PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone see the hologram interview on CNN last night?



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Nov-05, 02:15 PM
Did anyone see the hologram interview on CNN last night? That was way cool. Youtube it.....
Wolf Blitzer

SeanF
2008-Nov-05, 02:36 PM
I didn't see it, but I just watched it on YouTube. From the way she described it, though, it's not what I would call a hologram. Wolf Blitzer couldn't actually see her. They were basically just superimposing video of her on top of video of Blitzer's studio in real-time.

It's more complicated but essentially the same technology that lets them put the little glowing flare on the puck in hockey games or showing the first-down line across the field in football games. You don't see it if you're there "live," only if you're watching the broadcast.

EDIT: But I'm dissapointed Yellin didn't take the opportunity to say, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." :D

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-05, 02:40 PM
I haven't seen it but I read up on the technology. A 'hologram' it isn't. And I'm ****ed off that they used that term. Its just a reverse of the CG studio setup that other stations use in place of a physical studio. I really hope someone brings the hurt on CNN for claiming it as a hologram.

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 03:12 PM
Hey there.

If anyone is interested, the technology is quite simple.
basically, a HD camera array forms a circle around the subject (IR is used for tracking information), the information is sent to a computer (bank of computers) and is crunched then transmitted to the receiving end where another bank of computers decodes the information then sends it to a high resolution, high lumen projector which projects the image onto a clear screen.

Wolf could actually see her.

see Pepper’s ghost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost
for information on how this technology can be implemented, but basically it works like a heads up display with the image being projected on a clear see through screen


One interesting and new aspect of this technology is the use of a really cool product by 3M called Vikuiti (vi CUE ah tee) which lets the clear see through projection screen reflect only the video image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RYMR2LMVmQ
http://multimedia.mmm.com/mws/mediawebserver.dyn?6666660Zjcf6lVs6EVs66SgEiCOrrrr Q-
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/VikuitiHome/Landing-Page/

Fazor
2008-Nov-05, 03:28 PM
Hologram my as...cot. That's like calling a Prius a hover-car. Idiots. Oh well, it's "neat" but it's nothing really new--just improvement on old tech. CNN, wake me up when you have smell-o-vision. Wait, on second thought, don't.

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-05, 03:29 PM
I don't know man, Robin Meade is pretty... smell... o... rific. Nevermind.

Nicolas
2008-Nov-05, 03:41 PM
In Disneyland, you've got (in the ghost house) these (what seems like, at least) 3D projections, I think they are projected on smoke. Of course they're prerecorded projections, but now that I hear about these transparent screens, I was wondering whether Disneyland really uses 3D smoke projection or 2D transparent screen projection?

Fazor
2008-Nov-05, 03:48 PM
Is that in Disney or at Busch Gardens? The "freakiest" one (to a little kid) was at the end, when your cars go by the mirror and they project an image onto the reflection to make it look like there's a ghoulish ghost sitting next to you. I don't remember much else of the ride, but aren't the projections you're talking about at the part where you're looking down into a "haunted ballroom" or something?

If I recall, there's a glass window between you and the room, and I thought it was just a projection onto that. I was probably 8 at the time though; I can hardly remember what happened last week let alone what happened 20 years ago.

SeanF
2008-Nov-05, 03:57 PM
Hey there.

If anyone is interested, the technology is quite simple.
basically, a HD camera array forms a circle around the subject (IR is used for tracking information), the information is sent to a computer (bank of computers) and is crunched then transmitted to the receiving end where another bank of computers decodes the information then sends it to a high resolution, high lumen projector which projects the image onto a clear screen.

Wolf could actually see her.
When Yellin was explaining the technology to Wolf, she commented on how the cameras are linked so her cameras "move, and they know when to move when the cameras in New York move." If it was as you describe, where she was actually visible live, in the studio - Wolf could see her - then it would not matter "when the cameras in New York move." The only reason the cameras would need to be synced is if it's an in-camera effect.

