DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at cbc.ca —

CNN's Holograms Are Not Really Holograms

cbc.ca — CNN made waves on Tuesday night by incorporating three-dimensional holograms into its coverage of the U.S. election. The only problem was, they weren't really holograms. "I don't think it has anything to do with holograms." said Hans J ürgen Kreuzer, a professor of theoretical physics at Dalhousie University and an expert on holography.

made popular 63 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

SDXC memory cards promise 2TB of storage, 300MBps transfer

  • 658 diggs
  • Made popular 7 hr 17 min ago
  • 129
  • www.engadget.com

CES 2009: USB 3.0 slower than expected

  • 656 diggs
  • Made popular 19 hr 7 min ago
  • 102
  • www.tgdaily.com

Intel works on 'touchable holograms'

  • 654 diggs
  • Made popular 2 years 104 days ago
  • 50
  • www.intel.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • doiveo, on 11/05/2008, -7/+77"Kreuzer said the images were tomograms, which are images that are captured from all sides, reconstructed by computers, then displayed on screen."

    Tricksy false CNN
    • scully32, on 11/06/2008, -5/+52This just in: Cartoons are not real either.
      • hayzeus, on 11/06/2008, -1/+4My 4-year affair with Wilma Flinstone says your wrong. What we had was *real*.
      • TheKingInYellow, on 11/06/2008, -6/+1@hayzeus:
        you're wrong.
      • TonyCubed, on 11/06/2008, -1/+2@TheKinginYellow

        Someone missed the joke.
      • TheKingInYellow, on 11/06/2008, -4/+1@tonycubed:
        someone slept through english class.
    • mrASSMAN, on 11/06/2008, -10/+29They called it a hologram as sort of a cutesy way to describe their new interviewing technique. You weren't supposed to take it literally.
      • Lynxist, on 11/08/2008, -0/+1perception is everything... or was it misdirection?
    • whirlingderv, on 11/06/2008, -2/+11this is just a live version of the dancing baby from 1996.
      boo cnn.
    • bluezinc, on 11/06/2008, -2/+11As soon as my friend showed the hologram video to me I told her that it wasn't a hologram. She went, "how do you know?" and I explained that the holographic woman explained that it was just clever cameras moving in sequence to make it appear like she's really there, when, in fact, wolf blitzer is talking to nothing.
    • macaca, on 11/06/2008, -7/+2Just like their news hologram isn't real either.
    • GrandmaPalin, on 11/06/2008, -3/+7I think I saw that technology over 30 years ago. Hint: "Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope." ;)
      • otros, on 11/07/2008, -1/+1Obviously I've seen this line quoted several times the last two days. Isn't "General Kenobi"?
    • MxM111, on 11/06/2008, -3/+1Well, if they called that tomogram, most people would thing that it is something medical. Plus tomography is also not exactly that - tomography is imaging by sections or sectioning (as per wiki). i.e. imaging inside the body. If they showed her skeleton or internal organs, that would be a tomography. But who would want that?
      • steviesteveo, on 11/06/2008, -3/+1MxM111: You're probably right - just because its sounds similar people will assume that it's another thing. For example a survey of Americans revealed that a shockingly high number, like 40%, thought that (Aberdeen) Angus Beef was made from a cow's anus - because it sounds similar.

        The word tomagraph is just a scientist's greek from tomos (slice) and grapho (write) - so it's information built from slices. Anything that fills that definition becomes tomography.

        While /medical/ tomography works with cross sectional slices through the body, this just works with vertical slices of the outside of the body - in both cases the image is built up from many different slices. Medically that's useful for forming a 3D image of the patient's body and internals but alternatively it can be used as a way of providing 3D images to composite into CNN.

