Hologram Treknology Invades Election Coverage | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Hologram Treknology Invades Election Coverage November 5, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: DS9,Great Links,Science/Technology,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

For their election coverage, the cable network CNN introduced new ‘hologram’ technology, where they would ‘beam’ onto their set from remote locations where they would be rendered in 3D. CNN referred to the beaming as ‘like Star Trek’ but some in the media can’t decide if this was ‘Trek’ or ‘Wars’ technology.


CNN’s holo-chat
Watch Anderson Cooper interview musician Will.I.Am using the holo-technology.

Here is another clip explaining the technology

Media observers see Trek
here are just a sample

Philadelphia Daily News

“Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi” moment: CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewing Capitol Hill correspondent Jessica Yellin via hologram. What next? “Star Trek” transporters?

Dallas News

As we flip through television channels, CNN has pulled out about every tech trick in the book, including Star Trek-esque holographic projections of the U.S. Capitol to illustrate changes in Senate seats.

New York Times:

CNN took high-tech graphics even further: at one point, a hologram of the CNN correspondent in Chicago, Jessica Yellin, was made to look as if she were on Wolf Blitzer’s set, but she actually looked like an alien caught in a “Star Trek” transporter.

Detroit News:

Visually, the most extravagant display of the night came from CNN when producers decided to beam in reporter Jessica Yellin from Chicago. Instead of doing a traditional satellite feed, CNN went “Star Trek” style and chose to have a hologram or digitally superimposed image of her explaining early voting results in Illinois to anchorman Wolf Blitzer.;

Live News (Australia):

…CNN is going to reporters Star Trek style, using holograms of people in the field, beamed into the studio;

or is it Star Wars?
In the top above clip Cooper refers to ‘Star Trek’ but Will.I.Am notes he felt like ‘Star Wars.’ They weren’t the only ones seeing both.

Chicago Tribune:

The weirdest image of the election night was the Jessica Yellin hologram on CNN.

If you were watching, you may have seen correspondent Yellin chatting with Wolf Blitzer—well, a version of her.

Yellin was in Chicago for the Obama rally, but she was seen talking to Blitzer via a holographic projection (an idea from “Star Trek,” by the way). It looked as though she was standing 10 feet from Blitzer, but she wasn’t. It was a flickering, life-size version.

She tried to explain the technology behind the hologram (it involves 35 high-definition cameras). But let me break it down for you in terms you can understand: It’s totally weird.

She looked like that hologram of Princess Leia that Luke Skywalker finds in “Star Wars.” I keep thinking that the hologram of Yellin should be wearing the Leia-style white bedsheet and cinnamon-bun headgear. “Help me, Wolf Blitzer. You’re my only hope!”


Seven minutes before the polls closed, CNN decided to show off their new super power hologram technology just one more time, by “beaming in” Obama supporter and musician Wil.I.Am, Princess Leia-style, from his Chicago location. We’d seen Wolf Blitzer toying with the virtual-commentator equipment all night, but watching Cooper and Wil.I.Am. name check both Star Trek and Star Wars within five seconds of speaking to each other was by far the funniest moment of this surreal election night.

Call me crazy but was Wil.I.Am about to correct Mr. Cooper when he compared their new tech to Star Trek, because the hologram messaging method is clearly more Star Wars than Star Trek. Or is the Silver Fox trying to weasel is way into my nerdy heart even deeper?

It is Star Trek
I will have to disagree with our friends at io9 or at least offer a counter view. The CNN tech is more like the Star Wars communications than a TNG-style holodeck, but what they were most like was Star Trek’s holo-communicator. These were holographic communication stations installed on certain ships in the TNG era and seen on the USS Defiant (Deep Space Nine).

Sisko gets his own version of election returns



1. Harry - November 5, 2008

I heard them joking about it all night on CNN, but didn’t actually catch the moments myself.

It sounds like they need an entire studio on the other end to do this trick. It certainly is a cool trick, but it does seem 100% overkill.