And it is most assuredly not a Pepper's ghost effect.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I shouldn't actually call it an "in-camera effect," since that term has a pretty specific meaning in special effects terminology and it's pretty much the opposite of the way I've used it here. CNN's hologram was a video effect, not a live effect.

Nicolas
2008-Nov-05, 05:33 PM
Is that in Disney or at Busch Gardens? The "freakiest" one (to a little kid) was at the end, when your cars go by the mirror and they project an image onto the reflection to make it look like there's a ghoulish ghost sitting next to you. I don't remember much else of the ride, but aren't the projections you're talking about at the part where you're looking down into a "haunted ballroom" or something?

If I recall, there's a glass window between you and the room, and I thought it was just a projection onto that. I was probably 8 at the time though; I can hardly remember what happened last week let alone what happened 20 years ago.

Disneyland Paris (as in France, not Hilton), but it's the very same attraction, at least it also had the man-in-the-mirror and the haunted ballroom scenes. I also remember a glass ball in which a (seemingly?) 3D projection of a witch head was talking to you.

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 05:39 PM
And it is most assuredly not a Pepper's ghost effect.



how are you so absolutely, positively, 100% certainly sure that it is
assuredly not a Pepper's ghost effect.
????????

I will cite a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musion_Eyeliner


The Musion Eyeliner is a high definition video projection system allowing moving images to appear within a live stage setting using Pepper’s ghost technology. It is described by the company, Musion Systems Ltd.[1] as "3-dimensional" and "holographic", but strict definitions of these terms might discriminate between this simple one camera / one projector illusion and methods requiring two or more light paths as seen in conventional stereoscopic projection or diffraction-based holograms.

your turn

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 05:41 PM
oh yea, here is the patent for the system

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070201004&OS=20070201004

01101001
2008-Nov-05, 05:42 PM
When Yellin was explaining the technology to Wolf, she commented on how the cameras are linked so her cameras "move, and they know when to move when the cameras in New York move." If it was as you describe, where she was actually visible live, in the studio - Wolf could see her - then it would not matter "when the cameras in New York move." The only reason the cameras would need to be synced is if it's an in-camera effect.

I agree. I don't think she was projected 3D into the studio. He might have had a simple line monitor in the distance to view when he looked in her supposed direction (like the weatherperson looks at when green-screened and pointing at the map that isn't there) to fake the interaction.

I'm sure the only 3D was the original Yellin, her mathematical model inside some computer, and the impression in the viewers' minds who viewed the 2D projection.

I'd wager her 3D presence was as much a presence as the yellow computer-generated first-down marker line projected onto American football fields during the game (or similar for other sports, like on-field ads), none. They use the same sort of camera-motion tracking as Yellin described.

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 05:45 PM
and the reason you need to have the cameras synced is because there is an array of them. 35 cameras actually.

http://gizmodo.com/5076663/how-the-cnn-holographic-interview-system-works


On the subject's side:
• 35 HD cameras pointed at the subject in a ring
• Different cameras shoot at different angles (like the matrix), to transmit the entire body image
• The cameras are hooked up to the cameras in home base in NY, synchronizing the angles so perspective is right
• The system is set up in trailers outside Obama and McCain HQ
• Not only is it mechanical tracking via camera communication, there's infrared as well
• Correspondents see a 37-inch plasma where the return feed of the combined images are fed back to them. Useful for a misplaced hair or an unseemly boogar
• Twenty "computers" are crunching this data in order to make it usable

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 05:46 PM
no, it was not a "real 3d" image of her, rather a projected image of her on a transparent screen,
i might be wrong, but i heard from an inside source that 3M and their new material called Vikuiti (vi CUE ah tee) was part of the technology.

SeanF
2008-Nov-05, 06:01 PM
how are you so absolutely, positively, 100% certainly sure that it is ????????

I will cite a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musion_Eyeliner

your turn
Yellin specifically made mention of multiple cameras at her location and in New York, and those cameras needing to be synchronized. You link to a system that is, in your own quoted blurb, a "simple one camera / one projector illusion" and wonder how I know they're not the same thing?

