Subscription Center
Nov 5, 2008 01:07 PM | 4
Your eyes did not deceive you last night: CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer really did banter with a holographic transmission of the network’s Capitol Hill correspondent, Jessica Yellin.
The technique, an update to the split screen, is likely to become common in TV coverage when networks report from remote locations, according to the Associated Press.
Why is that better than good old-fashioned video?
"Virtual elements in a real set look so much better than a real person in a virtual set," CNN Senior Vice President David Bohrman told USA Today.
Bohrman wouldn’t say how much CNN spent on the technology, the product of two companies: the Norwegian virtual-studio outfit Vizrt, and SportVu of Israel, which makes a real-time camera tracking system used at live sporting events, according to the newspaper.
But if the virtual Yellin looked “better” than her real self (Blitzer deemed her “a terrific hologram”, Gizmodo notes), beaming her up was a lot more labor intensive than the one or two cameras newscasters typically use to file reports away from the studio. The network planned to use 44 cameras and 20 computers to get Yellin into 3-D, USA Today reported. The software and visual effects synced the camera angles on Yellin with those on Blitzer, then plugged the satellite feed into the main video, Wired’s Gadget Lab explained.
When Yellin described the process last night, it sounded as though the network accomplished the feat with less equipment. “There are 35 different high-definition cameras ‘ringing’ me,” Yellin noted during the broadcast, reports the Christian Science Monitor. “I’m in the center and they shoot my body at different angles and I’m told that transmits what looks like an entire body image back to New York.”
Back to you in the real world, Wolf.
Tags:
hologram,
CNN,
TV
More News Blog:
Next: What an Obama win means for the environment
Previous: Wine diet in a pill: Mice stay trim and fit on drug
See what we're tweeting about
marisfessenden Women have always fought. Read this. (Also includes awesome art) HT @roseveleth http://t.co/x4g846BpBB via @skepchicks
FlyingTrilobite Rob Ford didn't smoke crack. He said so. It's all over. (Please let it be over. I miss the jokes about the army digging us out of snow.) FlyingTrilobite A hearty thank you to all my non-Toronto friends for not dropping me like a hot potato for all the angry Rob Ford tweets and RT this week.
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
4 Comments
Add CommentSo it's not a hologram.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a 3d model overlay with motion tracking.
When someone figures out how to make plates that can produce, flash and discard different interference fringe patterns at 30 fps, we'll see live holograms.
Blitzer and company did us a disfavor by calling it a hologram. Just what we need, to be further misinformed/mislead. Sci Am should do more to straighten out the misinformation about it too. You want a better nation, right?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. Sci Am is screwing up by calling this a holographic transmission. It's quite clear that Blitzer was not seeing a 3D image in front of him, and Sci Am needs to clarify their story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the heck? How did SciAm print this article and its readers identify that it's not a hologram before it did? Does SciAm not know what a hologram is? How embarrassing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this