Viewing all threads involving 7b_wizard
looking up delusions, stumbled over this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis , a mosaique stone for what i don't know yet
((( maybe use the "stationary" first ball to add an extra ball, or control the effect and make them all stationary .. endless genuinely new possibilities & options would open up, would they )))
.. what got me there was front versus back throws or catches, and high right above myself (when doing all up 180°-ies), aswell as throws behind back blind and in front blind seem very different in perception (not only by different arm-posture) .. an inch seems different behind, left, on weakhand side, right, further ahead, right in front, low, high, everywhere. So, this makes me think, our perception of space around us is n o t cartesian, not equal everywhere, but distorted according to where our senses need precision most.
Do you know any delusions relevant to juggling? (optical, tactile\haptic, acoustic, sensory, motoric, coordination, movement, body awareness, any)
.. distorted according to where our senses need precision most. .. and also distorted according to our scope of reach, and according to trained movements, and surely more stuff.
next level juggling .. props are dissolving .. post-deconstruction school
Can hardly tell myself, cos' nothing I juggle is really safe to not fail early before I get a good long lucky run in an attempt. (Guess, I'm doing at my limits too much, instead just "juggling" also easier stuff).
Going over endurance in order to then after that get a pettern safe enough for a short run to show, with 5b cascade, I feel pretty comfortable now (>1,000 catches), but doing the 5b reverse cascade lucky over 100 c a few times lately is still way from "solid, stable or safe", so I think, I need 250-300 catches (?) at least to feel like "I got that halfway down" with then still lots'a practise ahead to really "own", somewhat "master" it.
So, "solid" for me, at my current level, a lot means like being able to vary a pattern, bail out drifts, turns or lost timing and rhythm, and find back to comfortable fluent controlled pattern. (Yet that's still not "utterly controlled, mastered, rock solid", let alone "performable on big stage" as long as I get early fails a lot and longer runs luckily onlöy or after longer warmup anew on every single pattern).
So, (I'm aware it depends on the goals, on the difficulty of the pattern, on if to perform it for vid or onstage, but) how about your best patterns or tricks, .. are you okay with a few rounds (periods, cycles), with 50, 100 catches, or do you want them to last 300, 500 catches? When do you feel "safe" with them?
I should be able to:
Do it while talking to friends (and others, I suppose)
Do it whenever I want for however long I want
Rely on it completely when trying to do harder versions
^At least 95 % of the time. To me, if it feels good and has low variation, it's solid. Even inverted box I drop somewhat oftenish, and I'd consider it solid.
Solidly, with a club balance? If so, how do you know when you have that solid?
Obviously not otherwise it becomes recursive. Normally a qualify would be enough, or a bit more. Solid is such a vague word that I'm not sure I'd ever claim to have any trick solid to be honest.
"Solid for you" would like mean when you're satisfied with it far enough to stop practising it intensely for example.
.. or also when you feel it's ``ripe´´ to increase its difficulty and dare a harder version of it for example.
Hehe, I was imagining a progression of objects of decreasing length, ending with the silly end behaviour of no object at all.
I consider a trick solid when I can do it at least 9 times out of 10 in practice when combining it with another trick.
I will then introduce it into my show and if I am still dropping it too much I will revise my belief that it is solid until I can reproduce the same consistency in a show.
That - even though mine's different and much lower level - reminds me of wanting >10 rounds of a single extra throw in e.g. 5b practise, like #5-count backcross or reachover or 4b + one very small club, before I attempt on faster #n-count or add a club to 3b2c. Or >10 times "per run" (no matter how much cascade only in between). Same for e.g. 3b single behind back looking in about a #5-count.
ball tracking maths
Stephen's log entry: http://www.jugglingedge.com/log.php?LogDate=2017-03-14&UserID=913
[here's more editing space and eventually more maths gifted readers]
I'd go from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercept_theorem, 1st graph (or better 3rd, below, ignoring "E" and "F" - "better" because ball's pictures' locations are parallel to camera's plane in the 3rd graph) .
So B and C then is the two camera's distance from each other. Where their common focus is, is S; its distance to the two cameras' plane can be measured from where the balls' pictures fully overlap. The ball's pictures then are A and B.
