CNN's holograms

lovetrumpsfear

lovetrumpsfear

Active member
So, I don't know about anybody -else's- roommates, but mine have been agog over CNN's "hologram" technology, debuted last night during the coverage of election day.

Besides not looking that great, I'm pretty sure the technology used isn't holographic in nature.

CNN dropped some hints about the rig, and it sounds as if they're borrowing tech from frame-accurate MoCap rigs to synchronize the cranes and pedestal cameras in CNN's studio with the cameras in a small remote stage. From the description Wolf's interviewee gave, I pictured the remote stage as a geodesic dome, with cameras at the vertices, able to move to track with the studio cameras. since the positions of the other twenty-odd cameras would be known, it would be easy to matte them out in any one camera's feed. Light the talent carefully, and cover the rest of the stage and the interior of the dome in blue or green, and you have a passable hologram effect once the talent is composited into the feed from CNN's studio.

Bottom line, it sounds like a really advanced bluescreen rig. The matte around the interviewees wasn't even that good, but I'm thinking this was intentional, as it intensifies the Princess Leia effect.

What do you guys think? I'm pretty sure physics demand that Wolf was talking to an empty room. :grin:
 
Here is the LINK.

I gotta say it was pretty cool. I think it'll be a huge hit. I don't think the blue princess leia lines were intentional though. Ultimately, I think they would want this to look as real as possible. The more real, the cooler the effect/technology, imo.
 
I am glad somone posted about this. The hologram thing was interesting but the 3D graphics/overlays what ever you call them were amazing. When he was breaking down the house and senate seats that graphic sitting on the table was crazy. CNN was doing some things I have never seen before on Live TV. I thought it looked great. Anderson cooper could not see wil I am. If he could then Internet Porn would take on a whole new meaning.
 
I think it's interesting but not necessarily the right forum. As a viewer I think we enjoy seeing the surroundings behind reporters, whether it be a celebration, the white house or whatever subject the journalist is speaking about.

Why did we need to seclude them and watch them in a distracting, wobbly hologram? Did anyone else find themselves hooked on the image itself and barely listening to what the holograms had to say? I did.

Wolf and Anderson both interjected several times that they are doing this for the opposite reason, to seclude the reporter from the noise and distractions so we could see them secluded. But I wanted to see the celebrations and craziness behind the reporters, that's what makes on-location reporting so intriguing. Not to mention, if they really wanted the reporter "secluded" they should have had the producer simply write the copy and send it in to the anchor for announcing. The whole thing defeats the purpose of location journalism, imho.
 
I was way to busy looking in wonderment the those Holograms as well. Honestly I was just watching the numbers on the bottom of the screen anyway. It was cutting edge for broadcast news IMHO. Plus we were watching CNNHD on a 60 inch Plasma and that just made it worse or better depending on how you look at it. good point there ALVERAZ.
 
For what it's worth, I had a friend working ABC feed for the event in Chicago. He's just heading home now after 25 hours on site. Says the broadcast never gave the event justice.

I gave him a gallery to load iPhone photos to... maybe when he gets home he'll add more.

The hologram photo was one I took at home so he could see it.

http://gallery.me.com/captmench#100069

CaptM
 
Well it's just a guess, but I'm thinking the 35 cameras surrounding her were all equipped with reflecmedia-style LED bluescreen systems, and she's standing in a tent (as she described it) lined with reflecmedia fabric. Since that bluescreen technology is only "visible" to one specific camera angle at a time, it seems it might be the way they managed to key out all the different background angles simultaneously.

On the other hand, I could be totally clueless... : )

How they compiled all the cameras into one rotatable image, seems like the more 'rocket science' apect of it to me. I'd imagine an array of big-ass computers churning away handled that...

Speaking of big asses...
 
Last edited:
I'm sure they used some form of motion capture...at least in the CNN studio.

The steadycam op in CNN's studio had thin rods sticking out of the top of his cam at various angles with little white balls on the ends.

Sorta like this only not...

1225911436.jpg


I don't know much about the technology but I assume there is an array of sensors or cameras in the studio that detect the x, y, z, axis of the camera (thru location of the "balls") at any given time, crunch the numbers and place the "holographic" image accordingly.

I'd like to see more info on just how they pulled this off.

The tech wonder aside, I still think it was a bit distracting. Refine the technology and use in appropriate context and I think it's great.

Ciao, Jeffro
 
Mark Harris said:
This is easily the most overengineered solution to a problem I've seen in some time...
Click to expand...

I agree. A waste of money IMO. Doesn't look very good and does the opposite of what you want. Sure it's interesting, but maybe for a one time deal.

Makes it look awkward more than anything. You just know this guy talking to her has to pretend she's there and pretend he's looking at her, and vise versa for her, which just makes it awkward.
 
Mark Harris said:
This is easily the most overengineered solution to a problem I've seen in some time...
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. It's like halftime at the Superbowl... Spectacle for its own sake.

On the other hand, it gets me curious... Are there DIY/open source mocap solutions out there, for the indie filmmaker?
 
And this had WHAT to do with the election or journalism?

That's our problem, we think just because we CAN do something technologically, that we SHOULD. Boy are we stupid.

Dan
 
I thought it was totally cool. A Star Wars moment perfectly suited for a waypoint in history where America is turning the page. Last night felt like the future and that hologram hit the right chord.
 
lovetrumpsfear said:
My thoughts exactly. It's like halftime at the Superbowl... Spectacle for its own sake.

On the other hand, it gets me curious... Are there DIY/open source mocap solutions out there, for the indie filmmaker?
Click to expand...

lol

Please don't bring up the pain; I've spend many a wasted months researching for it; it boils down to (To the point of building my OWN custom synced cameras):

no; you will need to spend a lot of money, mocaps are not cheap.

Anhar

p.s if however u do know of any recent developements give out a shout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top