact is OLED displays and E Ink are very different. Furthermore, I don't have any specific agenda. My only purpose here is to improve Wikipedia.
I don't care if you are a Wikipedia administrator. You can't just jump to the conclusion I am out of my league just because I am new here. For all you know, I have been editing encyclopedias for the past thirty years. So much for not biting the newcomers... There are probably people who have never heard of Wikipedia who would make better administrators than you, me, or many of the other administrators. I don't mean that pejoratively; that is simply the way the world is. Being an administrator does not automatically make you a superior Wikipedian. Your behavior here violates the spirit of Wikipedia adminship. You haven't been an administrator long, and it looks like it has already gone straight to your head. That's too bad considering your apparent desire to be an administrator. I hope you don't continue down this path, or you risk becoming a candidate for de-adminship.
That isn't it at all. I'm not surprised Netsnipe started to lose it a bit, the way you keep defending this blatant hoax and making derogatory personal comments. Could you please stop it? --Michael Geary 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the pages at the following links for a taste of what is possible with OLED displays.
http://www.universaldisplay.com
http://www.5050ltd.com/dfn.html
I should note the company's main page the first link above points to has some conceptual items on it. It is possible others have already accomplished what is still a concept for this company. Look deeper at the company's site to see some of the current OLED possibilities. Also, there are several flavors of OLED displays with varing capabilities.
The second link goes to a page describing a project strikingly similar to David and Dania's use of OLEDs. However, this project was realized using an older technology: simple RGB LEDs. There are plans for implementing the project later using OLEDs. Imagine how much easier and better this project will be using OLEDs on flexible substrate.
What David and Dania are doing with OLEDs is far from pushing the limits of OLEDs. They are using them in a very primitive way. They are likely only displaying a single color at a time on a display. This means resolution is not critical. Also, response time is not critical to them. Even if a display were as slow as 250 ms (or more) to change color, that would probably be okay for their application.
David and Dania are probably the first and only quick change act to utilize active electronic costumes of this variety, and they probably tried to keep it secret as long as possible. This makes it difficult to find similar applications using OLEDs. There is, however, absolutely no doubt it is entirely possible to use OLEDs in this way. Truth533k3r 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again... Show me one piece of verifiable evidence that the Yahoo piece is anything but a hoax. Where does the author explain how a specific costume change is made possible by the OLED fabric? He doesn't. It's a bunch of generalized technobabble, with nothing specific and verifiable. It reads just like the hoax emails my friends have urgently forwarded to me.
Compare with the watermist explanation, which describes specific costume changes from a real video, along with a specific mechanism to explain them. And it happens to be the same thing that I figured out independently. It's no contest. --Michael Geary 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any verifiable evidence it is a hoax, or is that your unyielding opinion? I have given plenty of evidence that proves it is possible to use OLEDs for this application and suggests it is not a hoax.
I don't know why the author doesn't explain how a specific costume change is done with OLEDs. Maybe he or she thought it would be obvious or that a general description of their use of OLEDs was sufficient, and a specific example wouldn't add much useful information. I think it is safe to assume the OLEDs are always used to change a part of the costume to a different color. They probably aren't used to attract costume fairies that magically change the costume's color. It is also possible the author was not at liberty to disclose such specifics. Your guess is as good as mine.
Once again, I agree with the Watermist explanation. It is probably fairly accurate, but is it complete? Show me evidence the Watermist explanation is a 100% complete and exhaustive explanation and that it precludes the use of OLEDs. I think you're right about there being no contest. It isn't a contest because the two are not conflicting explanations and are probably both mostly correct. Truth533k3r 04:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping Things Secret

someone edited the article to remove the information on how the act is done, this is obnoxious, as their reasoning was "A magicions secrets should be kept secret", they were removing usefull info from a factual article to empose there own opinions on others, if they wanted to remove it, that should have been a discussion peice in the talk page, not just a blind removal. Riphal 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) riphal

[edit] RE: Yahoo! Answers source

My disdain wasn't so much against Yahoo! Answers (although it is original research as Netsnipe stated) as was against the authority of the statement in the article. The answer given by the source at [2] is hardly enough to state "it was revealed [as fact]". I've left the citation in there, but changed the wording to be a bit more speculative. -- MacAddct1984  21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will change "revealed" to "purported" to make it clear that some people dispute this fact. Truth533k3r 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it again altogether. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We only deal in verifiability. The fact that David Maas holds a patent on "Convertible costume construction" using "rapidly disconnectable fastening" should by Occam's Razor dismiss this pure unsourced speculation about "OLED fabrics". --  Netsnipe  ►  13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, they are not obligated to patent all their methods. Just because a method is not included in their patent, does not mean they don’t use it.
Applying Occam's Razor to this is a big stretch. Besides, Occam's Razor is not a universal truth or law. Truth533k3r 07:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article due to persistent violations of the Wikipedia:Copyright and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies by an anonymous user copying and pasting promotional material from http://www.quick-change-transformation.com/wind/About_us/about_us.html into the article. I will lift this article's protection as soon as the person responsible for these edits responds here and understands why their edits are inappropriate on Wikipedia. Thanks. --  Netsnipe   ►  15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good move, Netsnipe. Truth533k3r 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has now been unprotected as Sos Petrosyan (talk • contribs) has now been suitably warned. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/i/Talk%7EQuick-change_d618.html"