I just don't know how translate ball's pictures' distance in pixels as provided by tracking software into centimeters or inches in-real-distance, or, vice versa, how to translate the two camera's distance from one another in centimeters or inches into pixels. .. Holding two blue balls right onto the camera's lenses would make the software give the known cameras' distance also in pixels, but ball's pictures are then too big, so the blue tip of a needle might do it and still then I don't know, if cameras take any pics at all from object right on their lens.
But maybe using the known ball's diameter for gauging pixels versus inches or centimeters would work: find the distance at which the two ball's pictures touch. One then has a line segment AB in pixels for the ball's diameter's amount of centimeters or inches.
.. have to correct
So B and C then is the two camera's distance from each other. to "B and D".
The ball's pictures then are A and B. to "A and C".
The UK's former juggling magazine is now (mostly) on line at www.jugglingmagazines.com - I hope you enjoy it!
Super Mike, thanks.
I glanced through the first few pages of issue #1, and lo and behold there's Lindsay Hurd (misspelled in The Catch) who AFAIK is still working in touring circus. And there's Shaun Bridges, an Archaos-grade BMX expert and massive nutter who nearly immolated a crowd in a basement in Bath at around that time. How the fucking fuck so many of us survived the rampant negligence and recklessness of that time, I do not know.
Well done, and thanks. (Sorry for not answering the email... Didn't have any spares).
"To view it full-screen click the icon in the bottom right-hand corner." Does that mean the magnifying glass icon? 'Cos for me, that just maximises the magazine within the viewer, but doesn't make the viewer fullscreen. (iPad 2, iOS 9.2)
On PC (oldversion firefox 16) it's same .. bottom left glass-magnifies once which is still too small; bottom right, "fullscreen" won't work.
I've made a change which might help for older browsers for Issue 1. Does http://jugglingmagazines.com/?page_id=117 work now? If so I'll copy the change across all the pages.
Fullscreen's perfect now.
( The little zooming window appears, but it's still too small to read; but that doesn't matter, as fullscreen works well now. .. I'm anyway blaming my old machine, constellation and configuration. I'm just not updating everything all the time. )
On desktops there's a square-with-gaps icon in the bottom right hand corner for full screen - it looks like it doesn't exist on mobile devices. I'll have a play and see if I can work something out...
Hopefully it's better now...it's working well on all of my (non-apple) mobile devices
That's brilliant, thanks Mike.
For your "Other Juggling Magazines" page there is also an archive of Jugglers world" 1981-1998 online at http://dev.juggle.org/history/archives/jugmags/index.php (hopefully it won't get obliterated by IJA website modernisation). It doesn't have the search capacity that the juggling.org archive has, but has a limited index and is slightly more complete
very well done
i have a set of 3 ply press her as well that should be archived at some point should anyone with the skill and inclination fancy that
Great work Mike, well done!
I recognise the covers of issues 12 & 14 so I should have issue 13. I will check what condition my copy is in. What format do you need a scan in? I'll see if I can find somewhere to scan it myself, if unable I can pop it in the post to you or pass it along to you or one of your staff members at the BJC.
Excellent, thanks Orin.
I've been working with full colour 300dpi jpgs if you can rustle them up - otherwise post would be good too.
...and now complete rebuilt to (hopefully!) work better on mobile devices
Thanks Mike - really enjoyed that trip down memory lane. I didn't realise I had previously owned quite so many issues.
Were some of those ones that I had donated? some of the (coffee) stains looked familiar!
I've had donations from a few people, so those could well be your coffee stains - thanks very much for them!
...now (thanks to our God Emperor) Issue 13 has been added and the archive is complete
This is of limited interest, but will appeal to those who like 'lost' juggling tricks.
I've just found this trick that I've seen written up in a couple of old juggling/magic manuscripts, but never seen performed - egg balance/roll along a stick.
The trick starts around 0:33, and only lasts a few seconds:
It's followed by some nice clear footage of the Reverhos trio.
The egg to me behaves like it were hollow and a small lead ball (or even a round bar in a cylindric chamber?!) inside somewhat stabilizing the balance .. hard to see if, above that, the stick has a guidance. I'd then rate this rather magic, a surprising effect, than not indeed really balancing skill.
It's the 4 toddlers at 0:25, being indoctrinated/brainwashed that I feel sorry for.
I agree, it's nice to see that clown gag actually performed. I've seen write-ups of a couple of methods but there isn't quite enough footage from quite the right angle for me to be confident about which method they're using.
