• On GameFAQs: The top 10 fighting games of all time
November 5, 2008 11:00 AM PST

CNN's human 'hologram' on election night

by Marguerite Reardon
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 56 comments

CNN's Wolf Blitzer speaks with correspondent Jessica Yellin, who was beamed into the New York studio from Chicago.

(Credit: CNN.com)

Update 11:00 a.m. PST: Several readers have pointed out that CNN's technology was not true holography, and the story has been updated to reflect this.

Holy holograms, was that Princess Leia on CNN during election night?

No, it was just Jessica Yellin, a CNN correspondent. CNN beamed her image from Chicago to the CNN press center in New York City, where Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the team were covering election returns.

Yellin, who claimed she was the first person to be beamed in a "hologram" on live TV, explained for the audience how this was done. (See video below.) She said she was standing in a tent outside of the Obama headquarters in Chicago where the CNN crew had set up 35 high-definition cameras in a ring. She stood in the center of this ring and the cameras picked up her every movement and transmitted the image in 3D to the studio in New York.

While CNN is touting its special effects from election night as a '"hologram," that may not be technically the case. CNN's "hologram" seems to have been done using overlay images and a green screen to virtually put the reporter in the same studio as Wolf Blitzer. But true holography uses a different technique to create a true 3D image of a person standing in the studio. According to Wikipedia, "holography is a technique that allows the light scattered from an object to be recorded and later reconstructed so that it appears as if the object is in the same position relative to the recording medium as it was when recorded. The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object was still present, thus making the recorded image or hologram appear three-dimensional."

True holography technology has been demonstrated by many other companies. Telstra, the Australian phone company, used a hologram earlier this year to beam its chief technology officer from Melbourne to a business meeting about 460 miles away in Adelaide. Cisco Systems has also used holograms in demonstrations to talk about its telepresence products. Cisco's telepresence solution does not transmit hologram images, but it does use high-definition cameras and TV screens to make executives in different locations feel like they are having an in-person meeting.

For the most part, holography is still too expensive for most companies to deploy commercially.

Whatever technique CNN used, there's no doubt that it looked it cool. And it conjured up some futuristic thoughts of Star Trek and Star Wars. But as a viewer watching the broadcast in my living room, I thought the whole thing was a bit silly and sort of annoying.

At one point during his interview with Yellin, Blitzer commented that he felt bringing Yellin into the studio via hologram created a more intimate setting for their interview. He said he liked the fact that there weren't oodles of noisy people standing behind her.

But I disagree with Blitzer. It seems to me the whole point of sending correspondents to events is so that viewers at home can get a taste of what's happening in those places. I actually wanted to see the throngs of people in Chicago, standing behind Yellin, shouting and cheering for Obama.

It's that excitement and feeling like I am there with the reporter that makes me want to watch TV news instead of just reading a story in a newspaper or online.

I realize that CNN wanted to show off its fancy new technology. And I applaud the cable network for pushing the envelope in its use of technology. But I don't really mind the old-fashioned cutaways to correspondents in remote locations. CNN and other news stations have plenty of reporters and pundits sitting in its studios every night of the week. There isn't anything terribly interesting about that to me. For an event like this, when Blitzer is talking to someone who is actually at Obama's headquarters, I want to see what she is seeing.

What about you?

Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.
Recent posts from Cutting Edge
Man loses job after searching too hard for aliens
Inside CERN with a collider scientist
CERN's collider sets proton speed record
Building circuits, code, community at Noisebridge hacker space
Shuttle Atlantis glides home after station visit
CERN particle accelerator sees first collisions
IBM taps into group language translation
Atlantis astronaut's wife gives birth 220 miles below
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (56 Comments)
by osantosg November 5, 2008 7:55 AM PST
Nice effects! but I agree it would be better to use this on an interview with an individual rather than a reporter on site
Reply to this comment
by kenobone November 5, 2008 8:01 AM PST
We have witnessed the next leap in TV technology!
From Cathode Ray Tubes to Plasma to LCD Flat screens to Holograms in our living rooms!

