So can we actually confirm that they lied? I mean, we're like 90% sure that the hologram thing was TV only and it was never actually projected in the studio... but does anyone know if it's been confirmed or they admitted it?
was there ever a doubt? They did say that it was a hologram, but they also explained how it worked... I think they made it clear, that it was not an actually, real 360 degree hologram. But they did get some fun out of it, I guess :P
What makes you think they lied about something so simple? Why go through the entire hassle of reinforcing such a pointless lie as showing off a hologram projector?
It was pretty obvious even before they showed it that it wasn't "real". I mean CNN can't use technology (projecting an image into plain air) that doesn't yet exist.
was there ever a doubt? They did say that it was a hologram, but they also explained how it worked... I think they made it clear, that it was not an actually, real hologram. But they did get some fun out of it, I guess :P Steingrimur
Only reasons there might be a chance of it being real:
1. The technology does exist
2. When they were interviewing the second 'hologram' the anchor heavily implied that he could see the guy, talking about what it looked like to him and such. Not cool.
It was pretty obvious even before they showed it that it wasn't "real". I mean CNN can't use technology (projecting an image into plain air) that doesn't yet exist.ThePlothole
lol, did people really think that it was a 3D holographic image? Holographic technology has been around for awhile, but it's not 'Star Wars' holographic technology.
[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]It was pretty obvious even before they showed it that it wasn't "real". I mean CNN can't use technology (projecting an image into plain air) that doesn't yet exist.Torftw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Telepresence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfNC_x0VvE
The first link is clearly talking about a plain old 2D style videoconferencing system. The second appears to be stage trickery (projecting a "hologram" is relatively easy in a dark room with enough moisture in the air).
[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]It was pretty obvious even before they showed it that it wasn't "real". I mean CNN can't use technology (projecting an image into plain air) that doesn't yet exist.ThePlothole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Telepresence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfNC_x0VvE
The first link is clearly talking about a plain old 2D style videoconferencing system. The second appears to be stage trickery (projecting a "hologram" is relatively easy in a dark room with enough moisture in the air).
True enough probably. I didn't bother to check really, just googled quickly. But this is close enough to reality to make it at least somewhat credible. Unlike them saying something like "our correspondent is teleporting here from Chicago" or something. Iono, I was just looking for 100% confirmation that it's BS.
They explained on the show how it worked, and I didn't really think people actually believed it was a real hologram. All they did was have a circle of cameras around the person they wanted to "beam," which were connected to the cameras in the studio. That way, when the studio cameras zoomed in and out/panned or whatever, the cameras around the person would react accordingly. They used the same technology with the "virtual capitol," where the senate results were dislpayed above a table. When they first unveiled it, the woman sitting at the table said, "we can't actually see it on the table in front of us, although the viewers at home are seeing it right in front of me."
They explained on the show how it worked, and I didn't really think people actually believed it was a real hologram. All they did was have a circle of cameras around the person they wanted to "beam," which were connected to the cameras in the studio. That way, when the studio cameras zoomed in and out/panned or whatever, the cameras around the person would react accordingly. They used the same technology with the "virtual capitol," where the senate results were dislpayed above a table. When they first unveiled it, the woman sitting at the table said, "we can't actually see it on the table in front of us, although the viewers at home are seeing it right in front of me."olion
Yeah, I didn't see that. There's another where the guy implies he CAN see it. I dislike that. What I wanna know is why bother using so many cameras? Even with their bandwidth, they couldn't really handle it and it was jerky as hell. Why not just have two cameras, one in the studio and one in the tent and have one move according to the position of the other? Gotta be much cheaper than what they did. They only used something like two angles anyway.
Log in to comment