CNN's holograms

[Lantern]

I just wanted to start a discussion on the amazing holograms that were used by CNN. How were they done? How much do they cost? How will they be used in the future?

This is quite a skeptical article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10082802-76.html)about the whole thing. While the points raised are valid to some extent I think it's a very exciting technology with all sorts of potential. I expect it will be deployed on the high end speech/lecture circuit soon. It could be used to create some really innovative museum exhibits. I wonder if the Obama campaign will figure a way to make use of it in 2012.

[The Shroud]

WAG: It's not a real hologram, just a video effect. I.e. Wolf can't actually see Jessica in front of him; it just looks that way to the TV audience. The motion of the studio cameras is tracked by computers to keep Jessica in the same spot/orientation, much like the virtual 1st down line on a football field.

I think that would make it much less useful for lectures and museum exhibits.

[CalMeacham]

I have to agree with many of the comments on that site. Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a "Hologram" by the definitions of that word, and i strongly suspect that Wolf wasn't looking at a life-sized 3D image of Yallin during this performance.

Looks like TV effects and glitz dressed up with an inappropriately applied label and sold off as a piece of "gee whiz" tech that it's trying to emulate.



But I could be wrong, although I wouldn't bet on it.

[Daddypants]

Last night, Anderson Cooper looked like he had to stop himself from laughing out loud when he used the word holgram before his intervirew with Will I. Am. I immediatly looked at my wife and said, "WTF is that? That's not a hologram."

[Lantern]

From the article I linked:

"Yellin, who claimed she was the first person to be beamed in a hologram on live TV, explained for the audience how this was done. (See video below.) She said she was standing in a tent outside of the Obama headquarters in Chicago where the CNN crew had set up 35 high-definition cameras in a ring. She stood in the center of this ring and the cameras picked up her every movement and transmitted the image in 3D to the studio in New York. "

This doesn't sound like a special effect just for TV viewers.

[The Shroud]

This doesn't sound like a special effect just for TV viewers.Sure it does. It's one thing to capture and transmit a 3D image, but inserting it into video is a lot more feasible than projecting a 3D image into thin air.

When I have more time I'll get to the bottom of this, if nobody else does.

[The Shroud]

Here's some more information (http://gizmodo.com/5076663/how-the-cnn-holographic-interview-system-works):
• An array of computers takes the crunched info feed from the subject's side in order to mesh it with the video from Wolf's side.
• Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario

[kasuo]

Since the computers put the images together and project them, maybe they should take it to the next step and have Mac-formatted blank robots to have the subject's images downloaded onto them, Futurama-style.

[WhyNot]

I agree with the linked writers criticism that doing such an effect (whether it's a "real hologram" or not) is pointless in an on-the-spot reporter unless you include some of the spot in the shot. Why did we need one more chick in a suit "in CNN headquarters" talking about what was going on in Chicago? She was in Chicago, so show us Chicago! Might as well telephone her thoughts to CNN and have someone else read them on air.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Maybe after a future upgrade they can have Blitzer talking to Br'er Rabbit.

[Lantern]

If it isn't really a hologram I have to say that Blitzer's comments:e.g. "it looks like you are right here" are highly misleading. I take it that the innovation here is to be able to produce this special effect in real time. Which is nice I suppose but hardly that exciting.

[The Hamster King]

Well, there is a BIT of cool technical wizardry going on. The subject is shot using multiple video cameras and then those different views are interpolated to produce a moving image that matches the viewpoint of the camera in the CNN studios.

It's not a hologram (it's actually closer to augmented reality) but it's not trivial either.

[Jillyvn]

In the bar where I was watching the results, when Anderson "the grey fox" Cooper said "we now go live by hologram to will-i-am", the entire place erupted in laughter.

It looked like a poor man's sci-fi to me. And, I really want a t-shirt that says "we now go live by hologram". That's officially the funniest statement of the night. I'm still laughing about it.

[Alessan]

They may not have been actual "holograms", but they were pretty impressive.

And in a samll note of local pride, the system was developed and operated by an Israeli start-up company from Kfar-Saba, north of Tel Aviv. Here's (http://www.sportvu.com/)their website.

[Moe]

I agree with the linked writers criticism that doing such an effect (whether it's a "real hologram" or not) is pointless in an on-the-spot reporter unless you include some of the spot in the shot. Why did we need one more chick in a suit "in CNN headquarters" talking about what was going on in Chicago? She was in Chicago, so show us Chicago! Might as well telephone her thoughts to CNN and have someone else read them on air.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'm generally a science enthusiast and so I enjoy pondering the technology and stuff, but really, this was one of the stupidest techno-gimmicky things I've ever seen on CNN, and that's saying a lot. I was actually literally ROTF when, after Wolf's big characteristic build-up ("you've never seen anything like this on television..."), Jessica Yellin's image appeared Princess Leia style. It served absolutely no purpose in illuminating the election and just seemed silly.

I couldn't help but imagine what Jon Stewart would (and hopefully will) do with it.