        Wikipedia's awesome, but it's only as good as the authors if you're going to use the exact meaning of words there. Personally I would have written "tomography is imaging by sections or sectioning (as per wiki)." E.G. "imaging inside the body"
    • esc27, on 11/06/2008, -1/+1So is this more or less real than Chinese Olympic fireworks?
  • dezweber, on 11/05/2008, -3/+59Just had a conversation about this with a co-worker this morning. The description is definitely misleading.
    • artofwar420, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3I doubted it from the start, as I'm sure we would have heard by now that holograms were finally achievable. No such things has been announced yet.
      • StandupShowcase, on 11/06/2008, -1/+2they achievable. go look up richard branson's.
  • uptwolait, on 11/05/2008, -10/+185Hologram or tomogram, I'm ready for this technology to be used in porn.
    • pickphlow, on 11/06/2008, -4/+24interactive porn
    • wipis, on 11/06/2008, -2/+19Combined with those magic touch screens.
    • NikoKun, on 11/06/2008, -4/+1Augmented Reality... technically.
    • Archon810, on 11/06/2008, -2/+14I'm waiting for a hologina myself. But at this point even a tomogina would do.
    • protogenxl, on 11/06/2008, -1/+5Porn is what drives technological innovations
    • anitafagina, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1The first use of the technology was to broadcast a three dimensional vagina on national television.

      Oh, wait...I thought the hologram was of Wolf Blitzer. Nevermind.
    • ziptnf, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2Why don't you just get laid?
      • CaptOblivious, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2Ummm,,,,


        this is Digg... try to remember who you are talking to.
    • pfhayter, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Here here!
    • xaqrox, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2you don't get it. blitzer couldn't see her in the studio. all you would see is boobs with a fuzzy blue outline on your tv screen.
  • Oxhorn, on 11/05/2008, -15/+7Busted
  • BrownManUPS, on 11/05/2008, -4/+490Filed under "no *****"
    • Devine122, on 11/06/2008, -1/+15Well its good of CBC to point out the obvious to those without common sense.
      • YoctoYotta, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Please, let us let the naive find peace in their ignorance.
      • TPorter72, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2@yocto

        Thats not how we do it in Canada. Thats why we don't end up with some like W
    • doublefelix, on 11/06/2008, -1/+9The blue ring of death gave it away.
    • JaysonthePirate, on 11/06/2008, -1/+9I'm glad I'm not the only one who wasn't impressed.
    • blaze03, on 11/06/2008, -2/+29Yep. My coworkers and I were watching it and commenting on how totally retarded and unnecessary it was. Just like all those "huge ass interactive map" things CNN is always pushing. Mocking those things made for one of the best SNL skits in a while (starts at around 5:20): http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips ...
      • mrASSMAN, on 11/06/2008, -2/+8Yeah it was a funny skit but those 'magic maps', or whatever they call it, is pretty damn useful. John King provided excellent insight into the election using them during the primaries and nov. 4.
    • mrASSMAN, on 11/06/2008, -3/+23Seriously.. did anyone actually think they were "REAL" holograms? God damn people are stupid. I don't think CNN intended to trick anyone.
      • graemee, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1You could say they were just stupefying the tech for the couch potatoes and in doing so for any intelligent viewers it made CNN look like a bunch of hopeless idiots on tech. However, the "Help me Obiwan" static makes it obvious they were attempting to make it look hologram like. So yes they were trying to trick.
      • Recidivus, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3You would be amazed. I had 2 people try to tell me that CNN has holograms and soon we can have them at home too.

        Before I even read about how it was done it was pretty obvious.
    • Elliuotatar, on 11/06/2008, -0/+17I knew she wasn't a hologram the minute I saw her... she didn't have an H in the middle of her forehead.
    • dOOBiEx213, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3It DID look fake, but when you add the ***** YouTube-quality most people saw it in with the fact that CNN called it a hologram PLUS not too long ago Prince Charles really was projected as a hologram, you don't really take a second look :-P.
    • TraumaPony, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Well said, sir.
    • qaz0101, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1I filed this under 'Duh' It seems that I'll need to redo my labels.
  • Diggey11, on 11/06/2008, -6/+13THE BASTARDS!!
  • m4nt3, on 11/06/2008, -8/+5Them tricky bastards. Someone at CNN should invest in a dictionary there.
  • Dinsdale77, on 11/06/2008, -7/+5Evil Lincoln is back!
    • illegalcortex, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1That's Real holographic simulated Evil Lincoln to you, bub.
  • Lhandroval, on 11/06/2008, -3/+10shush CBC, you're ruining the fun. :P
  • MikeMitchell, on 11/06/2008, -1/+81Help me common sense...you're our only hope.
  • Pronation, on 11/06/2008, -3/+124Damn Gotcha' Media!
    • Dinsdale77, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3I like to read all the holograms......
    • 0ceanic, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1seriously, its just a bluescreen with synchronized hd cameras at both ends.

      and it looked like *****.
  • rentmitchum, on 11/06/2008, -1/+10They were just what Wolf Blitzer was seeing that day.. Blitzergrams..
  • ebisuhunter, on 11/06/2008, -8/+0"Holographic images are generally captured and projected using coherent light such as lasers." ... so close, yet so far...