I very much enjoyed the tech!
Reply to this comment
by celticbrewer November 5, 2008 8:09 AM PST
The hologram was on the set and transmitted to our 2D televisions. So what's the point? Maybe when we actually get a real hologram in our living room- actual 3D on the viewer's side, then we can call it a leap in TV technology.
by haub123 November 5, 2008 8:32 AM PST
celticbrewer, the point of this was to show a 3d image sent from one place to another. and they have 3d TV shows and movies and such, like Journey to the Center of the Earth. so we already have this leap you wish for. The point was to show the 3d image of a person, liek she was standing there, from 1000 miles away.
by rxbracho November 5, 2008 11:10 PM PST
I must agree with haub123's point. While this technique (call it hologram, call it whatever) is still very expensive, it could be used to provide, for instance, live "town meetings," or much better "webinars." And when the information can be recorded (after all 35 HD cameras plus other info is a lot of data to be stored somewhere, for now), one can imagine going to a movie theater (think IMAX) where 3D actors would roam around you. I know it's like theater, but with special effects, etc., that would go to a movie, it's true 3D without the stupid glasses. I think it has promise.
by ghosford November 7, 2008 3:22 AM PST
rxbracho, this technique, unlike an actual hologram, could not be used for any of the purposes you describe, unless, perhaps, all of the participants wore VR headsets (even then it would display the participants with the headset obscuring the face). It will not, for example, display a remote moderator at the front of a town meeting.

Although CNN called it a "hologram," and modeled it after Star Wars, it will mislead many people. The only way this technique can be used is via a television set or other display medium in which two pictures can be overlaid. Wolf Blitzer could not actually see Jessica Yellin, except on a monitor.
by aj37viggen November 5, 2008 8:02 AM PST
Isn't a hologram a 3-D image formed by light interference patterns?

If so, why is everybody calling this CNN thing a hologram? It's just a VR image formed from multiple video shots.
Reply to this comment
by dascha1 November 5, 2008 11:38 AM PST
I agree, you see how this 'technique' has been used since the Animated-Live Mixture days, or for example, the Dick Van **** Disney days... Though for an aging Digital version using true 3D environment, I think there's still a few copies of the following product (circa 1994)

COMEDIANS: The People Behind the Laughter (search around, Amazon.com)

which deploys live characters that actually walk around in a 3D Comedy Bar doing Stand-up and other tricks.

LAUGHING MATTERS
http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951127/multimedia.html
by ptkdude--2008 November 5, 2008 8:05 AM PST
I thought CNN's "hologram" was stupid. When you put a reporter on location, we need to SEE that they are on location, not a crappy video image of them inserted into another location.
Reply to this comment
by missatl November 5, 2008 8:28 AM PST
oh and by the way they used the hologram because it was very noisy where Will was. If you caught the interview that the youngest King daughter gave on MSNBC you will see what they were trying to avoid. We could barely hear her.
by chrisfrary November 5, 2008 8:18 AM PST
Exactly its like the crap they had, putting people in imaginary rooms in front of green screens. Just show the traditional behind the desk, in front of the screen usual.
Reply to this comment
by RideMan November 5, 2008 8:19 AM PST
I guess the next logical step is to figure out how to do it with fewer cameras, or at least with a simplified rig, so that the "hologram" (kudos to aj37viggen for the more accurate description, but it doesn't have that ring to it...) can include a bit of the reporter's surroundings. In other words, to bring a VR version of the actual location into the studio, to kind of split the difference between just having the reporter on set, and doing the interview 'the old fashioned way'.
Reply to this comment
by workiscool November 5, 2008 8:23 AM PST
I can't say it was stupid...if you didn't see enough coverage of the crowds, you weren't watching. That's what they showed most of the night.

I give them credit for cool factor alone. For a night like last night, with the noise of the crowds it was a very unique way to get an isolated interview. Is it useful for day-to-day, no. But they'll probably use it anyway. Still very cool.
Reply to this comment
by undahpresha November 5, 2008 8:24 AM PST
Its hilarious when you hand a few old people some new fangled technology......hologram Wolf? C'mon.
Those touch screens are laughable as well. They serve no purpose in moving the story forward.
Reply to this comment
by StuXU November 5, 2008 8:39 AM PST
Yeah! They should go back to just radio broadcasting of events. Or no live coverage at all, just newspapers. Get a life. I commend them for using new techonology and progressing. Holograms weren't really necessary, but a cool new interview tool.
by missatl November 5, 2008 8:26 AM PST
The world is changing and technology is improving everyday. I approve of CNN using Holograms on air. It shows how far we have come. Do you realize with the use of holograms what we can do? This is only the beginning. If this scares or annoys you just wait 15, 20 years from now. I commend CNN. Keep up the good work.
Reply to this comment
by ifij775 November 5, 2008 8:31 AM PST
It looks pretty good except there is a visible halo effect.
Reply to this comment
by Magallanes November 5, 2008 10:05 AM PST
yes, this looks like a a picture photoshoped by a novice = cheap and crappy.
by mikeburek November 5, 2008 9:47 PM PST
I think that halo was on purpose. Prob had to pay extra to develop it.
by biznatch11 November 5, 2008 8:32 AM PST
This was NOT A HOLOGRAM! It's blatant false 'advertising' from CNN to claim it is, and even worse for a technology site such as cnet, who should know better, to perpetuate this claim. It is nothing like the examples given (Telstra, etc.) which used actual holograms (just look at the picture). For something that supposedly took 3 weeks to set up and I am sure cost quite a bit, it was incredibly unimpressive once you realized what was actually happening.
Reply to this comment
by roland827 November 5, 2008 9:05 AM PST
Yep, this isn't a hologram!