[Hampshire]

If it isn't really a hologram I have to say that Blitzer's comments:e.g. "it looks like you are right here" are highly misleading. I take it that the innovation here is to be able to produce this special effect in real time. Which is nice I suppose but hardly that exciting.

When he said "it looks like you are right here" I think he was referring to what he saw in the monitors, not what was physically in front of him.
Like a weather man working in front of a green screen looking at the monitors and commenting "It looks like there is a giant video map behind me right here".

[rowrrbazzle]

If this were an actual 3-D projection, its invention would've been front-page news and revolutionized electronic media.

It wasn't, and it didn't, so it isn't. The news correspondents calling it a "hologram" are just stupid and are using the term for typical newsmedia hype, relying on the similar ignorance of most of their audience. The coolness of the effect is canceled by the hype.

[Kaio]

People actually thought the "hologram" was projected into space in the CNN studio? :dubious:

I didn't even occur to me to think of it as anything other than a video effect. It's not really any different than the "3-D" Senate building graphic that they "projected" onto whats-her-name's desk. It's not really on her desk, that much is obvious. It's SFX and green screen trickery. Very Hollywood, but not particularly innovative or anything.

[Zebra]

Not only was that not a hologram, it was also completly lame. I turned the channel when they went to that.

[Smeghead]

Apparently I missed the "hologram". I thought this was going to be about the ridiculous "virtual Capitol" that popped up. Honestly, all this high-tech gadgetry is just silly. It's just there to help the anchors fill up the dead time.

[gigi]

I thought this was going to be about the ridiculous "virtual Capitol" that popped up. Honestly, all this high-tech gadgetry is just silly. It's just there to help the anchors fill up the dead time.

That Capitol was the nail in the coffin for me--way too much going on on the screen for me. And that stack of drawers the guy kept opening? As one of my friends said early on, "That could get old real fast" and darned if it didn't.

[Darth Nader]

But did she get through to Obi-Wan?

He was her only hope!

[Tuckerfan]

I couldn't help but imagine what Jon Stewart would (and hopefully will) do with it.
If you haven't seen it yet, I won't spoil it for you, but I will say two words: Naked Governator! :eek:


I'm glad I didn't watch CNN as the clips I saw of it were some of the dumbest things I've seen on TV. It was cheap glitz, poorly done. Sadly, they'll probably inflict even worse on us, come 2010. (In the meantime, anyone interested in giant touchscreen thingies dirt cheap, could probably find them for sale in the Atlanta edition of Craigslist real soon.)

[Baldwin]

I finally watched a video to see what this was about. For Pete's sake, why were they making a big deal about that? Can we sue CNN for calling it a "hologram"? Words have actual meanings. When a major news organization misuses them, it hurts me inside.

[The Tof]

I thought it was odd and creepy in a Polar Express creepy animation kind of way.

I think the idea is sound, but I hope it gets put to better use and improves quickly.

[eleanorigby]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'm generally a science enthusiast and so I enjoy pondering the technology and stuff, but really, this was one of the stupidest techno-gimmicky things I've ever seen on CNN, and that's saying a lot. I was actually literally ROTF when, after Wolf's big characteristic build-up ("you've never seen anything like this on television..."), Jessica Yellin's image appeared Princess Leia style. It served absolutely no purpose in illuminating the election and just seemed silly.

I couldn't help but imagine what Jon Stewart would (and hopefully will) do with it.

I agree. And I loved Jon Stewart's riff on it: "CNN, WHY? WHY?"


I thought it was bad sci-fi movie cheesy and it took away from the reporter being, you know, LIVE and on the scene. Plus I really wanted to see more shots of Chicago, since I couldn't go down that night.

[singular1]

Granted, I only saw it on the Daily Show, but really cracked my shit up was Blitzer saying "you've never seen anything like this on television" and turning to a frame-for-frame recreation of an original Star Trek scene, complete with the phrase "Beam up"! It still makes me chuckle!

[Baldwin]

Blitzer also said he liked being able to see the corespondent "without a lot of noisy people behind her."

Okay: first, isn't the whole point of a remote feed to give us a picture of what's happening there? The "noisy people behind her" would be part of the story.

Second: there were no people behind her because she was in a tent. I'm pretty sure we have the technology to put a woman in a tent, point an ordinary tv camera at her, and have her image appear on a screen.

Sometimes Wolf Blitzer sounds oddly clueless.

[Marley23]

So ridiculous it's hard to put it into words. Technical wizardry is great, but it was clear they were just showing off the technology to wow viewers, and it was an idea in search of purpose that didn't do anything for their coverage.

What's irritating about this is that news networks apparently do believe people decide what network to watch based on crap like this. I'm all for busting out technology if it's helpful, but I don't know where they get that attitude (well, okay, yes I do - the marketing department). Has anyone EVER picked a news channel on that basis? John King's touch screen map is derided sometimes, but at least it can be useful. And maybe there's a use for this, too. But I didn't see it last night.