2. S. John Ross - November 5, 2008

“Help me Obi-Wan” was the line that kept going through my head while watching. Well, that and “man, they’ll do anything to fill the minutes between any real numbers coming in.”

3. Chris Pike - November 5, 2008

GR certainly proposed the idea of holo communication with relatives back home to crew members on the ship. He suggested there would be a room or corridor with a bank of them. Just something I remember reading somewhere in the 70’s or 80’s, but stuck in my mind (as his usual forward thinking brilliance) – something that would indeed be of tremendous benefit to deep space travellers.

4. wickedjacob - November 5, 2008

That was the most gimmicky moment of a very gimmick heavy season of election coverage. Anyone catch the CGI pillar that kept shooting out of the floor over on MSNBC? Seriously, news channels, no one who needs special effects to focus is watching you anyways . . . so cool it with the video game stuff.

5. Sxottlan - November 5, 2008

They could have avoided the Star Wars comparisons if they had, you know, not made it look exactly like Star Wars. I see no reason why they had to make it look like that.

6. the king in shreds and tatters - November 5, 2008

Because Star Wars branded the holo-phone style first.

7. CmdrR - November 5, 2008

OMG. I used to work at CNN. Yikes.

Still — Anderson Cooper is good for a laugh, I guess.

8. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 5, 2008

I watched CNN’s “Election Night in America” coverage of the election and they only used the “holographic” system with people a few times. (And yes, they did refer to it as “beaming in.”) That said, I immediately thought Star Trek, not Star Wars because there wasn’t a stupid light leading from the ceiling and the feed constantly cutting in and out. CNN did use the technology a lot more when they discussed Senate and House of Representatives seats. They projected a holographic (and pretty well detailed depiction) of the Capitol building and at the bottom they showed a graphic depicting the balance of power in each house with a bar graph style. They would also routinely show a holographic representation of the floor of both the Senate and House of Representatives. This looked much better than their attempt at holographic people.

CNN did this of course for ratings. They wanted to beat their competitors, FOX News and MSNBC, in the ratings. It’s the nature of the business. FOX News, had it’s “magic screen” and CNN had it’s “holographic Capitol.”

9. JP - November 5, 2008

Well it looks more Star Wars-ish I’d hate to say.

10. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 5, 2008

7, I thought CNN’s coverage of the election was excellent. Yes, they did some things to increase their ratings but the coverage of the actual election was one of the best on TV. That’s why I watched CNN as opposed to anyone else.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

11. JP - November 5, 2008

NO!! Don’t get back to the important politics Wolf, keep talking about the holo imager!!!!

12. Smittmaestro - November 5, 2008

The only thing I liked about the election coverage!

All I’m gonna say about that, not gonna show my biases here, no siree!


13. The Last Maquis - November 5, 2008

I thought about that DS9 episode myself, But Who cares if it’s Wars or Trek?

It’s a Freakin’ 3d Holo-Gram For crying out loud!!!


14. Chris M - November 5, 2008

I find it fascinating that Star Trek like technology was used during election coverage on an historic night when for the first time an African American was elected President of The United States. In the 1960’s when Star Trek first appeared on Television the idea would have been beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. Gene Roddenberry saw something in humanity that made him believe that one day we would live in a world with equality for all. Today we took one step closer to his vision of what the world could be. I only wish he were alive to see it!

15. RichardQ - November 5, 2008

”I thought CNN’s coverage of the election was excellent. Yes, they did some things to increase their ratings but the coverage of the actual election was one of the best on TV. That’s why I watched CNN as opposed to anyone else.”

True, and CNN is pretty neutral.

By the way, i dont get republicans saying that the media has been unfair to them, i mean, the’ve got an entire channel! (fox)

16. fred - November 5, 2008

I wonder how many people actually thought it was a hologram? It was a real-time cgi overlay that looked like it, but I bet most people thought the commentators were seeing it too.

17. taemo - November 5, 2008

Does the host acutally see the hologram. I don`t think so. Because one of the interviewees said, that when the cameras move in the reception studio they also move in the sending studio. If the hologram was actually there, cameras would not have to mimic copy camera moves.