    • ebisuhunter, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1guess you would like "rooms are generally seen using non-coherent light, such as lightbulbs." then...
  • FlyingSpaghetti, on 11/06/2008, -1/+87These are not the holograms you're looking for.
  • TheMarque, on 11/06/2008, -9/+0I knew this before they ever first aired their holograms. There were several stories and interviews that said they are holograms but are interposed via a computer over the screen.
    • weech, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3wow really? and then what?
    • TheMarque, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1I don't remember. I read an article on it when I was looking up the new giant HD touchscreen on Fox News. It was an article before election day.
  • Kruez, on 11/06/2008, -16/+11Who's Hollow Graham?
  • greencandy, on 11/06/2008, -7/+2Scandalous.

    It gave me a chuckle on election night.
  • frogles, on 11/06/2008, -21/+2WHAT THE ***** IS CBC???
    • seanovan, on 11/06/2008, -1/+18Like CNN, but without Paris Hilton and Holograms.
    • Thepirateking, on 11/06/2008, -0/+9The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It's Canada's version of the BBC.
  • mattmacneil, on 11/06/2008, -9/+3Wait, this is a serious question..could the reporters SEE the holograms a la Luke Skywalker seeing Leia, or were the figures WE saw on TV superimposed?
    • StreetPreacher, on 11/06/2008, -0/+8Logic dictates that the reporters can't see them - they're superimposed in "post." If you watch the footage, you'll notice that the "hologram" always appears to be standing over a large red circle on the floor, which is real. This is a visual cue for people in the studio to know where the imposed image will appear to people at home, so that they know where to look and can talk to it to appear more realistic.
  • DarkReign16, on 11/06/2008, -5/+68What a stupid technology then, how ***** useless.

    Thirty five cameras as opposed to one, and you CAN'T EVEN SEE HER. Stupid.
    • samssf, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2"can't even see her boobs."

      There, I fixed it for you.
  • StreetPreacher, on 11/06/2008, -3/+61Seriously... it's like CNN thinks that the rest of us have been living 30 years in the past and don't understand the simple workings of standing someone in front of a green screen and superimposing them over a live feed. Welcome to the 2000's CNN. You're late.

    Although I must say; giant touchscreens and haptics FTW!
    • opticwind, on 11/06/2008, -6/+2Well for the record they never used a greenscreen.
      • mkillion, on 11/06/2008, -0/+8The tent was green.
      • neocreo, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5And same effect as if they had used green screen. And probably would have been cheaper too. OK, wouldn't have been able to move the camera, but ffs it is NEWS. Don't move it!
      • mithrasinvictus, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5@neocreo they could have synchronized the camera movements and have done it with just a green screen and one camera.
      • TVarmy, on 11/06/2008, -3/+1@Mith: Uhh, latency?
      • Recidivus, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5Yar, could get away with one camera and a single computer to handle the match moving, woulda saved money and it probably would have looked better.

        Latency can be dealt with, find out the time shift and just move the footage over, it's all being done in post anyways. There's a few seconds (7? Can't remember the usual number) between filming and broadcast, so plenty of room to shift things around slightly.
    • wave789, on 11/06/2008, -2/+6It's a little more complicated than you describe... CNN's technology allows the camera in the studio to move anywhere while the tomogram is displayed at the appropriate angle.
      • skztr, on 11/06/2008, -0/+7Which has been done for years and is in no way a new technique. The only difference here is the poor matting.
      • hahahafr, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Actually the only difference is that it's done in real time.
  • AgahniMalebogia, on 11/06/2008, -3/+71I thought that was pretty ***** obvious.
    • soupdawg30, on 11/06/2008, -1/+5When they said hologram I was trying to figure out how they projected the image into space. It just never added up. Now it all makes sense.
      • Ziggy7273, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3and for hundreds of thousands it probably still hasn't added up, they beleive we have this hologram technology.
      • TPorter72, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2we do, it's with the antigravity and free energy technology