Anyway, here's (http://gizmodo.com/5076663/how-the-cnn-holographic-interview-system-works) Gizmodo's page on the tech:

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario

Here's (http://www.fxguide.com/qt/517/holographic-correspondents-on-cnn) another page talking about the technology:

...the guest is composited into the master shot based a 3D track of the master studio cameras.

Trust me, this was a pretty high-tech realtime composite job, but it was just that - compositing. There was no "projection" in Wolf's studio.

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 06:35 PM
yea your probably right, didnt mean to be a wet blanket.

i wonder why i heard that 3m had used their new projection screen technology.

it just seemed so self evident when i heard that.

The new Vikuiti material is really really really cool, and would make for a "more real" type of holographic effect, were both participants could actually see each other.

I am sure the fiber could handle the information.

Fazor
2008-Nov-05, 06:36 PM
Trust me, this was a pretty high-tech realtime composite job, but it was just that - compositing. There was no "projection" in Wolf's studio. Right; and somewhere someone apparently things 'Hologram' means "Fancy compositing on the fly".

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-05, 06:40 PM
i think the layman (read: pretty much everyone in the media) has no idea what a hologram *really* is. 3d data stored in 2d is kind of hard to wrap your head around.

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 06:45 PM
this is the system i was talking about and what i thought they used.
which can be used with from one to multiple cameras using edge blending techniques.

if you watch the video you can see the people walk on stage. everyone in the audience can see the "holograms"

http://www.musion.co.uk/Cisco_TelePresence.html

NEOWatcher
2008-Nov-05, 06:47 PM
I wasn't impressed. (I was able to pull up the one with that rapper guy)
First off: In many of the angles he was not on the circle both vertically and horizontally.
Second: That aura around him was rather irritating.

Do they really need such technology? It looks to me that green screen technology could have produced the same thing.
Put the interviewee in a 360 degree green room, and synchronize the green room camera with the studio camera.

Maybe Jay can chime in with an answer.

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 07:06 PM
wait,

http://iryanhd.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/cnn-debuts-hologram/

says this:
"The technology is called the Musion Eyeliner Hologram Effect. It’s the same technology that’s also used at Universal Studio’s Disaster ride. Very cool."

the web site
http://www.musion.co.uk/

and here:
http://www.overstock.ws/article.cfm/id/146348




Musion Eyeliner technology has been used in a variety of applications including lifesize holograms of Madonna (Grammy Awards, LA), Gorillaz animated band (MTV, Lisbon), General Electric GEnx aircraft engine (Farnborough Air Show), Cadillac SLS (China National Launch, Shanghai) John McEnroe (Wimbledon LTA Museum), Hewlett Packard Server (Marriot Hotel Seoul), Nike (Gallery La Fayette, Paris) Richard Branson (Virgin Megastore, London). Additionally the BBC, BMW, Celador TV, Fortune Magazine, Landrover, Honda, Turner/CNN and Landrover have all recently discovered the thrilling visual impact of Eyeliner™ for major product launches, customer entertainment, TV spectaculars and key note addresses.


so maybe, just maybe, i might be right?

sabianq
2008-Nov-05, 07:09 PM
I wasn't impressed. (I was able to pull up the one with that rapper guy)
First off: In many of the angles he was not on the circle both vertically and horizontally.
Second: That aura around him was rather irritating.

Do they really need such technology? It looks to me that green screen technology could have produced the same thing.
Put the interviewee in a 360 degree green room, and synchronize the green room camera with the studio camera.

Maybe Jay can chime in with an answer.


you mean this one?
http://www.musion.co.uk/Gorillaz_MTV_Awards.html

NEOWatcher
2008-Nov-05, 07:21 PM
you mean this one?
http://www.musion.co.uk/Gorillaz_MTV_Awards.html

No; the other CNN holographic interview...with will.i.am.
(I'm having a bit of problem with CNN video lately, so providing the link is a bit of a pain)

SeanF
2008-Nov-05, 08:24 PM
so maybe, just maybe, i might be right?
Sorry, afraid not. :)

One thing you'll notice with all the links you've provided to "Pepper's Ghost"-type illusions (which, make no mistake, are very cool!) - they all involved darkened stages. That's a necessity for that type of reflection effect, regardless of whether it's a nearby physical object or a video image projection that you're reflecting off the screen. The CNN videos are in bright, uniformly lit studios.

