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.
But did she get through to Obi-Wan?
He was her only hope!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
Yes, you could defintely see a cartoon border line around her.
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?
Maybe the hologram part wasn’t what Anderson Cooper was laughing about? Or, to make my own ignorance clear, Will I Who?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?”
Remind me again why people watch CNN?