[Colophon]

Did it actually look as bad as the screenshot in the article linked in the OP? Cos if so, that has to be the worst green-screening I've seen since about 1978! What's with the huge halo around her? Seriously, this was meant to be nifty?

[Marley23]

Yes, you could defintely see a cartoon border line around her.

[Hampshire]

I think they used it in an ass-backwards fashion.
What's the point of inserting an image of a reporter on location into a studio?
Wouldn't it have been more impressive to insert a live image of Wolf at the studio into the middle of the crowd in Grant Park?

[KneadToKnow]

Last night, Anderson Cooper looked like he had to stop himself from laughing out loud when he used the word holgram before his intervirew with Will I. Am.

In the bar where I was watching the results, when Anderson "the grey fox" Cooper said "we now go live by hologram to will-i-am", the entire place erupted in laughter.

Maybe the hologram part wasn't what Anderson Cooper was laughing about? Or, to make my own ignorance clear, Will I Who?

[ftg]

Looking forward. A couple years ago, there was a govenor's debate aired at a local station. In order to get that "live on the scene" feel, that station sent a reporter out onto the street outside their very own studios to report on the debate. As opposed to, you know, reporting from inside the studio where it actually happened. Since it was dark, you could only see the reporter.

But with this amazing new technology, they will be able to beam an image of the reporter back into the studio from the street just a few feet away!

The next logical step would be to keep the reporter in the studio, but beam him out to the scene. Then you get a virtual helicopter for the traffic reporter. (Les Nesman would be proud.) And then you could also use that to cover virtual police chases.

[msmith537]

Well, there is a BIT of cool technical wizardry going on. The subject is shot using multiple video cameras and then those different views are interpolated to produce a moving image that matches the viewpoint of the camera in the CNN studios.

It's not a hologram (it's actually closer to augmented reality) but it's not trivial either.


That's actually kind of impressive if the image automatically adjusts to the camera position. Cheney wouldn't be using it to communicate with his apprentice, but it's sounds a bit more high tech than a virtual first down line.

[Hampshire]

That's actually kind of impressive if the image automatically adjusts to the camera position.

Not much different than the yellow "first down" line they use in broadcast NFL games. The line moves right along with the camera position and even disappears as players run over it.

[cochrane]

It looked a bit underwhelming to me. You could see a red spot where she was standing and she looked to be about 15 feet away. It seemed as if Blitzer was shouting across the studio at her. They could have made it look as if she were at a close enough distance from Blitzer for comfortable conversation.

On another note, this explains what I saw on NBC later that night. Ann Curry looked like she was standing on a constructed news set and announced that in the name of "full disclosure in broadcasting" she was actually standing in front of a green screen and it was a virtual set. Then they removed the virtual set and showed Curry in front of the green screen. It seemed like they were taking a dig at CNN's "hologram".

[Baldwin]

Reminds me of the jokes on The Daily Show when they pretend the guy standing a few feet away in front of the greenscreen is actually in Pakistan.

[Tuckerfan]

Yes, you could defintely see a cartoon border line around her.Yes, they claimed they did that so you wouldn't get the impression of the reporter actually being in the studio. Which, of course, makes you ask, "Why the fuck did you do all that, then?"

[Pleonast]

Remind me again why people watch CNN?

[garygnu]

Remind me again why people watch CNN?
It's the only cable news network I could get in hi def. I still never saw the "holograms" because I was flipping around. Can someone provide a link?

It's be cool if they made it all blue and transparent like this (http://www.geocities.com/~special_effect/holo_darth_sidious.jpg), and with projection rays like this (http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/r2-d2-princess-leia-hologram.jpg).

[Driver8]

And here is CNN's own story on this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/11/06/hologram.yellin/index.html).

What the heck are they thinking?!

They've gone to a lot of trouble to put this together. They have to construct an entire room with 35 cameras to make it work. Why?! WHY?!

It adds absolutely nothing to help illustrate the news story. If you are going to have people on-site then show them on-site. You have less information watching this ridiculous broadcast then you would have had watching the host talk to the reporter on a video screen. The context of them actually being on the scene is lost completely.

It is a giant leap backwards.
It is a giant leap backwards that costs a fortune.
It is a giant leap backwards that they hyped up as something incredible.

This is the most pathetic cable news thing I have ever seen.*

*A little bit of hyperbole, unfortunately this really is only the most pathetic cable news thing I have seen all day.

[Ponch8]

It was a pretty craptacular effect. To me, it didn't seem much different from the green screen Hollywood has been using for decades to make somebody look like he's somewhere he's not. Except on CNN, the video and audio of the virtual people were terrible.

[Moe]

I tend to watch The Daily Show a couple of days behind so I haven't seen this week's yet, but I'm so glad to hear that Jon covered it. I'm looking quite forward indeed.

As to the question of why people watch CNN, for me in Berlin, it's the only english-speaking news channel I get (only english-speaking channel period actually).