I agree. It was not a “projection”. It was basically a blue-screen or green-screen matt job of superimposure, just like the weather people use. They are standing in front of a green wall. The computer image of the weather map is “chroma-keyed” into the system so it looks like it is being projected onto the back wall.

What the girl was talking about the need for all the cameras and the synching, was so the New York studio camera could move and dolly around, and her image would rotate just the right amount so that it would seem that she is really standing there with Wolf. But she wasn’t. He could NOT see her except on an off-set monitor.

It would not have been any “new” kind of special effect if the New York studio camera did not move around. It would be a simple chroma-key with her standing in front of a green screen and the Wolf set superimposed onto her green screen, if it was a simple chroma-key effect. But to produce the effect of her really being there in his studio in three-D, that was the real advancement with this process, and that's what all the extra cameras on her were for, and the computer set up so the movement of the New York studio camera would tell the Chicago cameras how to photograph her, from what angle.

Right. And I certainly think it's cool technology; the point is it's most definitely not a hologram.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Yes, I saw it and yes, it was definitely cool!

Hmmm... Here is an explanation of how the Vizrt system works

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

oh, they used Vizrt..
ok, that makes sense now.
thanks for the information.
Cheers!

__________________

-work in progress--

Hey, the Gizmodo page that I linked on Wednesday said they were using Vizrt tech!

At the time, I looked on Vizrt's website for some kind of reference to the broadcast, but couldn't find anything. I should've looked harder.

Oh, wait, despite the fact that that press release refers to the broadcast as having happened "yesterday," it's actually dated the 6th. It apparently wasn't online yet when I looked on Wednesday.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I'm still exceedingly bothered by it being called a 'hologram'. Almost an 'emperor's new clothes' kind of approach. As previously stated by others it is a composite effect. Nothing more.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

The effect was pretty good for a first time. I'm sure the quality will get better later on.

The lady seemed a little too small and somewhat fuzzy. I don't like the outline or halo around her, since that made the effect look unreal. She needs a very sharp outline like the weathermen have when they do the weather.

By the way, the weather men/women see only the green wall behind them, but there are TV sets (monitors) just off camera to their right and left, and they glance up at them occasionally to see if they are pointing in the right direction. They can see the full image of themselves and the weather map on the monitors. After some experience, they don't have to glance up as often, but in the studio they are seen, in person, just waving at and pointing to a blank green wall.

This is called a chroma-key effect. I think originally a blue screen was used, but a lot of clothes contain blue and the weather map was turning up being visible in blue parts of people's clothing, so they went to green for the screen, since not as much clothing is green.

The blue and green screens were originally used to differentiate skin tones. My understanding is that greenscreening is preferred as it yields better edges with less feathering required versus blue screens - I think the 'shirt/clothing' part is a bit of an urban legend. At the very least there are other reasons green is used over blue nowadays.

Also I think the halo was there because there are edge issues with the system. I'm really willing to bet that they have 'jaggies' on the edges and used the halo to subdue them.

**edit**

I wasn't sure but just looked up something to confirm. Blue screens are better used on film and green is better for video cameras. I *thought* this was the case but just confirmed it

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

The cheesiness was deliberate, so as to signal that it was an effect.

San Jose Mercury: CNN beams in guests with new hologram technology:

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I've been trying to remember back a few decades. Hollywood started this by using a blue screen, and I think the early TV people used a blue screen. We had a weather girl who used to wear different kinds of dresses with flower prints on them, and with the blue screen some of the colors in her dresses didn't react well with the blue screen.

Here is a weather girl being taught how to use the green screen process. The control unit she has in her hand is what switches the background image to different kinds of screen images, via her weather computer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfC-X4v3lCI

The Daily Show did a bit on this.

John doing Wolf voice: "we could could talk to you in full HD crystal clear resolution on one of our 9 foot high plasmas, but instead we decided to make you fuzzy and indistinct..."

(...I have a bad memory for detail.)

Then he said: "now we'll talk to Governer Swartzenagger" and superimposed the arrival scene from Terminator on the clip.

(...and spelling.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I saw that! Hilarious. Colbert did a bit on it as well.

Both can be viewed online.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

Well, the earliest TV people didn't do color, and had no need to worry about a blue screen. Fairly early on, they did develop a lumikey, luminance key, effect based on luminance instead of color. When color came around, I think chroma key was blue-screened at first.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

There have been a few articles over here where the Vizrt people too have objected to the word hologram being used, but I suppose the word was chosen since most people have heard about holograms and has a concept about them not being actual objects. It may have been simpler too, just to say hologram than using some more specialised term... After all, TV has a tendency to dumb down stuff, at the cost of accuracy...

Actually, CNN instructed the Vizrt people to add the effects, that includes the halo, the system apperantly do not need this, it seems that they were worried it would look to much like the person was actualy there. Perhaps they thought the audience might consider it dishonest or something if they later found out it was not real...

As I understand it, this isn't a normal croma-key system either, it actually simulates an actual 3d object by having many cameras and mixing them, something that would be integral if you were trying to simulate a person being there or some sort of holographic system. If a camera moves or you use a camera from a different angle in the studio, the effect would be broken with a normal croma-key and mixing system, since it could only show the simulated person from the angle he or she was actualy standing in front of the green screen, I suppose the effect would be kind of like the 2D sprites often used in older FPS games, that would always face the same way towards the player.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

I agree totally.

The technology might be interesting, but who cares? It's totally useless, only a cheap illusion for the brainless masses who think these means "the future."