        /sarcasm
  • mrhedges, on 11/06/2008, -2/+19... is this really a surprise? Wolf Blitzer sounded like an idiot trying to describe it. It was a stupid, stupid gimmick. Watching Blitzer's face as he was pretending to look at someone whom he couldn't even see made me change the channel.
  • shadowkiller137, on 11/06/2008, -4/+27The worst part is that they linked these holograms with Star Trek when they are clearly more like the Star Wars holograms
    • e1evene1even, on 11/06/2008, -10/+4Ever hear of the holodeck?
      • TraumaPony, on 11/06/2008, -2/+2no
      • samus1225, on 11/07/2008, -0/+1yes. which is exactly why these are more like star wars holograms and not star trek holograms. I could go in to the physics of it all, but...

        let's just say Tuvok had sex with a holodeck hologram, as did Barkley...Jordi made out with one.
        I Dont think Obi-Wan was boning Leia's hologram.
    • mandarin, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1lol dorky
  • Ghoztt, on 11/06/2008, -1/+10I remember back in Wisconson one year while visiting family we were in a mall with an arcade that had a true (albiet 2D) hologram videogame. You were some FMV captured cowboy dude traveling through different stages. Meh. Gameplay sucked. But I still loved to play that.
    Anyone ever played it? Know the name? I think it was a Sega venture...
    • Fragowell, on 11/06/2008, -0/+10Holy *****, I remember playing that game. It wasn't a typical arcade cabinet, right? More like you were looking downward at it or something? Anyway, yeah I always wondered what it was, but I have no idea. So uh, I'm no help at all.

      Edit: yay google. It's called "Time Traveler." http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=&game_i ...
      • bitbytebit, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2damn thing cost 2 dollars and you died within a minute or so ..hated that game
      • Recidivus, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1I remember that one, couldn't remember the name for the life of me. There was another one that used the curved mirror too, around the same time, and ate just as much money.
      • teef55uk, on 11/06/2008, -0/+0I loved that game too, blew my mind at the time, the gameplay was reminiscent of Dragon's Lair, you have to move the joystick at exactly the right time or you were dead. I spent ALOT of money on that game.
    • Ghoztt, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2THANX 4 SAUCE
    • draegs, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1That game sucked ass. And yet, I still gave it my money more than once just to see the "cool" holograms it produced.
    • beesaretasty, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Use your time reversal cube.
  • EnthrallingRead, on 11/06/2008, -7/+1What an enthralling read!

    ...in 3D!!!!!!
  • DarkReign16, on 11/06/2008, -6/+1=*(
  • flossdaily, on 11/06/2008, -10/+3Imagine if instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars making a useless illusion, they had instead given that money to a worthy cause, like cancer research or feeding the hungry.
    • Ghoztt, on 11/06/2008, -2/+1Food for the starving? Sorry my friend. I wish it was so, and am trying to change my life to put my efforts to such helpful actions as such - yet - this is the current state of humanity.
      The acquisition of wealth and the investment in entertainment before humanitarian causes
      will
      continue. It's very simple. No. One. Cares.
      One thing I've learned in my life is that people who actually care about something Do Something About It.
      Others just move their lips.

      (Just make sure to change yourself so yer' not with the bastards)
      • wedges, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1i'm willing to bet it wasn't hundreds of thousands.... maybe tens of thousands, at most.
      • flossdaily, on 11/06/2008, -1/+2@wedges:

        easily hundreds of thousands of dollars. The subject is circled by dozens of high-def cameras. Each camera costs AT LEAST $10,000. Then consider the kind of computing power that they need in order to render that image in real time!

        I was being conservative in my estimate. My hunch is that this technology costs them well into the millions.
    • ChromeGhost, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3The point of this is that it's greener to use telepresence than to travel to business locations. This technology will eventually be used with augmented reality. You're failing to see the big picture.
      • CarnivalOfDust, on 11/06/2008, -1/+1What, green screen technology? How does that help augmented reality?
    • opticwind, on 11/06/2008, -1/+2Floss, you're...I don't even...it's like...