It's just Wolf Blitzer talking to a blue screen overlayed with Jessica's video. A real hologram would entail a projection system beamed to a position near Wolf and he would've been able to move around her like she was physically standing in front of him. In order to achieve something like this, they'd need some sort of visible overhead or underfloor projection system.

From the edges of Jessica's image, you'd see some blue screens remnants, and that basically is what the computer used to extrapolate her image to separate from the background and is then overlayed to Wolf's broadcast camera.

So in essence, Wolf was just talking to a empty area of the room and was not Jessica at all... he is basically interacting based from his TV monitors.
Reply to this comment
by industrialD November 5, 2008 3:19 PM PST
First, Wolf was not talking to a Green (or blue) screen.
He was standing in the middle of a live studio. Generated in Chicago Jessica's 3-d image model was processed (and alpha channel generated) Then using telemetry data from mult NY studio cameras, the 3-D image model of Jessica and her key signal where sent via IP to NY and then using an Ultimatte, matted into the program feed. And as different cameras where selected, different perspectives of the 3_D where automatically inserted into the feed.

All this was done in REAL TIME, not hours spent in Post Production.
by kiwi-in-dc November 5, 2008 9:05 AM PST
This was not a hologram by any reasonable definition of it.

What it was was some fairly clever online synchronization of multiple cameras overlaying in real-time onto a CG model of the presenter which was synced to the pan/tilt/zoom of the main studio cameras.

She was shot against a green screen in the "tent" and chroma-keyed into the shot in the studio. Wolf Blitzer could not see her in the studio, she appeared on a monitor as they always do with live green screen work.

A shame they have to try and make something that is really quite a neat trick combining motion tracking, multiple HD viewpoints and live co-ordination of cameras to the CG view into "a hologram"...
Reply to this comment
by roland827 November 5, 2008 9:19 AM PST
"What it was was some fairly clever online synchronization of multiple cameras overlaying in real-time onto a CG model of the presenter which was synced to the pan/tilt/zoom of the main studio cameras."

I wouldn't call this clever, as technique is already been done a million times by weather reporters. The Weather report is usually done with the weatherman stands in front of a blue screen and interacts with the weathermap or a projection of it. In this case, instead of a weathermap, Wolf and the studio was projected to Jessica who is standing in front of a blue screen. And the overlayed images are then transmitted to CNN...

They could've probably done the reverse here, as instead of the studio overlayed in Jessica's blue screen, it seemed that they overlayed Jessica and on top of the studio feed and used a computer to extrapolate her image delimited by the blue edges on her edges, which is then overlayed to Wolf's live feed.
Reply to this comment
by RideMan November 7, 2008 7:12 PM PST
In a normal chroma-key, the key camera generates a color image and a mask based on the blue, green, or other ugly color of key background. Key backgrounds are typically ugly colors to reduce the chances that the foreground elements will accidentally get caught up in the mask. So that's your foreground image. The background image, then, is the weather map or studio or whatever else might be used for the key. Parts of the background image that correspond with the key mask are replaced by the foreground image. Simple.

What sets this apart from your ordinary garden-variety nightly-news weather report is that the images from the foreground image (in this case the remote reporter) is captured and converted to a 3D computer model. Using inputs from the studio cameras (pan, tilt, zoom) and a design model of the studio, the computer calculates the exact position, scale, and orientation of the foreground image, and generates a fully rendered foreground image. This, by means of a matching mask, is keyed over the studio camera image in exactly the same way as the weatherman gets keyed over his weather map.

The difference here is that if the studio camera moves, or if the studio view changes to a different camera, the computer generates a corrected foreground image. Another critical difference here is that because the rendering system "knows" what the empty studio looks like, it can also analyze the background image and identify anything that shouldn't be there (such as the program host) and cut that out of the key mask, allowing the foreground image to blend in *behind* elements in the background.

