Comments on: Holographic Correspondents on CNN

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:34:14 +0000

I think most everyone here is missing the point of using this technology in a broadcast. This was not done simply because of the use of “holography” (which we can all agree here, this is not) would improve the reporting capabilities of the network, nor because the technology was required to report the story. This was simply for the pr buzz and proof that a production technique could could be used to help differentiate one news outlet reporting the same story from another. To prove my point, we are talking about a news network on an fx website. You can also do a google search on “hologram” and CNN and get a staggering number of hits. So in this regard, this visual effect did its job and from CNN’s standpoint, was a huge success.

Also, be aware that the final output of the image, including the “blue aura” and bad key, was purposely degraded to “enhance” the “holographic” effect for the viewer.

By: Jacques

Jacques — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:52:34 +0000

I think that the gimmick was so boring that they HAD to explain some techno-details to make some sense out of it.

Beautiful depiction of 2 famous ideas from Marshall Mcluhan…
The global village is commenting on something that tells me that the medium IS the message.

By: gab

gab — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:46:04 +0000

in 2009, can’t we do a better key ? if not, forget that thing

By: Holografische Projektionen « RenderRing.de

Holografische Projektionen « RenderRing.de — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:08:08 +0000

[...] geht langsam los : Die ersten holografischen Projektionen von Korrespondenten tauchen in CCN Nachrichten-Sendungen auf. Dabei wird die jeweilige Person in [...]

By: Jeff Heusser

Jeff Heusser — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:07:31 +0000

And even experts weigh in…
“This is not a hologram,” said Tung Jeong, a 76-year-old retired Lake Forest College physics instructor who now devotes his time to teaching holography. “Most of what media call a hologram usually is not. Something they don’t understand, they call it a hologram. It’s frustrating.”
from this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-election-question-holograms-nov06,0,5253659.column
CNN has to be happy because people are talking about it.

By: Jeff Heusser

Jeff Heusser — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:50:53 +0000

The Daily show had a bit of fun talking about all the “new toys” on election night:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=209405&title=decision-2008-obama-victory

By: john

john — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:17:21 +0000

Actually, you can buy the right cameras for doing this kind of tricks at ptgrey.com

I work there. I think Anderson Cooper showed one of ptgrey’s cameras during the show. It is called chameleon.

By: roland

roland — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:26:02 +0000

THIS IS NOT A HOLOGRAM! CNN basically just composited a second video of Jessica on the main feed of Wolf’s broadcast. Jessica’s video feed was dynamic based on the angle of Wolf’s camera perspective, and is essentially just a fancy new way of overlaying 2 video feeds much like how weather reports are done… In the weather reports, the reporter just stands in front of a blue screen, and interacts with a video monitor on what is being projected on the screen as if he is physically in the weather map. In this case, instead of a weather map, Wolf Blitzer and his newsroom is the first video, and Jessica (with her fancy 3d camera setup) is on the second video. Overlay these two videos and you have a fancy interactive shot… which I wouldn’t even categorize as Holography!

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:26:07 +0000

My only problem with this hologram is that is wasn’t transparent.
How can you create a hologram which isn’t transparent, it freaks me out!!
Can anyone tell me how they did it? You must be able to see trough…

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:19:14 +0000

Sorry to be blunt but… the “solution” to the problem about the crowds drowning out the reporter is not valid… They might have tried to pull that on people that don’t know any better but we’ve had that solution forever. Toss someone in a closet with a green screen, a few kinos, and grab some video from the event and you get the same effect except it’s not “3D” or “Holographic” or whatever… It added no perceivable quality to their coverage and honestly, what’s the point in having someone “on the scene” if you’re putting them in a studio surrounded by cameras just to make them look like they’re in the main broadcast studio?
I am however very excited about what this means for VFX, can you imagine a difference matte working off 35 HD cameras in realtime while you’re on set? Or the fact that you’d be able to orient your subjects however you want based off those cameras in post? That’s pretty awesome.
So basically, Engineers – Kudos
Media – Don’t substitute quality for flashy visuals. Take it from people who make careers from creating those flashy visuals.
Now that that rant’s out of the way…
FXGuide and PHD – Thank you for focusing on VFX and not politics at all even in the last few months! You all do an amazing job, and never stop amazing me!