Wicked cool! Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Wow. How stupid.
And it didn't even look all that good. Are they desperate for ratings? Trying to wow the Star Wars crowd?
I just don't get it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I thought it was nifty that they could do it in real time, but it seemed hokey for a serious news broadcast.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The "how it works" link from that link seems to indicate those in the studio weren't seeing a hologram, that it was just combined into the broadcast feed.
Which is nifty, but not as nifty as an actual hologram. This was a fancy 3d rendering trick.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
You could tell from the look of it that it wasn't really a hologram. If you're going to get all campy with strange special effects, at the very least do it right.
I think all news shows should be like they are in Babylon 5. One newscaster in a uncluttered desk suspended in the middle of some huge room. Now that's classy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was HILARIOUS.
"Is that Spike Lee? Is he a hologram?"
Help me, Obama. You're our only hope. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"Help me Wolf Blitzer, you're our only hope."
Posted by YoYo Pwnzer (Member # 11790) on :
omg geeee tath is so OSSEM!!!!! i want to bie 1 fur mi hows
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Heh. Gimmick.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess it's a nice first step, but I'd be a lot more impressed if it had actually created a 3D image right in front of Wolf in a more Star Wars like manner. Otherwise they just accomplished something that George Lucas did 30 years ago.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I couldn't figure out -- leaving aside the fact that it wasn't a real hologram at all -- is what we at home were supposed to get out of it. I mean, the point of a hologram is that it's 3D. Everyone watching at home would be watching on a 2D computer monitor or TV screen. So the only difference between a "hologram" and a normal green-screen effect would be the grainy-ness.
"Talking heads: now with 30% more distortion and compression artifacts!"
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Perhaps the point was that they could superimpose the imagine on the feed in real-time and in such a manner that moving the camera around the studio would correspondingly move around the "hologram" as well?
It'd be significantly harder to do that with just a green-screen unless you correspondingly moved the camera aimed at the subject of the hologram. Which would be hard, unless you had tons of cameras (which is essentially what CNN did).
I agree, though, that it didn't really provide anything to the viewers other than a "Hmm. That's vaguely cool..." sort of effect.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: -- leaving aside the fact that it wasn't a real hologram at all --
I'd be interested to know how many people thought it was a real hologram.
EDIT: I only saw the one where Anderson Cooper was interviewing Will.I.Am. The interesting thing I noticed is that, occasionally, the camera we were seeing it through would switch from being over Anderson's right shoulder and Will's left shoulder. When it switched to being behind Will, we saw an image of Will's back. That means for every camera that was set up in Anderson's studio, a correspoding camera had to be set up in Will's location, filming him from different angles. It certainly added to the illusion that the hologram was actually there in front of Anderson.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:What I couldn't figure out -- leaving aside the fact that it wasn't a real hologram at all -- is what we at home were supposed to get out of it.
I think we were supposed to think that they had a 3d hologram in the studio. But I could be wrong.
quote:"Talking heads: now with 30% more distortion and compression artifacts!"
"CNN: Leading the way in pretending to lead the way in video technology."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)