Also, the CNN videos have shots showing the backs of the "holograms" and the front of the real people (Blitzer and Cooper). "Pepper's Ghost" is only visible from the front.

Geez, what we really need is for somebody to just ask Blitzer or Cooper, "Now, could you actually see that image in the studio, or did it only show up on the monitor screens?" :)

Fazor
2008-Nov-05, 08:32 PM
"Now, could you actually see that image in the studio, or did it only show up on the monitor screens?" :)
I thought it was pretty obvious that no, he could not. But I never went in and read the details of the set-up (suprise), so maybe I'm mistaken.

For me, theres two true tests for a "real" hologram: One) can you throw something through it without breaking anything, and Two) can you walk around it and observe the object in three dimensions.

From the peices I've read in this thread, it sounds like there were "360 degrees" worth of camera footage on the woman, but not at Blitzer's studio. I know they spoke of multiple cameras at both locations, but what studio only has one camera? Doesn't mean Blitzer had a 360-rig--just that the compositing system had to be co-ordinated each time they switched to a different camera shot. Regardless, since the composit was only done in one direction (only she was being "beamed" to his studio, and not vise versa), On blitzer's end all that would be required is motion-sensing set ups on the active cameras. You don't actually need to film the studio in 360; just the "holographed" (if they can use words losely, so can I!) subject.

SeanF
2008-Nov-05, 08:39 PM
From the peices I've read in this thread, it sounds like there were "360 degrees" worth of camera footage on the woman, but not at Blitzer's studio. I know they spoke of multiple cameras at both locations, but what studio only has one camera? Doesn't mean Blitzer had a 360-rig--just that the compositing system had to be co-ordinated each time they switched to a different camera shot. Regardless, since the composit was only done in one direction (only she was being "beamed" to his studio, and not vise versa), On blitzer's end all that would be required is motion-sensing set ups on the active cameras. You don't actually need to film the studio in 360; just the "holographed" (if they can use words losely, so can I!) subject.
Yup. Which makes Yellin's description to Blitzer kind of misleading, I think. She talked about her Chicago cameras being linked to the New York cameras so that her cameras "move when the NY cameras move." That's not necessary, especially if they've got 360-degrees of cameras around her.

The system needs to know when the NY cameras are moving so that it knows which signals from the Chicago cameras to composite, but her cameras don't need to know or do anything. They just sit there and broadcast.

However - and this just occured to me as I was typing this - the cameras in NY can also move (and pivot) up and down, and the cameras in Chicago would need to be able to match that movement.

Fazor
2008-Nov-05, 09:05 PM
However - and this just occured to me as I was typing this - the cameras in NY can also move (and pivot) up and down, and the cameras in Chicago would need to be able to match that movement.

Ah, good point--unless they shoot everything from pre-defined heights/angles. But if you do indeed need to send motion data back to her location, why would you need a 360-degree rig? If you send motion for one thing (dirrectional/pivot information), why not just have the whole camera move coordinately aswell, and only need one moving camera?

Or maybe there wasn't an array of 360-degree cameras as I envision; rather just one camera per camera in Blitzer's studios. Each studio has the cameras set on tracks, so that movement between the two can be matched. That'd work--but wouldn't be much more than glorified remote-control cars with video compositing as the result.

mugaliens
2008-Nov-05, 10:11 PM
It is NOT a hologram, but simple blue-screen using two cameras in synch, or in their case, a semi-sphere of 35 cameras.

Very disconcerting to have the POV continue sweeping back and forth, much like the crazy overuse of zoom in the 60's.

Also, to Wolf Blitzer, it did NOT look like she was right there, except on the studio monitors. All he was doing was looking towards the red spot of light on the floor.

KaiYeves
2008-Nov-05, 11:24 PM
EDIT: But I'm disappointed Yellin didn't take the opportunity to say, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope."
I so would have done that.

