• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CNN's hologram stunt

Safe-Keeper

My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Safe-Keeper
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
13,856
Location
Norway

Source: http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg.


Is this real, and if so, is it really the first time a body has been projected by hologram, or just merely the first time a TV station has put the technique to use on air like this? To me it sounds and looks pretty amazing. Gives me this "the future is here" feeling.
​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is basically just some cheesy bluescreen stuff with some fancy compositing. Think similarly to the stuff they do with showing down lines in football games.

Basicallly you figure out the projection from each camera and then scale your composited blue/greenscreen image according to what the camera is doing.

Repeat, this isn't a hologram Anderson Cooper can see.
 
It's a motion tracked bluescreen composite. They also had the virtual set going during the election coverage. Pretty fun technology, but just a bluescreen composite with live motion tracking.
 
Is the hologram visible to the people in the studio? If so, I'll be impressed. If not, then as noted above, it's just like the glowing hockey puck or down markers in football, i.e. already been done.
 
Last edited:
It was relly stupid and cheesy. I liked the 3D floating table of the Senate races but this "hologram" thing was kinda lame.
 
I've seen patents for things like this. As she was explaining, you have a lot of cameras in a circle, that are synched so that the same points on the object are correlated in each image. You can then create a "virtual camera" that can show what the object would look like from any arbitrary point by interpolating between all the images in memory. This virtual camera then follows the movement of the physical camera, allowing you to input the image into the live camera image.

I'll see if I can find one of the patents on it....

ETA: US Patent 7447380 is apparently just been published yesterday, so I can't find a copy on the web yet, but it should be available soon. It sounds like it does something similar.

Abstract:

A method for creating a novel viewpoint image from a plurality of images includes the steps of simultaneously and continuously acquiring sets of images from a plurality of cameras. Predetermined background based correspondence fields are used to detect novel objects. Image representations are assigned for these objects likely new correspondences. These likely new correspondences are tested and further improved upon in a refinement step. The resulting correspondences are used to construct a novel viewpoint image.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As she was explaining, you have a lot of cameras in a circle, that are synched so that the same points on the object are correlated in each image.
Click to expand...

In this case I don't think you need lots of cameras in a circle (though that's how they do the "Matrix" effect where you can pan around a person floating in the air). As was earlier mentioned, motion control camera support can precisely recreate the same movements. So in the two studios, they have motion controlled cameras doing the same tracking shot. That's the only thing technically that's kind of new about this--obviously blue screen effects have been used on TV for a very long time.

And it's not holography. I'm sure the dude behind the Holoworld site would like to discuss this with Blitzer:
The TRUTH is that the ONLY way to make a hologram is through the method of holography, and holography alone. If a 3-D image is made from ANY other method (and there are many methods), then it is not a hologram, and should not be called a hologram. Did you know . . . Many photos of "holograms" on the Internet are NOT of holograms (it's true). Many of the videos of "holograms" on YouTube are NOT of holograms (also true). Many of the "holograms" for sale on Ebay are NOT holograms (true again). People being "holographically projected" onto a stage or into a meeting are NOT holograms (this is the most common, and worst, offender).
Click to expand...

Sounds like one of our forum members! (It's true:p)
 
From what I could tell, there were two cameras on the "hologramed" person: one from the front right, one from the back left. Those are the only two views you saw. Then it was just a matter of sticking the images in the studio (probably using a lot of the same technology as how they draw the yellow and blue lines in the NFL broadcasts).

Even though Anderson Cooper faced the hologram person and mentioned it looked like star-trek effects, I don't think he saw anything there.
 
jimtron said:
In this case I don't think you need lots of cameras in a circle (though that's how they do the "Matrix" effect where you can pan around a person floating in the air). As was earlier mentioned, motion control camera support can precisely recreate the same movements. So in the two studios, they have motion controlled cameras doing the same tracking shot. That's the only thing technically that's kind of new about this--obviously blue screen effects have been used on TV for a very long time.

And it's not holography. I'm sure the dude behind the Holoworld site would like to discuss this with Blitzer:

Sounds like one of our forum members! (It's true:p)
Click to expand...

Actually not even the motion control part is needed. Two human operators could get the camera movements similar enough then camera tracking in the main studio takes care of the mismatches. Since motion control rigs are massively expensive they've fallen out of favour for effects like this.
 