18. Ethan Shuster - November 5, 2008

Very lame. CNN advertises a hologram interview, and this isn’t that at all. It’s technology that makes it look to the viewer like the interviewee is actually there. It’s more distracting that anything else.

19. Ethan Shuster - November 5, 2008

Oh, and yes, this type of hologram tech (if it were really that) is definitely more Star Wars than Star Trek. Isn’t it interesting that Star Wars, the usually more fantastical sci fi, actually has somewhat more realistic hologram technology than Star Trek? I mean, Darth Vader talking to someone via a flickery hologram seems much more realistic than a holodeck, doesn’t it?

20. The Underpants Monster - November 5, 2008

I don’t care if it was gimmicky, it was freaking awesome! Morbo and Linda would have been proud!

(And I could make such a fool of myself over Anderson Cooper. He’s dreeeamy…)

21. Fred - November 5, 2008

The fictional idea being publicised is that it’s a hologram but it’s nothing more than a CGI overlay. It’s no more a hologram on the news show than it was in the Star Wars or Trek shows, just a special effect, the only difference is it’s added in real time to the broadcast. They are seeing it no more than the weather person sees the image on the bluescreen behind them.

So it’s deceptive to call it hologram tech on the air. It just looks like it. But so many viewers probably fell for it. It’s high tech, but not that high tech.

22. paul-cork - November 5, 2008


No, not really. Like The holodeck is that far off, they have allready created a crude forcefield in England. Projections of light and solid energy aint that far fetched. Its just a matter of time.

And as for CNN’s coverage, it was the best IMHO. SKy news was all over the place with their reporting and poll analysis. ANd seemed to lean to the Republican side. I prefer my news to just give me fact, not their opinions.

23. garen - November 5, 2008

yeah. thats really cool. hands down.

24. Hologramy w CNN. | Spin Room - November 5, 2008

[…] w ten sposób zaczął wspominać o Gwiezdnych Wojnach, co nie uszło uwagi ekspertom ds. Star […]

25. Fred - November 5, 2008

I liked it better when it was just a person in front of a camera holding his papers in his hand and speaking into a desk microphone. And the weather man had a map on the wall that he moved paper thunderclouds and sun cutouts around on.

It was all we had back then, and we liked it!

26. Steven the Spartan - November 5, 2008

They should get JJ Abrams to remake the coverage using ipod style studios

27. Ben Spratling - November 5, 2008

It’s not a hologram like Star Trek or Star Wars. It’s an elaborate camera trick using green screening and motion sensing and control, like in the production of Star Trek.

But having followed the campaign in some detail for months, I never expected the media to suddenly be honest on election night.

Of course it looked cool, but there wasn’t actually anything there… kind of like the candidate they selected…

28. The Underpants Monster - November 5, 2008

Loved when Stewart asked Colbert if he was a hologram.

29. Andros - November 5, 2008

Here’s my problem with them constantly referring to it as a “hologram”. According to Wiki:

“The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object was still present, thus making the recorded image (hologram) appear three dimensional.”

While it does fall into this definition you have to also look at the fact that the “live” correspondents couldn’t actually see each other. At this point I think this falls in line with “Augmented Reality” technology where images are placed over live ones on the fly. Its fun and nifty, but I guarantee that these “HD” cameras would not actually project an image that grainy.

30. Garovorkin - November 5, 2008

Was that a real Hologram or a Gimmick?

31. earthclanbootstrap - November 5, 2008

#20 The Underpants Monster
– Morbo congratulates Wolf Blitzer on his award winning coverage. May his offspring be numerous and belligerent!

32. Jordan - November 5, 2008

@ 19

I think you’re right to a degree. The Star Trek stuff would be a step beyond the Star Wars stuff however.

