CNN Holograms? Not really.

I was planning to comment on the CNN ‘hologram’ effect that they used on election night, and though I see that Tom at Swans on Tea beat me to it (I wave angry fist in the air, shouting, “Curse you!”), I thought I’d comment as well.

As you’ve probably heard already, and heard mocked on The Daily Show, CNN debuted a new technology, in which a correspondent’s image is ‘beamed’ into the CNN studio:

The effect is clearly reminiscent of the very familiar scene in Star Wars:

Though the effect is very cute, it really isn’t a hologram.  First, what did CNN do?  From their website:

The technology involved placing a subject — in this case Yellin, and later in the evening, musical artist — in the middle of a bright-green circular room inside a large tent at Obama’s Grant Park victory celebration.

The subject was then filmed with 35 high-definition video cameras, barely larger than average point-and-shoot cameras, which ringed the wall of the circular room. The video cameras were 6 inches apart and at eye level, 220 degrees around the subject.

Chuck Hurley, the Washington bureau’s senior producer of video and the staffer tapped by Bohrman to manage the execution of the “hologram,” called it simple chroma-key technology that’s been taken “to the Nth degree.”

“Weathermen have been standing in front of green screens for years now, but that’s [with] one camera,” Hurley said. “Now we can do that times 35, so you can send all the way around the subject.”

Hurley said the tiny cameras “talk” to the New York studio’s cameras, meaning that when a New York camera moves, it “tells” the cameras in the tent which direction it’s moving and keeps the subject in the correct proportions.

Basically, it is a computer-enhanced version of the ‘green screen’ effect that weathermen and movie special effects people have used for years.   There was no image projected in front of Wolf Blitzer:

On Tuesday night, Blitzer could only see Yellin on a TV monitor across the studio. Technicians placed a round piece of red laminate on the studio floor where she was “beamed in” so that Blitzer would know where to look.

Actually, this makes it a closer analogy to Star Wars than one might think: in the filming of the prequel trilogy, actors were often required to act and interact with empty space which would later be filled in with special effects!

In any case, CNN really shouldn’t be calling this a hologram, and not even a ‘hologram’, with the word in quotes, as they’ve been doing.  In real holography, an ‘image’ is recorded on photographic film of the interference pattern between a reference wave of coherent light and coherent light scattered from the  ‘target’.  This recorded image is really a recording of the wavefront of the light scattered from the target, which can then be reproduced by reilluminating it.  A hologram acts as a sort of ‘virtual window’ to a three-dimensional scene, but doesn’t project an image that can be viewed from all directions in three dimensions.

Is it possible to make a 3-D “Princess Leia”-style hologram?  The closest example I can find to date is work reported at USC last year, where a high-speed spinning mirror provides different images to viewers at different locations.  This system is also, however, not producing a true hologram (wavefront recording).

I’ll come back to holography in the near future with another ‘basics’ post.

I think my biggest beef with the pseudo-hologram technology, however, is that it serves as a distraction from the actual news without providing any new insight or useful information.  I would prefer more money be spent on good field operations and knowledgeable news anchors than on flashy new gizmos.

This entry was posted in Optics, Science news. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to CNN Holograms? Not really.

  1. I’ve been fighting a losing battle on the misuse of the term “hologram” for years. (The only scientific paper that I have ever outright rejected was on a technology utterly unrelated to holography that used the word “holography” in its title.) Part of the problem for holographers is that we’ve been far too polite. Here’s the issue if you think about it linguistically: If photography produces a photograph, then one would logically conclude that the product of holography should be called a “holograph”, right? Unfortunately the word holograph was already taken. Some bastard in 1660 coined the term to describe a document that is written in the original authors own hand. Why should modern holographers continue to be subservient to a phrase from four centuries ago? If someone is going to take our word, why don’t we just take someone else’s? Nowadays the only people who use the term “holograph” with respect to handwritten documents are literature academics. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but I don’t think it’s mightier than my krypton ion laser.

  2. PD: Maybe you should fire off an angry holograph to the IHMA

    you wrote: “The pen may be mightier than the sword, but I don’t think it’s mightier than my krypton ion laser.”

    Have you followed the link at my previous post? You’d be amazed at what people can do with a single Bic pen… 😛

  3. Pingback: This is why CNN’s Hologram was a Good Investment « The Full Catastrophe

  4. SitS wrote: You’d be amazed at what people can do with a single Bic pen…

    And you, sir, might be amazed at what 7 watts/m^2 of coherent radiation can do to people. :->

  5. Hmm… that emoticon didn’t work. Try this one: 😉

  6. PD: You think everything can be solved with lasers!

  7. Tom says:

    Evidence that blogs are bosonic. There’s always room for one more post on any topic.

  8. That previous value was meant to be 7 Watts/mm^2, not m^2.

  9. Jonathan Bush says:

    LOl, this is so fake, CNN should get slammed for creating a hoax then touting it as real and “amazing”. They actually did a story about it! Talking about the Hologram is poor journalism; not only are they loving the smell off their own shit but they are putting a positive spin on the video responses where as most of them are actually negative and say that it is fake. I will not watch CNN anymore for they are such douche bags.

  10. Tom wrote: “There’s always room for one more post on any topic.”

    Does this mean I have to take back my curse? 🙂

Leave a Reply to Personal Demon Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.