Sam5
2008-Nov-07, 05:36 AM
When Yellin was explaining the technology to Wolf, she commented on how the cameras are linked so her cameras "move, and they know when to move when the cameras in New York move." If it was as you describe, where she was actually visible live, in the studio - Wolf could see her - then it would not matter "when the cameras in New York move."




And it is most assuredly not a Pepper's ghost effect.

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.

Fazor
2008-Nov-07, 12:23 PM
Right. And I certainly think it's cool technology; the point is it's most definitely not a hologram.

Nadme
2008-Nov-07, 01:07 PM
Yes, I saw it and yes, it was definitely cool!

TrAI
2008-Nov-07, 01:08 PM
Hmmm... Here is an explanation of how the Vizrt system works (http://www.vizrt.com/news/press_releases/article3918.ece)

sabianq
2008-Nov-07, 01:30 PM
Hmmm... Here is an explanation of how the Vizrt system works (http://www.vizrt.com/news/press_releases/article3918.ece)

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

SeanF
2008-Nov-07, 02:55 PM
oh, they used Vizrt..
ok, that makes sense now.
thanks for the information.
Cheers!
Hey, the Gizmodo page (http://gizmodo.com/5076663/how-the-cnn-holographic-interview-system-works) that I linked (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80929-did-anyone-see-hologram-interview-cnn-last-night.html#post1358498) 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.

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-07, 02:59 PM
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.

Sam5
2008-Nov-07, 05:51 PM
Hmmm... Here is an explanation of how the Vizrt system works (http://www.vizrt.com/news/press_releases/article3918.ece)

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.

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-07, 06:03 PM
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

01101001
2008-Nov-07, 06:04 PM
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.

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

San Jose Mercury: CNN beams in guests with new hologram technology (http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_10908468):


[CNN's senior vice president and Washington bureau chief David] Bohrman said CNN deliberately made the effect look cheesy so the network's intentions were clear. The eerie white glow around Yellin, in other words, was put in intentionally.

Sam5
2008-Nov-07, 06:08 PM
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.


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

pzkpfw
2008-Nov-07, 06:52 PM
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.)

Gigabyte
2008-Nov-07, 07:11 PM
I saw that! Hilarious. Colbert did a bit on it as well.

Both can be viewed online.

01101001
2008-Nov-07, 07:22 PM
[...] I think the early TV people used a blue screen.

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.

TrAI
2008-Nov-07, 10:26 PM
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.

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...


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.

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.

kleindoofy
2008-Nov-08, 11:29 PM
I wasn't impressed. ... Do they really need such technology? ...
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.

TrAI
2008-Nov-09, 12:56 AM
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.

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.

formulaterp
2008-Nov-09, 06:27 PM
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.

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

Gigabyte
2008-Nov-09, 07:25 PM
Yeah, that Jim Carrey is awesome!!

:D

mike alexander
2008-Nov-09, 08:18 PM
Wasn't it more, "Help me! Obama win Colorado! He's our only hope!"

Gigabyte
2008-Nov-09, 08:19 PM
Haha! That is very clever. Did you make that up?

KaiYeves
2008-Nov-09, 08:24 PM
I just got a mental image of Obama as a Jedi Knight. Which is a very awesome thought indeed.

mike alexander
2008-Nov-09, 09:21 PM
Haha! That is very clever. Did you make that up?

Yeah, but just seemed obvious.

NEOWatcher
2008-Nov-10, 02:02 PM
As I understand it, this isn't a normal croma-key system either...
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.

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-10, 02:09 PM
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.


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.

NEOWatcher
2008-Nov-10, 02:36 PM
...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...
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.

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-10, 02:42 PM
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.


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...

NEOWatcher
2008-Nov-10, 02:55 PM
...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...
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...:think:

TrAI
2008-Nov-10, 11:20 PM
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.

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.

kleindoofy
2008-Nov-11, 02:04 AM
... 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. ...
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 **. Not cool.

SeanF
2008-Nov-11, 03:04 PM
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).
Sure about that? (http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html#latest0)

:)