I think the only thing Anderson was referring to that was just like Trek was the beam-in effect they used. He must not be a Star Wars fan to see that the actual hologram looked just like Star Wars tech…

33. Silvereyes - November 5, 2008

Call it what you will, to me it was just hype. Blitzer taking the time to describe the technology and saying that Yellin wasn’t really there but in Chicago instead… We get it Wolf. Who cares? Get back to the coverage! Anyway, and I hope you will pardon this geek moment, but you do all realize there was nothing holographic about this right? Blitzer couldn’t actually see Yellin in front of him, he had to look at a monitor beyond to see her. Right? With nothing to project the image onto, there was no image there. Just special effects for the TV audience’s eyes only. The 35 cameras on the other end were there just to allow a full 360 degree image. I’m sure you all knew this before and I’m just drowning the fish. Right?

34. raffie - November 5, 2008

Obviously this just as much a hologram is the Star Trek / Star Wars holograms are holograms. With the exception that they do this in real-time. The on-location camera follows the same movement as the studio-camera. They did apply a similar effect as the Star Wars holograms, so I’d say it is inspired by Star Wars, not Trek.

I guess humanity needs a couple of hundred years to concour the delay problem ;)

35. utterlee - November 5, 2008

What gimmicky over the top nonsense.

I’ve no problem with news programmes using flashy graphics to actually illustrate and help get across information, but the silly “hologram” effect, (and actually referring to it as such on the caption) is nothing but a dumbed down decorative effect. It adds nothing to the actual interview and treats its audience like children.

36. karanadon - November 5, 2008

Which DS9 ep was that again? Someone help, please…

37. Requiem1971 - November 5, 2008

Having read all entries, I find a commonality. Call it Trek or Wars, putting those comparisons aside, it was a beginning. Though a digital over-lay it may be, it was a good representation of what is to come. I welcome improvements in advancing this technology. First it was the multi-touch collaboration screen, next the holo / CGI imaging. The future looks great.

38. falcon - November 5, 2008

Meh. Yeah, so what if it looked cool? It distracted viewers from the moment. For good or bad, it overshadowed what was going on. Me, I watched Fox News (and it looked as if they were covering a funeral), because I was tired of hearing everyone else fawn over the now-President-elect.

When the technology becomes more important than the facts, it’s time to stop watching news. If I want to see people beaming in, I’ll pop in a Star Trek DVD.

39. Silvereyes - November 5, 2008


I agree. However technology is a tool, not a means to itself. Technology for the sake of technology is useless. It has to bring an advantage that wasn’t there before. This jazzy hologram thingy brought nothing more to the coverage except the wow factor which in this case is irrelevant and redundant. It’s like they were trying to catch the attention of the audience like we do with a child with bright colored toys. That is all.

40. Buckaroohawk - November 5, 2008

#’s 17, 21, 27, and 29…

I’m with you, this most definitely is NOT true hologram technology. It’s a mix of blue or green screen and camera matching technology. Neither commentator could see each other unless they looked at a TV monitor showing the other person’s location, and Blitzer could not see the other reporter live on-set at all. He was told where to focus his line of sight so it looked like he could see her. And I loved all the panning camera shots they used so you could see the changes in perspective. It was very “Oooo! Look what we can do!”

This kind of FX work is done in films all the time, usually to incorporate live actors into a CGI set. The fact that they managed to get it to work for live television, with both participants communicating with each other in real time, is pretty cool, but it’s not even close to actual hologram technology. CNN just love their tech toys, don’t they?

Also, I think the reason that Star Trek gets more present-day technology kudos than Star Wars is that Trek was always more tech-based in the first place. From TOS forward, there were at least a passing references made as to how the equipment the characters used was supposed to work. Star Wars never really bothered with things like that. CNN’s “hologram” concept is decidedly more of a Star Wars thing, though, since that form of cimmunication was showcased more in those films than it ever was in Star Trek. DS9 dabbled with the idea (very ineffectively, by the way), but except for the holodecks, most site-to-site communication in Trek has been shown via communicators or viewscreens.

So, to sum up: CNN’s hologram FX are really not, and the on-screen effect (not the actual tech) is more Star Wars than Star Trek.

41. star trackie - November 5, 2008

Pretty corny, CNN.

Stick to the StarTrek “viewscreens”, it looks a lot better.