      You're an idiot!
  • vacuum2440, on 11/06/2008, -2/+11hmm i thought that it was pretty obvious that this wasn't actually a "hologram"
  • wtfhaxorx, on 11/06/2008, -3/+14IT'S A TRAP
  • Scape3d, on 11/06/2008, -1/+10Duh?
  • liquisoft, on 11/06/2008, -3/+50Overlaying an image on top of another image is not a hologram, and we all know it.

    Is it just me, or does it seem like CNN likes to waste money on technology that doesn't mean ***** to them?
    First the giant wall of touchscreens, then the 3D graphs that float in mid air, and now "holograms." Why don't they take all of this extra money and spend it on hiring real journalists?
    • CatsAreGods, on 11/06/2008, -0/+9Because it's television, and therefore entertainment.
      • neocreo, on 11/06/2008, -1/+3But I have tried watching the reality tv-shows... and I am not entertained!!! :)
      • acdx1, on 11/07/2008, -0/+1Because it's AMERICAN television, and therefore entertainment.
  • bobboberton, on 11/06/2008, -4/+1They cheated! ÞC
  • nyeus, on 11/06/2008, -1/+12How does one become an expert in Holography?
    • opticwind, on 11/06/2008, -0/+9Failing medical school would be a start.
    • TheNyquilKid, on 11/06/2008, -1/+20Learn everything possible about Holography.
    • diggopolous, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3Order business cards that say: NYEUS: Expert in Hologrophy
    • mandarin, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3Watching several episodes of Star Trek and writing about it for his thesis in Film school
  • huphtur, on 11/06/2008, -3/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_RLY?
  • DiggityDugged, on 11/06/2008, -2/+10ummmmmmmmmmm duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
  • wedges, on 11/06/2008, -2/+7no *****, it's a camera trick.
  • AlteniaTT, on 11/06/2008, -1/+3Damn, I feel stupid now. I thought the image was actually being projected in front of Wolf. CNN is full of damned dirty liars! I'm gonna start watching MSNBC now until CNN makes with some actual holograms.
  • DaveTurnbull, on 11/06/2008, -1/+13I think the think blue edges around her were a telltale sign.
  • TechBharat, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Blitzer was watching it very very 'closely'..
    • GothAlice, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2They're added for effect. And that irritates me for some reason.
  • SteveIsTheDude, on 11/06/2008, -2/+11I think it is sad that Wolf Blitzer has to pretend to see a Hollogram so they can get press... Yes, it looks kinda cool, but, it is still FAKE AS HELL since the "hollogram" is NOT a hollogram, but, a cheap video trick... Blitzer has to be an "actor" and pretend to see it since there IS NO HOLLOGRAM IN THE STUDIO.
    • viserov, on 11/06/2008, -2/+8hologram
    • nepidae, on 11/06/2008, -1/+0Do you also bitch about the green screen news station use for weather?
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 11/07/2008, -0/+1Nah.. they are not prentending another person is there... just a map....
  • opticwind, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1This is so dissapointing.
  • Suzpaz, on 11/06/2008, -0/+5What's funny is it was a Norwegian company that made this technology.
    And CNN was very strict when it came to how it should look.

    The company was told "Make it look fake. Don't make it look real, or else people will think we are cheating"
    • bjs3171, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1i can understand that. they wanted to drive home what they were actually doing. otherwise it just would have looked almost perfect, and weird, or exactly perfect and no one would know what they were doing.
  • MyDiggIsBig, on 11/06/2008, -0/+39People who believed this think Weathermen actually see and move the map behind them.
    • raydeen, on 11/06/2008, -0/+7Funniest weatherman sequence I ever saw was one of the local Philly weather guys almost lost his balance due to a zoom effect that they put on the weather map. He was watching the monitor and at that time, zooming was fairly new (mid 80's?) and it looked like he was falling into the map. Totally threw him for a loop and he had to catch himself as his brain was telling him he was falling while he was watching the studio monitor. :D
      • gweedo767, on 11/06/2008, -1/+1google for "weatherman philly failing due to zoom" and I get your stupid post :(
      • stevene, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1Why were you googling for that?
  • jessehadden, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3"Mr. Data, do we have a tomographic imaging scanner aboard?"
    • EricAnderton, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3Data: No sir, we do not.

