Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
CNN Interviews '3D Holograms' on Election Night
Share:
by Jarrett Martineau | November 3, 2008 at 07:54 am
10411 views | 22 Recommendations | 12 comments
Videos
Photos
Next up was will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas, who was holographically interviewed by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.
As they weren't technically able to see one another, it must have been weird for both participants.
It was, indeed, just like Star Wars.
Did you catch the holograms? What did you think? Is this hi-tech future of television news?
Twitter users, as ever, were the first to respond:
"Help me Obama Kenobi, you're my only hope!" #CNN
They should have fun with this. They could make her 10 feet tall. Or 5 inches tall. She could sit on Wolf Blitzer's shoulder and dance.
So CNN can make someone appear in the studio looking like really shitty blue screen, BUT it's 3D. I welcome our holographic journo future.
CNN just shot in an actual hologram of one of their reporters from Chicago. Technology is amazing! Star Wars here we come.
[Forget] Obama, I should've voted for THE HOLOGRAM!
Wow, the CNN projected 3D graphics on their live camera shot is really cool.
CNN's holograms make me want to throw out my television and give up on technology all together. Is THIS what its all come to
PREVIOUSLY | Nov. 1st
Years ago, you served us in the Election Wars; now I beg you to help us in the struggle against the American Empire. I regret that I am unable to present the Obama's request to you in person; but our democracy has fallen under attack and I'm afraid our mission to bring Obama to power could fail. I've placed information vital to the survival of your campaign into the memory systems of this Barack unit. Your network will know how to retrieve it. You must see this message safely delivered to the American public. This is our most desperate hour. Help me, CNN; you're our only hope.
This message (or something like it) was delivered via a Leia-like, 3D, holographic projected interview with an Obama campaign strategist during CNN's US Election coverage on November 4th.
Think of it like this: Wolf Blitzer will be CNN's Obi-Wan Kenobi and the campaign strategist will be R2D2's holographic projection of Princess Leia.
Wow. And I mean wow. This goes way beyond any of CNN's latest techie tricks I've seen. Way beyond.
Next Tuesday, at CNN's Election Center in New York, an Obama campaign strategist will be in the studio to comment on the incoming voting results. Only he'll be... (wait for it) in 3-D! As a hologram!Instead of the normal flat-screen version of talking heads, the Obama spokesperson's image will be projected from Chicago and into the New York studio -- in a 360 view. CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer will essentially be talking to the strategist just like when Princess Leia sent Obi-Wan Kenobi a hologram message that he was her only hope. Only there will be talk about Ohio, rather than Alderaan.
USA Today has the story and they say CNN also plans to conduct similar holographic interviews with McCain representatives in Phoenix.
For more on the 2008 Election, please check out NowPublic's additional coverage:
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Jarrett Martineau
Vancouver, Canada
Rachel Nixon
Vancouver, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (12)
at 11:05 on October 30th, 2008
mmm. why?
at 18:00 on November 3rd, 2008
I demand Anderson Cooper host at least half of his show via hologram now.
at 16:23 on November 4th, 2008
Ok, that was some funny shyte. she looked like a cut out doll with a big giant human head and hands stuck on it. Couple that with the white light outline shining around her whole body and yes, the question is WHY?
at 16:26 on November 4th, 2008
I agree with why - but I thought it was quite well done! Although totally a waste of money!
at 13:17 on November 5th, 2008
Ohh, I don't know about the "total waste of money" bit... Sometimes investment in popularizing a new technology seem excessive but actually ends up opening a new market or technology to wider acceptance, use, etc.
Specifically, I recall that Star Trek DS9's special effect(s) for Odo (where he morphs into the resemblance of other objects or entities) were "excessively expensive," thus kept to a minimum for budget reasons. However, as acceptance that the effect / process was worthwhile and added something to the experience grew, it was used more and more. With decreasing costs for equipment, software, etc. many programs have begun using digital media pervasively for special effects. Take for instance Stargate Atlantis, the new Battlestar Galactica or the very new Sanctuary. All of them are done in a heavily digital style with many or all special effects done via computer generation.
It seems to me that a similar argument for this broadcast could probably be made in terms of demonstrating new technology, showing it off, getting people comfortable with it, etc. One could argue that if it takes off, then production of equipment / software / etc. for it would ramp up, cost would come down, etc. The usual economic arguments? Economies of scale, etc.
Regards,
~Michael
at 19:28 on November 4th, 2008
This is AWESOME!!!! Who cares if its not really necessary. It's the wave of the future people... bask in it's glory.
at 19:29 on November 4th, 2008
This is AWESOME!!!!! Who cares if its not really necessary. Its the wave of the future people... bask in it's glory.
at 19:55 on November 4th, 2008
that is so cool
at 06:11 on November 5th, 2008
I found it really distracting. Also, it wasn't a true hologram, i.e. they couldn't see each other (or, rather, each other's images)- the effect was done via video editing and arrays of HD cameras. Gizmodo explains it in greater detail.
at 07:55 on November 5th, 2008
I thought it will be a much better effect. With HD cameras, the "holograms" details were quite bad, and their blue outline was ugly. I think it was just demoing a technology, but i think it's useless and doesn't makes the coverage better.
at 13:05 on November 5th, 2008
Jarrett Martineau, I like this story. It's good stuff.
So, were the holograms like video of the people themselves, or were they completely digitally fabricated? IE, did they record actual actions / comments in video and convert them to holograms, or were they completely fictional entities created in a computer, with actions and speech / comments programmed? Just wondering.
Also, was it an actual, technical 3D hologram (with lasers and whatnot) or simply a 3D computer model displayed on a 2D screen (not the same thing as a hologram)?
On a slightly darker note, if these are 3D computer generated models that are lifelike representations, what are the implications for "fabricating" stories with the image of specific people, celebrities, political figures "pasted in"? How would we know the difference between a "real" story or interview and a fabricated one? Do we currently have the technology to completely fabricate a true-to-life photorealistic person capable of folling a real human into believeing the computer model is a real person on live video as well?
If so, I worry slightly about some of the big-brother implications...
Just some thoughts,
~Michael
at 14:25 on November 5th, 2008
OMG this is really good, I like the punch of humor that you gave it :D