Talk:Pepper's ghost

Proposal to modify early part of this article
I would like to make a change and some additions to the early part of this article. 1) In place of the current 2nd para, a simpler, more reader-friendly explanation of the Pepper’s Ghost effect in two sentences, which relate to the current helpful illustration and which omit the phrase “optical beam splitter operated in reverse”. 2) Add information and examples about how showmen used Pepper’s Ghost in its early years, supplying links to 19th century books now full text on-line. Through amateur experience as a Pepper’s Ghost operator, who has developed three contrasting Pepper’s Ghost set-ups, I’ve learned that the illusion is much simpler than conveyed by many written descriptions. Hence my concern to try writing something simpleCarlwark (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC). If anyone sees a case against me trying out such steps, please swiftly let me know. Carlwark (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought I already commented on making this change, but don't see it. Removing the reference to the beam splitter is a good idea since it assumes you understand that already.
 * I'm sorry, but this description as-is appears very wordy to me. I personally don't find it simple. There should be simple overview of the concept. Ahead of the "Contemporary" section. Something to the effect that:
 * "A clear glass or plastic sheet placed at an angle, is used both as a window and a mirror to combine two images.  One scene is viewed through it as a window. Another scene, hidden from direct view off to the side, is reflected off the surface to superimpose it onto the first. This gives the illusion that the two scenes occupy the same space."
 * There is an easy to duplicate version of this that allows you to see a candle burning under water in a glass.


 * Also the image (ancient drawing) referred to as on the upper right is a terrible illustration of the concept and the text referring to it should be referring to the second through third illustrations - which don't do a very good job, either. They are dark and at angles that don't easily show the setup. I seem to recall that there was previously a clearer diagram of the concept. &#32;-- Steve --  (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I can’t agree with your comments on the 19th century picture, which I think presents the first 19th century ghost shows well. But your mention of the ‘candle burning under water’ demonstration suggests a really interesting possible addition which would definitely enrich the article. Could it include a short section about how to do this experiment and witness the illusion yourself? No better way to understand it! Such a section would need to follow Wikipedia rules about no original material and everything referenced but I would have thought that could be achieved. After reading your message, I found several school science web items and Youtube videos about this illusion and the related ‘2 candles’ illusion. For example: https://instructional-resources.physics.uiowa.edu/demos/6a1060-mirrors-candle-under-water-and-peppers-ghost I wondered about a new section ( maybe titled ‘Understanding Pepper’s Ghost’) which mentioned the existence of such demonstrations in on-line science education programmes, maybe summarised the experiment on the above link and referenced the link which, since it comes from a University science department and names Pepper’s Ghost, would, I believe, comply with Wikipedia rules (NB the latter require the link to be to an archived version of the webpage). Or you may know other, better weblinks for this purpose. It might be worth adding the 2 candles illusion as well, which conveys the foundation of image transformation tricks with Pepper’s Ghost.

Any thoughts on this?Carlwark (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to modify and expand History section of article
I would like to modify and expand the History section as follows. If anyone sees a reason I should hold back on this, please tell me.

1. Connect the existing stories of the French and English pioneers in 3.2 and 3.3. Pepper's 1890 book (now online) tells how he tried to use his 1863 patent to stop Robin using the illusion in Paris but was defeated when Séguin’s patent got produced (which was for a toy peepshow version of the illusion).

2. Add to the account of Dircks’ role a link to an on-line illustration from Dircks’ own 1863 book which conveys very plainly the problem with Dircks’ theatre design.

3. Briefly mention Dircks’ intense recriminations against Pepper, expressed at length in Dircks’ book. At present only Pepper’s version is represented.

4. Convey the large scale on which ‘Pepper’s Ghost’ became used in stage performances of ghost-themed plays all round Britain till late 1880s.

There’s more for someone else to tell re how the latter occurred in other countries too, but I’ve got references for this story only in Britain. Carlwark (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Have now implemented what I proposed here on 4th February. Seems lengthy but simplifications of this story can be misleading. I’ve taken nothing out of the previous History account, only added to it. Have also moved ‘Contemporary technique’ so it links direct to ‘Modern Examples’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwark (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Portrayal in Media
The girl to gorilla version of Pepper’s Ghost is shown in the 1971 James Bond movie Diamonds are Forever. It pays homage to the carnival background of the trick because it was used during a scene filmed at the Circus Circus casino which was Las Vegas’s take on the big-top carnival nostalgia. I don’t have the expertise to properly edit a official article, but I am hopeful somebody with the necessary skills can add this along with its documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.68.109 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fairy tale ghost.jpg

queen
recently reported "hologram" of the british queen in a carriage could be added 2001:4BB8:242:3353:109A:5D4B:84B1:3EF3 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Joyous! | Talk 20:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) The page Musion Eyeliner seems like it covers a patented technology which is just a specific usage of the broader Pepper's ghost illusion, and at the moment, the article is full of puffed-up language that sounds like ad copy. Take that away, and I don't think there's enough to justify a whole independent article, rather than just having Musion as a subsection on the Pepper's ghost page.

you seem to be the only substantive contributor to the Musion page who's still active, so I figure I ought to ping you. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Moi? It's been seven years since I edited it, and that to mention Hans Rosling's use of it. But you're right: I think it's just an implementation of Pepper's ghost and should be merged, unless someone can show why it's notable enough for its own article. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 00:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for dredging up ancient history! Just figured it would be good etiquette to ping someone who had worked on the Musion page.
 * Seems like the merger would probably have to coincide with some reformatting of the "modern uses" section on this page—any ideas on how to break things up so it's less deserving of a "miscellaneous information" tag? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Musion Eyeliner page isn't really needed. My concern would be that you would need to have a new section here, something like "Commercial Implementations", which would still look like publicity/advertising if there's only one such system listed. Are there any sufficiently notable competitors with independent references? It looks like the Cheoptics360 could be merged here for the same reason. Louis Knee (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

✅

Why "holographic?"
Could someone please comment on what, if any, actual 3D effects are present with the Pepper's Ghost phenomenon? I have not witnessed this myself, but just reading and looking at the images, it seems as if EVERYTHING seen by the audience is two dimensional. Is there ANY 3D effect at all??? Projecting an image onto glass and reflecting it in such a way as to make the reflection appear to be present in space is just an example of reflection, pure and simple. If you were looking at such an image and moved your head around, you would see the same planer image. Why would anybody think this has ANYTHING to do with holography, which is NEVER projected (and of course is never enlarged either.) Am I missing something or is the "holography" aspect of this pure B.S. hype? And is this Pepper's Ghost set up what the Tupac Shakur and other stage presentations are using? Is there any other paraphernalia employed to enhance the illusion for those? Roricka (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article? It states that the technique has been used "in apparent 'live' concerts, with examples including Elvis Presley, Tupac Shakur and Michael Jackson. It is often wrongly described as "holographic" (later on repeated as "often erroneously marketed as "holographic").
 * So yeah, the holographic descriptions are often B.S. hype, and probably as often laziness (or stupidity) in people who seem to think this must be the same technique that sci-fi movies have often presented as holograms.
 * The 3D aspect is basically the same as in normal mirror reflection (the different viewing angles of the eyes ensure visual cues that the central nervous system processes as depth perception). Joortje1 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)