Benig able to change perspective on the fly is pretty cool. It would be cooler if they didn't bother with the cheesy glow, which I assume they added on.

I only saw it once, with Will I Am being "beamed in". It included a painful moment for geeks as Will I Am correctly compared it to the effect from Star Wars and then Anderson Cooper compared it to the transporter effect from Star Trek. The expression on Am's face clearly said "no, no, Star Wars"
 
Denver said:
The TRUTH is that the ONLY way to make a hologram is through the method of holography, and holography alone. If a 3-D image is made from ANY other method (and there are many methods), then it is not a hologram, and should not be called a hologram. Did you know . . . Many photos of "holograms" on the Internet are NOT of holograms (it's true). Many of the videos of "holograms" on YouTube are NOT of holograms (also true). Many of the "holograms" for sale on Ebay are NOT holograms (true again). People being "holographically projected" onto a stage or into a meeting are NOT holograms (this is the most common, and worst, offender).
Click to expand...

And that guy in THX-1138 -- not a hologram.
 
I'm wondering if this patent quoted here...

A method for creating a novel viewpoint image from a plurality of images includes the steps of simultaneously and continuously acquiring sets of images from a plurality of cameras. Predetermined background based correspondence fields are used to detect novel objects. Image representations are assigned for these objects likely new correspondences. These likely new correspondences are tested and further improved upon in a refinement step. The resulting correspondences are used to construct a novel viewpoint image.
Click to expand...

... is in anyway connected to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Zones_That_See
http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-07-08/news/big-brother-gets-a-brain/1
 
paximperium said:
It was relly stupid and cheesy. I liked the 3D floating table of the Senate races but this "hologram" thing was kinda lame.
Click to expand...


Some of the CNN Commentators thought so too.
Campbell Brown actually wisecracked "Help Me Obi Wan" at one point.
 
INRM said:
I'm wondering if this patent quoted here...



... is in anyway connected to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Zones_That_See
http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-07-08/news/big-brother-gets-a-brain/1
Click to expand...



I don't think so, but there was another patent I found while looking for that one that might be. I'll see If I can find it again.


Couldn't find the one I was looking at, but found one even better:



Patent number: 6359647

Abstract
The invention provides for the automation of a multiple camera system based upon the location of a target object in a displayed camera image. The preferred system provides a nearly continuous display of a figure as the figure moves about throughout multiple cameras' potential fields of view. When the figure approaches the bounds of a selected camera's field of view, the system determines which other camera's potential field of view contains the figure, and adjusts that other camera's actual field of view to contain the figure. When the figure is at the bounds of the selected camera's field of view, the system automatically selects the other camera. The system also contains predictive location determination algorithms. By assessing the movement of the figure, the system selects and adjusts the next camera based upon the predicted subsequent location of the figure.
Click to expand...


This is for locations like casinos that have lots of cameras available, but it wouldn't be that hard to adapt it to other locations, or even whole cities, if you had the resources.
 
The “holograms’” edges were, in my opinion, much rougher than they could have been. And I don’t see what actual use this special-effects technology has in news reporting.

All in all, CNN was just using a cheap novelty to try to hold on to new viewers who’re just tuning in for the election.
 
They've been doing this in movies, for years!! The Lord of the Rings, the Star Wars prequels, The Matrix, and all sorts of others, have scenes with this type of technology involved.

I remember an old movie, called Dave (1993), where an actor played two roles, and when they met, the camera moved around them. The scene was shot twice, (once for each role), with computer-controlled cameras. I think it was considered cutting-edge back then.

And, then there's that popular "Candy Man" video, where Christina Aguilera played three versions of herself, at once, using motion controlled cameras, etc.

No, the person on CNN's set does NOT see the hologram. Only the people at home see the composite.
 
Last edited:
The “holograms’” edges were, in my opinion, much rougher than they could have been. And I don’t see what actual use this special-effects technology has in news reporting.
Click to expand...
I read in a Norwegian paper that they deliberately added the blue 'halo' around her to make it clear she was just a hologram. Or whatever she is.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I read in a Norwegian paper that they deliberately added the blue 'halo' around her to make it clear she was just a hologram. Or whatever she is.
Click to expand...

Oh ... I thought that part of it was extremely dissapointing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom