CNN’s “Hologram”

By Deane Barker on November 7, 2008

Stop the insanity: CNN’s ‘hologram’ was horrendous: I agree that the term “hologram” was totally mis-used here. I’ve heard from several sources that it was actually a tomogram.

First off, let me say that it wasn’t even real “hologram” technology, which annoys me from the start. Don’t say it’s a “hologram” technology unless it really is. If CNN was truly using a “hologram,” it would not have employed a green screen and overlay images. Instead, it would have captured scattered light and then reconstructed it back in the studio.

Oh, and it probably would have bankrupted CNN too.

Still, I think the technology was neat. It could be a way to get a bunch of people to look like they’re in the same room to the people at home, and there’s some value in that.



  1. I don’t mind CNN using a bunch of technology, but they really should use it in a more natural way. Maybe it’s that the anchors aren’t comfortable with it yet, but it seems like everytime they do something new, they have to give this whole spiel about how it’s new, and so futuristic.

    If it’s a good technology, let it do its job, people will be wowed if it gives them something useful, unlike, say, their floating pie chart on a plate.

  2. The hologram didn’t do anything above a simple green screen besides allow them to pan (and burn money). If they had simple stood her in front of a green screen, they could have achieved the same effect from a fixed angle (which they used most of the time). It wouldn’t have had to be choppy then, either.

    The hologram was 3D fail.

Comments are closed. If you have something you really want to say, tweet @gadgetopia.