      LaForge: Hang on, wait a second! If we recalibrate the holo-deck forcefield emitters to bounce a tachyon field off of a low-grade warp bubble, then use the hallway security forcefields to condense the projected waveform, we could put a hologram anywhere on the ship.

      Data: In theory, I do believe that would work.

      Riker: (smiles) Well call me Wolf Blitzer.

      Picard: Make it so!
  • GothAlice, on 11/06/2008, -4/+2Tomogram? WTF? It's just advanced telepresence. Let's use words that already exist before we go off to invent new ones, shall we?

    Multi-camera interpolated telepresence with motion capture. It's a mouthful, but it is what it is.
  • TheNyquilKid, on 11/06/2008, -2/+8She explains what it is during the interview, sure they call it a hologram and never say Wolf isn't able to see her without looking at a monitor, but she spells out how it works. What do you expect him to do stare at the camera even though the area of focus on the screen right now is her.

    I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about this
    • smackydoodle, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3Because it's fun to be angry on the internets arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggghh the lies!!!!

      Yup.
    • skztr, on 11/06/2008, -0/+0No, you're an incorrectiot. They _DO_ say Wolf isn't able to see her. It was a stupid, pointless, cheesy gimmick and I can't believe this whole "IT WASN'T THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY RE-NAMED THIS ANCIENT TECHNIQUE" is what people are complaining about.
  • crod23, on 11/06/2008, -1/+3FWIW, Holograms are real....ly cool, when they're not CNN trickery.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfNC_x0VvE (the coolness kicks in at around 1 min)

    To quote the mighty John Stewart...WHY CNN!!!!....

    Is it just me or did it remind anyone else of Mortal Combat? COME HERE!!!
  • Flytrap, on 11/06/2008, -2/+4Hans J ürgen Kreuzer is technically correct... but this is really splitting hairs from a consumer perspective. All that CNN was trying to convey was the effect of holographic-like rendering of the remote person. In that way everyone gets and understands the end results... the means are irrelevant to 99.99 percent of the viewers.

    What is CNN supposed to have done? taken a few billion viewers through a tomogram vs hologram dissertation every few minutes just before each crossover to the on-scene reporter?
    • whirlingderv, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2but what cnn did isn't anywhere near as cool as a "hologram," it amounts to nothing more than some green screen footage filmed from 360 degrees around... Its nothing more than a live version of ally mcbeal's dancing diaper baby on the screen (circa, what, 1998?)...
    • Elliuotatar, on 11/06/2008, -0/+6All they would have had to do to make me happy would have been to NOT have Wolf say it was like she was standing right there in front of him and say something to the effect of not being able to actually see her in the studio. They were very obviously trying to fool viewers into thinking the reporters could see the hologram in front of them.

      An indeed, what was the point of this excercise, besides trying to fool viewers into thinking CNN had some advanced technology? The reporters couldn't see her, and they had to be so far away from eachother that they were fairly small on screen. They'd have been far better off just using a split screen as usual. It was a gimmick, nothing more, and for it to be effective in keeping viewers watching they had to lie about it, because the truth wasn't all that interesting.
      • skztr, on 11/06/2008, -2/+0"All they would have had to do to make me happy would have been to [... have Wolf say] something to the effect of not being able to actually see her in the studio"

        He did, you freaking mega spaz-douche maximus
    • lornefs, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2Many people are tired of the ignorant public being lied to by the press, Blitzer outright lied when he said it seemed liked the reporter was in the studio.
      He could not see this 'hologram'.
      The first reporter even looked around like she was supposed to be in the same room.
      Since when is broadcast news about reporters acting and lying to the public?
      Splitting hairs my ass. It was lame lame lame!
      CNN sucks.
      • wolfing, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1that's not entirely true. He was looking at the 'results' in a monitor and how it looked as if she was in the studio
  • raydeen, on 11/06/2008, -1/+21My wife totally bought into this trick. /facepalm.
    Thanks for the article submission as she didn't believe me when I told her how it was actually done.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.