Anyway - are we seriously not mentioning that the club+ball stacked on the mouthstick is spinning, and appears like it might be being driven by the performer?
I've seen people do that with bottles, but only ever fat-end-down where the control required to drive the rotation isn't as fine - and those performers were generally not doing it as part of a combination trick on a slackwire.
Ooh, well spotted. I missed that. Shame you cant see all of it, or for longer. I was getting this precession when placing a club balance onto another club the other day, and that was a bit annoying. Maybe the small point of contact means it's difficult for it to "go anywhere"?
The other thing that's easy to miss is the parasol-spinning on the foot of the one- handed handstand on slack-wire, almost entirely framed- out by the camera.
That time of the year again!
Here's what I've been up to this year, friends... a few new tricks, from me to you! Hope you dig it!
Fun stuff! I especially liked the table cloth pull at the start :D
It's inspiring to see, and makes me want to make a similar video some day! However I'm really not in the habit of recording myself yet, perhaps that is a first thing to tackle ;)
How did "Bramson rolls" end up being called that? I see more and more people use that name, but I would really prefer to call them "Everhart rolls"
Do you know who first named them like this?
That's a good question (... For David! Ha!)
I've heard that trick referred to as "bramson rolls" for as long as I've seen it. My guess is that Bob is the first guy who was televised doing it? One point of anec-data for ya :p
I think I've been assuming it's similar to why Alberts/Treblas are called Alberts/Treblas.
ie they're so named because more jugglers have seen Bob Bramson do them than Everhardt (because more footage exists of Bramson, for obvious reasons)
Although, oddly - the earliest reference I can find to the term "Bramson Rolls" seems to be a post on rec.juggling form 2009 from Norbi.
Seems like the term should pre-date that, so it's kinda odd it doesn't show up on r.j before then.
I'm not sure. I don't remember it having a name before I heard them called Bramson Rolls in the last five years or so.
And like "isolated" its one of the many juggling terms that really annoys me when I see it used "incorrectly". For me, Bramson's trick only has the correct aesthetic qualities when performed with four objects. With three objects, especially three small hoops or rings, it has a hole in it, and completely ruins the effect.
Bramson Rolls is definitely a recent term. Everhart obviously did it first with three, but Howard Nichols did it with four, including on television and film, before Bramson. It probably just comes down to the fact that modern jugglers most often associate it with Bramson because he was the virtuoso hoop juggler of the modern era and so many videos exist of him.
Apparently freestyle dance/acrobatics in a freefall simulator competitions are a thing.
Never seen this before (wait for it...), I was blown away.
I'll get my coat
I wonder how expensive getting and running one of those is. If it is reasonable, I wonder if it might crop up in a circus at some point.
It looks like fun though!
They are only (ha!) a bunch of very powerful fans & a perspex enclosure. While very niche I can't imagine they would be expensive enough to put off Cirque Du Soleil. Limiting factor would then be power supply, I doubt you'd be able to plug it in at the mains.
Does it really offer anything substantially better than more traditional flying trapeze acts? Once the novelty has worn off probably not. Having the performer enclosed off from the audience & wearing a crash helmet takes away a lot of the performer's ability to engage with an audience too.
I should've also noted in my original post the performer is Maja kuczyńska who came third in the Wind Games 2017 held in Cataluna.
I wouldn't have thought it would need more than 63A 3 phase, which should be readily available in most theatrical venues (and indeed, most tented venues)
The novelty factor, rigging difficulties, enclosed performers etc have never stopped wall-of-death or ball-of-death acts from being popular.
Talking of intriguing props, I'll just drop this teaser from Greg Kennedy/Michael Karas here as it doesn't seem long enough to warrant a new thread on its own:
Those two do seem to have a habit of coming up with/developing toys I want to play with, but which I don't have the space to build...
That looks like it could be rather interesting to watch. I like the projector onto the moving bars.
There is way more to these things than just a big fan. They are wind tunnels laying in their side. They are WAY bigger than just the Perspex column you see here. That's the minority of the thing. They take up entire buildings.
Yep. A friend of mine got into parachutig and then flight tunnels (it's a very expensive hobby by the look of it). The airflow is on the order of 2 million cubic meters an hour (tunnel cross section is at least 10 square meters, air speed 200 kph or so) - it's not just one fan, it's stacked series of fans top and bottom, and some bloody enormous filtered intake vents elsewhere in the building.
