Comments on: Notes for 11/9/2008 http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2008/11/10/notes-for-11-9-2008/ Edmonton Blogger & Social Media Guy Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:10:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Colin http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2008/11/10/notes-for-11-9-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-37027 Colin Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:15:37 +0000 http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2008/11/10/notes-for-11-9-2008/#comment-37027 This is the kind of half-baked promotion that gave virtual-reality a bad name. It was clear that the CNN anchor was looking at thin air and that the effect was created in the same way that movie fx track camera position to super-impose digital components. They did the same thing with the virtual house of representatives but didn't call that a hologram. Given that they only showed 2 angles of the person, it also seems like it was a waste of cameras too. The use of the word hologram was quite irresponsible. This is the kind of half-baked promotion that gave virtual-reality a bad name. It was clear that the CNN anchor was looking at thin air and that the effect was created in the same way that movie fx track camera position to super-impose digital components. They did the same thing with the virtual house of representatives but didn’t call that a hologram. Given that they only showed 2 angles of the person, it also seems like it was a waste of cameras too. The use of the word hologram was quite irresponsible.

]]> By: Ben Babcock http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2008/11/10/notes-for-11-9-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-37005 Ben Babcock Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:46:33 +0000 http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2008/11/10/notes-for-11-9-2008/#comment-37005 The whole "hologram" thing is silly. I'm aware that CNN's holograms weren't holograms. In the future, however, when we do have the technology to create holograms, using them purely for television broadcasting makes no sense. It will be more expensive to create holograms (at least initially) than it is to just do what CNN did, or what we normally do, with current greenscreen technology. With either holograms or greenscreen, you will produce the same result for the viewer at home. Greenscreen will always be cheaper for television, because it costs less to edit the video feed than it does to create a physical 3-dimensional projection. I can certainly see how true holograms will be useful in live presentations and other types of events where people can walk around the entire projection and perhaps even interact with it. But for news broadcasting, I just don't see how it's viable. The whole “hologram” thing is silly. I’m aware that CNN’s holograms weren’t holograms. In the future, however, when we do have the technology to create holograms, using them purely for television broadcasting makes no sense.

It will be more expensive to create holograms (at least initially) than it is to just do what CNN did, or what we normally do, with current greenscreen technology. With either holograms or greenscreen, you will produce the same result for the viewer at home. Greenscreen will always be cheaper for television, because it costs less to edit the video feed than it does to create a physical 3-dimensional projection.

I can certainly see how true holograms will be useful in live presentations and other types of events where people can walk around the entire projection and perhaps even interact with it. But for news broadcasting, I just don’t see how it’s viable.

]]>