I may be alone on this, but my personal opinion is that the people find this really cool are also impressed and emotionally persuaded by hotel doormen in Beefeater costumes, stretch limos, Super Bowl half-time commercials, Jim Carrey's "acting," fake breasts, M$-Vista, etc. ad nauseam.

I can live very happily without any of them.

__________________
Ach, mein Sinn, wo willst du endlich hin, wo soll ich mich erquicken? Bleib' ich hier, oder wünsch' ich mir Berg und Hügel auf den Rücken?
Bei der Welt ist gar kein Rat, und im Herzen steh'n die Schmerzen meiner Missetat, weil der Knecht den Herrn verleugnet hat.

Hmmm... I have a feeling that it isn't the technology you have an adversion to, but rather the way it was employed and by making it seem like some sort of sci-fi hologram thing with some lame effects. Remember though, these effects were added to make it obvious that the person wasn't actually in the studio, the spesific effects they chose was probably to adhere to a well known hologram look from some source that most people would know, and any coolness, well, if they have to make some effects, why make them lame...

I suspect you will see more of these virtual presence type things. They are an alternative to the older split screen or Picture in picture type effects that are quite common in programs where people in seperate locations are talking. At one time these were fancy technologies themselves, you know. In certain situations virtual presence may be more suitable than these older systems, and is a logical further step.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

I am so with you my friend ... on all but one of them.

Yeah, that Jim Carrey is awesome!!

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

Wasn't it more, "Help me! Obama win Colorado! He's our only hope!"

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Haha! That is very clever. Did you make that up?

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

I just got a mental image of Obama as a Jedi Knight. Which is a very awesome thought indeed.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Yeah, but just seemed obvious.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

But; the way they applied it could have been done with chroma-key and a single camera sync'd to the one in the studio to avoid the 2d sprite effect.

The technology is great, but the real application comes in having an "any angle" situation where you can't get camera movement, or where you want multiple views in a replay type of situation.

In short, it was overkill for their result.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Way overkill and I think the reverse of this effect - the Virtual Studio setup - if vastly superior. Was it neat? Sure. But it was misapplied and certainly misrepresented.

I can't foresee a situation in which this design would be useful. Perhaps if they can do away with the heavy requirement on cameras... maybe a two-or-three camera interpolations system - it would be useful in the field. As it is it reminds me very much of Cinemascope. Neat but so cumbersome and limited that it quickly went away.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

I heard of this years ago with the application being sports. Since many games are camera heavy anyway, it seems like a great application.

How many games have you seen where they just don't seem to have the right camera angle? This technology would seem to solve it.

Even those wandering cameras that are hung over the field need foresight of where to move to get thier effect. This technology allows the angle to be determined based on the outcome of what's going on.

Of course, live action is only helped in those situations where the camera movement is not possible due to speed or angles, but for rebroadcast of time delayed, non-live, or replay situations it's a great thing.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I've gotta agree with you there. Although I'm not sure if in, say, an NFL environment... if an interpolated image would be usable as an official replay type of thing.

Also you know in the movies when they keep saying "enhance" and the image is improbably sharp, detailed, and from an entirely different angle? Could come true. but that has always been a HUGE pet peeve of mine in movies. Except Blade Runner - they at least got around the issue by making the picture in that case a hologram. Anyway...

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Given the proper controls and acceptance, it might be, given enough time.
Maybe if the official has control over building the composite and comparing it to each raw image...

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Hmmm... This system seems more like a real time 3D scanner than a camera setup, and that the virtual present person is not an image, but a 3D generated object, at least that is my reading of it. Vizrt is a 3D software company specialising in solutions for the TV industry, so it seems logical that they would come up with this approach, why mess with having cameras flying around at high speeds over large areas to compensate for changes in the camera angles and positions in the destination studio when you can do the same with a compact setup like this.

I have a feeling that this might have been kind of a live test of a new technology, and that it have many more uses than just teleinterviews. It could probably be used to insert the actor into any environment, simulate a large number of camera angles and ranges, rerender the image to adapt for different lighting in the source and the destination.

Of course, they shouldn't have called it a hologram, though these sorts of effect might be just possible with modern technology if this system could be combined with one of the larger volumetric displays out there. That would probably be a natural future step for this technology, at least. Of course, unless it was actually a real time computer generated image made by wavefront manipulation, it wouldn't actually be a hologram, but it would be a volumetric image at least.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

And those are fine for their purposes.

When those effects came out, they were used for effect, not for usefullness. Remember the original "Thomas Crown Affair" with Steve Mcqueen or the TV show Mannix? They used 'picture in picture' extensively. Boy did that get old fast. Don't see it much now, do we?

In the mid 80's we had flying, rotating, wobbling cuts during sports broadcasts. They didn't last long.

I just don't like flim-flam. I like it simple and honest.

One cannot project a hologram. Light doesn't leave a source and then just stop in mid-air, leaving a visible 3D pattern (like the princess Leia thingy from Star Worts). It has to be reflected on a surface, either from outside (reflection) or from inside (translucent) and even then it's only 2D. Unless CNN had something round rigged up *physically* in the studio, there is now way that Blitzer saw her on the red circle.

So CNN, if it was added into the picture with a computer and Blitzer could only see her on a monitor, then please stop calling it a "hologram" that was "beamed" right into the studio. That's BS. Not cool.

__________________
Ach, mein Sinn, wo willst du endlich hin, wo soll ich mich erquicken? Bleib' ich hier, oder wünsch' ich mir Berg und Hügel auf den Rücken?
Bei der Welt ist gar kein Rat, und im Herzen steh'n die Schmerzen meiner Missetat, weil der Knecht den Herrn verleugnet hat.