I am now trying to imagine what 2 million cubic meters an hour would do to a tent...
I am now trying to imagine what 2 million cubic meters an hour would do to a tent...
If you were at BJC 2013 in Pickering you could've experienced it.
To be clear, here's a diagram. See how big the perspex tube is in this?
However, I don't want to quash the idea of this appearing in a Cirque du Soleil show in the future. If anyone will do it, it'll be them.
It's just that it won't be a single act, and it won't be a touring show, and it certainly won't be in a big top. It'll need to be like the O show in Vegas, which is entirely built around water and diving and other aquatic things. The show is built around that, and also the theatre.
I could see something similar with "air" show. All that stuff in the picture above? That would be around and behind the stage. The perspex tube could maybe be removable, or extend up and down. Air could also be diverted out of the tube, to blow things sideways or down or whatever.
How about the more portable outside versions? They look a lot smaller.
When the fan is below, the column of air is super lumpy with turbulence from the spinning blades. That's just about good enough to hold your body flat and stay up, but the fine control needed for dance moves isn't possible. The modern installations have the fans above, and suck the air up, which means it is a uniform column of air and has no turbulence.
Of course, the sucking fans need a sealed column of air, which is why there is the perspex tube for the flier. The air speed is the same from the top to the bottom, unlike the open design with the fan below, where the air speed drops off as the stream dissipates. It's just a massive blast, and you're balanced on top of it.
You really need the wall-to-wall air column for dance routines like in the previous video.
Neat. BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38890112
Why do people say "are a thing" when they could say "exist"?
If this was the 90's, and rec.juggling - I'd be making inappropriate jokes about Neil Stammer right now.
I can imagine artists using weights in order to not fly (so much). There'd then be ``groundies, slomo-jumpies and flyers (flyees)´´ to be choreographed to a showact. Lightweighties could be held by ropes or rubber-ribbons to be able to stand or dive upside down permanently without sinking back down, too. (( Maybe also bring your pet, cat or dog lol. ))
Nice, he's getting good at that (and isn't cheating by using those horrible saggy slomo/gertie balls favoured by some 3 ball stack spinners ;)
Although I did get somewhat distracted by Luke Burrage failing to flash 6 clubs in the background. I thought you had that more solid than that Luke? Or were you just having a bad day?
There is another video from this same session where I'm nailing 5 club backcrosses over and over in the background. So it wasn't too bad of a day.
Ahh, well, that would line up better with my mental picture of your skill level :)
Is this one of those tricks that it more difficult than it looks? Because it looked reasonably easy, although not something one can do in the first couple of attempts.
Peter's been ball-spinning for a long time, so he's good at it. When you're good at something, it often "looks easy" to the uninitiated.
Yeah, I thought it was one of those. I have never tried it, so was asking in pure ignorance.
I will say that I was not expecting it to be that much more difficult than I thought it was, based on Nigel's comment below.
It jumps up surprisingly fast (unless you're cheating and using the saggy balloon balls that the americans like so much)
If spinning 1 ball = juggling 3 balls, a 2 ball stack is 5 balls, and a 3 ball stack is probably somewhere around 9 balls.
4 balls stacked is just crazy. I've only ever heard of one person getting anywhere with it.
I learned to spin a ball in a little over a week, about 10-15 years ago. Took me about another month to get it comfortably solid a while to get it "solid" - a broadly comparable amount of time to learning a 3 ball cascade.
A few years later I spent a week long festival mostly working on adding a second ball, it stayed on for probably 3 seconds at best. I think in total, that reflects the amount of practice time it took me to go from a solid 3 ball pattern cascade to 10-15 catches of 5 balls.
That was probably nearly a decade ago, and although I admit I don't work on it that often, I've never got more than about 15 seconds of a 2 ball stack (with proper balls) which feels like the equivalent amount of work that it took me to get up to 100 catches of 5 balls.
You can imagine how long I think it would take me to add a 3rd ball!
I've been ball spinning for around 15 years. I can stack two balls sometimes but three is definitely beyond me. I've seen Pete stack 4 balls once in 2004 (BJC Derby) at around 01:00. Shame there was no-one around to record that.
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports