Posted on 11/06/2008 8:08:18 AM PST by outfield
The mind reels at how news organizations might employ this technology in the future. Will we see holograms of reporters standing outside in hurricanes?
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Cnn THINKS??
The problem with the hologram is that there’s no way to know that they’re in the location they say they are. That lady could have been reporting from the next studio for all we knew.
Fake but accurate.
Time-Lies-Warner
Newsweak
SeeBS Viacommie
AgitProp (aka AmericanPravda)
Al Reuters
At least the Soviet people knew their media was lying to them.
I noticed a couple networks did the hologram thing. NBC nightly news was the other one.
Exactly. Video reporting is no longer acceptable evidence. Welcome to the digital age. Fauxtography 2.0
I saw a video of it and thought it was pretty cool.
That they will no longer have to pay reporters, they can just generate a hologram of a composite reporter.
I really hope they don’t do that. I enjoyed watching stupid reporters standing in a storm, knee deep in water, reporting on how bad it is. Do they actually believe we don’t know what a storm is like?
Fauxtography 2.0
CGI is within three years of being able to create completely realistic “people.” That will be the end of TV and movie actors and reporters.
I think they are getting ready for when it is no longer practical to take Larry King out of the freezer for an hour each night. Defrosting and re-freezing him must take its toll.
Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
The backgrounds in the Spiderman movies, which were supposed to be a triumph of CGI, were not convincing - let alone the cartoonish CGI of the actors.
Old news.
It's circa 1969 technology.
It's how the government faked the moon landing and planes flying into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
< /sarcasm >
Bullhockey. I heard this same claim made circa 1995, that in the year 2000, CGI technology would have advanced to the point that actors could be replaced. It wasn't true then. It's not true now. We've made huge strides but the technology is nowhere near that threshold.
MM (in TX)
They can fake that too, remember the guy standing in shallow water while the reporter was in a boat?
They were thinking the same thing every news organization, sports organization and TV network has been thinking for 30+ years: shiny draws the eye. There’s been a steady increase of graphics, sometimes informative, sometimes pointless, but always eye catching, for quite a long time. A lot of news shows now are living entirely on virtual sets, the desk is fake, the walls are fake, everything except the and maybe the clothes is CGI, and the chair might not actually look like that.
I had to hit the rewind button on Fox Tuesday night when they had a split screen of two anchors talking and all of a sudden a man walked across in front of both live screenshots. I thought I was seeing things at first, LOL!
"Obama has won the election. Help us Obi-wan-kenobi, you're our only hope!"
CGI is already making completely realistic people, check out the Final Fantasy movie. But it’s not the end of actors and reporters because it still takes a long time to program and render. If it ever gets to a point where it takes less than 1 hour to program and render 5 minutes worth of “acting” then actors will be gone, if it gets below half an hour reporters will be toast. But that’s a ways off, currently we’re still at days to weeks.
Just imagine what the “wrong people” could do with this technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05jgTr6beug
[Then go read some of the “miracles” antichrist perfoms in Revelation]
I didn't think much of it until the end when you realize that they've scanned her and can make her say anything and move the face in realistic ways. In 2-3 years you won't even know if the news people are real!
That’s not a real hologram, it’s a video dubbing occurring in a computer. Blitzer could not see the “projection” of the other anchor. The Star-Wars fuzzy image is just a gimmick effect of bouncing laser light off the anchor.
Far more sophisticated effects occur anytime you watch a sports event and the billboards you see out around the field are actually filled in with region specific ads.
Exactly. This is nothing more than the latest advance in virtual sets. ESPN makes fabulous use of greenscreen and virtual sets all the time. This is just an upgrade to that technology.
MM
...and politicians.
Ping. See post 14...
It’s always fun to check out the attention to detail on this stuff. One network (I forget which) was throwing this virtual stat board up on the field during NFL games for a while, I think they got complaints about it and it went away but I like the fact that they included a “shadow” that matched the goal post shadow angle. Nice touch.
So when "reporters" are burned at the stake, I should be there in person just to be sure.
The up side is I could throw some wood on the fire!
Eaxctly....most major sports use this and most don’t even notice/
There will soon be a day when your favorite movie “stars” are nothing more than a digital data base.
FoxNews did the same thing. At least Brit Hume chuckled at it for what it was. The return of Max Headroom.
It turns out that clothes are particularly hard to model. The ways fabrics drape, fold and wrinkle are complex and poorly understood. Add to that the play of light on and through fabric and you have a very computationally intense problem.
Hair is even worse, to get real looking hair you have to model every single hair, make sure no two hairs overlap, each hair has it's own subtly different color, reflectivity and transparency, and it varies with angle and along the length of each strand. And the play of the light interacts between the hairs and changes with every motion.
And he will make a statue talk...
I’m sorry, I’m stuck on the anti-christ theme this morning. haha
Yeah, those are the things that are going to keep actors and reporters in jobs for a long time. Even when they get the programming right it’ll still take forever to process and render.
Her reflection doesn’t show in the polished floor. Everything else does.
The reports have always been hollow...sort of like a chimera.
reports=reporters
Are you familiar with Moore's Law?
Yeah, but we’re a long way from them being able to render every hair on a person’s head in less time than it would take to film it with a real person, even if Moore turned out to be a pessimist that’s still at least a decade probably closer to 2 away. To replace actors and reporters that’s the speed it needs to be, and that’s pretty darn fast.
Yeah, I’m figuring a decade to be “perfect”. Less to be “good enough”
“Good enough” now speeches and images will be replaced with “perfect” images later.
Look how the 0bama birth certificate kept getting new features every time someone said something (like the impressed seal, the cert number, etc) was missing.
It’s no accident that half a million google hits on image searches of “0bama birth certificate” were ‘disappeared’ between July 14 and July 17.
They’ll probably be able to cheat perfect in a decade. Expect buns, crew cuts and other “low motion” hair styles to come back into vogue because many characters in popular TV shows will start to wear them. That’ll be easier to animate and will speed the transition while another 1 or 2 processing leaps happen to be able to run the processing of the real thing. Of course first they’ll have to figure out how these things (light refraction and movement) happen in the real world, then how to program it, then climb the processing power issue. That’s where the real unpredictability comes in, there’s been plenty of things we thought would be easy to figure out that are still stumping the high-IQ crowd.
Exactly. 0bama has the ultimate “low motion” hair.
I saw a poster of Luke Skywalker (in the Obama-Fairey style) that said "A New Hope". Can't find it online though...
Sports are entertainment. The news is supposed to be factual. They have been caught repeatedly manipulating the visual images we see. Digital fauxtography is fraud.
Dislose to the public the sham that is being pulled. Or else all “news” is false. It isn’t factual. It is fabricated.
That’s okay, Roger Ebert got caught last month reviewing a movie just by watching the first 8 minutes.
I heard that there was a ruse that was used in Russia during a revolution (but I don’t know if that origin is accurate).
It was employed in the “man blown up in a box of dynamite” stunt.
The forces of the explosion “cancel” each other out. But if they misfire (not in synch) the subject will die.
The idea was they could “blow up” the victim in front of the public without really killing him (depending on fate, really).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.