A better comparison with what CNN did would be to call this an extension of the "first&ten" system that puts the electronic lines on the football field. That system works in a similar fashion, adding a 3D rendering to a live camera shot. The difference is that for CNN, the 3D rendering was a reporter instead of an orange line.
by byronkim November 5, 2008 10:01 AM PST
Tacky... Frankly, this seems like another example of the problem with many mainstream media outlets these days. I think that relying so heavily on gadgets, toys and effects is very telling of what these news organization are focussed on...viewership. It's yet another ploy that gets added to the list of things that works against credibility. The line between reality TV/entertainment and news is getting a little too blurred for my comfort. I've heard the argument that the news doesn't need to be boring...I guess I can kind of see 'some' logic there. I don't think that anyone wants to be bored.
But as Marshall McLuhan said "the medium is the message" and honestly it doesn't seem like there is anyone at CNN who is thinking about the impact of how varying modes of representing information effects the information itself...or maybe they completely understand and just don't care.
Reply to this comment
by ghosford November 7, 2008 3:05 AM PST
You all are missing the point. Tacky or not, CNN and/or Vizrt (see post from trziv below) actually wanted to make it look like the "hologram" of Princess Leia in Star Wars. They don't care about the actual technology used; they added the blue "halo" and flicker intentionally, so the person "beamed in" would look like the Princess Leia "hologram" in Star Wars.

Also incorrect is the use of "beamed in" or ?transporter room,? referencing a ?technology? in Star Trek, where the subject's physical molecules were transferred and re-assembled at the destination site. Besides, the "hologram" of Princess Leia in Star Wars could not be a real hologram because the holographic image is projected by a single source (from R2D2?s single projection lens).

So don't blame CNN for calling it a hologram. They call it a hologram because it was modeled after incorrectly named visual effects in Star Wars. But it was already in the public consciousness, and just like the argument that the 21st Century began in 2001 instead of 2000, debate as much as you want, but you won?t convince the general public.

As far as cnet - well, it's just reporting what CNN called it. And 99% of the public will call it a hologram, because they don't know or care what a hologram is, it looks like the "hologram" in Star Wars, which is exactly what CNN was aiming for. We can debate whether it is tacky separately.
by ysuol November 5, 2008 10:18 AM PST
Hehe, no it is not a hologram, it's like the dude said above, same as weather reports do it... no projection just the image is put over the feed that we see (so not in the studio just monitors).
It was even crappy for that, she was floating right and left on that supposedly 'projector' thingie, so it was done like crap.

I thought it was real funny, though, the idea...

(this technology itself is not news since a long while)
Reply to this comment
by seymark2 November 5, 2008 10:18 AM PST
Nice job... well this is a big lie.. we know CNN is the best channel in the globe which i personally agreed to.. but prince Charles in the first man to use this stuff. not CNN.. this has been used since last year... there is a link on You tube just type in this: Hologram of Prince Charles - Musion Holographic Projection


and you watch it and see how it is... i tried to search for this vid on you tube its not yet posted..
Reply to this comment
by vsn2 November 5, 2008 6:46 PM PST
Except this was not a hologram ... there was no physical image in the studio for Wolf Blitzer to gaze upon with his own eyes ...
by seymark2 November 5, 2008 10:21 AM PST
I hope this can be used to call the Dead, for real think about it.. just don't glance through.. it will be successful to be used to call the dead for an interview... i did the research and i think it will work 1001%
Reply to this comment
by Michichael November 5, 2008 10:54 AM PST
Would be cooler if you know... it was 3d hologram, not a bluescreen overlay on a feed.
Reply to this comment
by blueshore November 5, 2008 10:56 AM PST
A bit impressive, but still a FX. Perhaps if a water vapor screen and some projectors were used, then a nice pseudo hologram could be done for in-studio.

In any case, it is good to see some ideas turning into realities, even if there are no fully developed.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 3 pages (56 Comments)
advertisement
Click Here

S.F. hacker space: Heaven for the DIY set?

The Noisebridge hacker space offers sewing and Mandarin classes, soldering workshops, Internet-controlled front door access, and a server room with no door.
• Photos: Circuits, code, community

The browser battles go on and on

roundup From Firefox to IE and from Chrome to Opera and Safari, there's no sitting still for browser makers looking to keep their products fresh and competitive.

About Cutting Edge

Keep up-to-date on cutting-edge research and what's new in a wide range of areas from robotics, space ventures and general science to automobile design and solar energy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Cutting Edge topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right