42. ngl;sdb;ga - November 5, 2008

greenscreen effects are not holograms

43. Buckaroohawk - November 5, 2008

Oh, and yes, it was nothing more than a gimmick. These glitzy FX have nothing to do with the NEWS, which is what CNN and other networks are supposed to be about.

Tell me what’s happening, show me what’s happening, dissect and deconstruct what’s happening all you want, but leave the eye candy at the door. I watch movies to be awed (both by the story and the technology used to bring it to life). I watch the news to be informed, a simple concept that can be executed very simply.

44. Peter N - November 5, 2008

So the CNN tech is more like a weatherperson standing in front of a green/blue screen and pointing to locations on that screen based on watching him/herself in a monitor? Do we know for sure that neither Blitzer nor Cooper were able to see the holograms directly? Unless the trick worked both ways (without monitors) I doubt that the hologrammed subjects would have been able to “see” their counterparts. Not yet Trek tech, in that case.

45. Trek Fan - November 5, 2008

STUPID! Poor Special Effects can’t compensate for poor news delivery.

46. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 5, 2008

Worst blue screening since Star Trek V.

Definately not a true hologram,

What BS.

47. Prologic9 - November 5, 2008

I liked NBC’s “holodeck” better, same ideas but they used it more extensively to put their commentators in virtual sets.

This is not simple greenscreen/sfx. They’re computing the positions on the fly AND rendering the environment in real time. That’s actually a pretty big deal and exactly the kind of tech that would precede real 3-dimensional holograms.

48. They call me Stasiu - November 5, 2008

@ 36
The episode is “For the Uniform” from the 5th season.

49. JL - November 5, 2008

I could not believe my eyes when I saw CNN do this last night as part of its election coverage.

What a horribly tacky, unnecessary gimmick for a professional news network.

Good good almighty, how tacky.

50. JL - November 5, 2008

(um, I meant Good God almighty. heh)

51. JL - November 5, 2008

I can see the merit in maybe doing this to show 3D objects at various angles, so the viewer can see the entire object – – but will.i.am the freaking hip hop rapper?!

GIANT WTF and EPIC FAIL in my book

52. RM10019 - November 5, 2008

I wrote to Anderson Cooper 360 ‘Keeping Them Honest’ and told them to fess up, it’s cool, but NOT a hologram!

53. garen - November 5, 2008

Hey guys, the nit picking going on in here now as to whether or not they were true holograms is getting pretty silly. Of course, theyre not true holograms. Nobody actually thinks they.

Having an opinion as to whether it was cool or corny…or useful or useless is one thing. A good thing.

But we’re verging on “This is a disaster” territory when we start blasting CNN for saying they had true holograms.


54. Dan - November 5, 2008

I agree with others who say that it looked much more Star Wars than Trek, but I swear the first line that popped into my head was, “Please state the nature of the political emergency.”

55. EM - November 5, 2008

Definately Star Wars.
P.S. Congratulations on a very exciting election down south. Great turnout!

56. Newman - November 5, 2008

no way it’s definitely like those scenes in DS9!

57. Joe Schmoe - November 5, 2008

What’s next, holographic ballots?

On ABC News, they had a reporter standing in a green room and projected the entire background and various graphics on the screen. It pretty much was a more elaborate set-up that they use for weather broadcasts. It did look cool, though, as they had graphics coming up from a circle on the floor and it appeared that she was walking around it.

Oh, and on a side note, will the presidential primaries for the next election be starting next week?

58. DATA KILLED SPOT! - November 5, 2008

Ha! Seven of Nine doing a talkshow?! Funny!

59. Canonfornication - November 5, 2008

ive a feeling that Treks optimistic outlook (and a return to original trek with fresh faces as kirk etc) with its technology becoming more prevailent in todays society tied in with Obama becoming president (trekian tolerance heralding a new era mirroring Roddenberrys utopian views), plus the fact it will be a great movie will make this Trek film go through the roof at the Box office next may – like post vietnam/watergate star wars in 77

60. Schultz - November 5, 2008

The communicating cameras is of course proof that it’s not a hologram. It’s an elaborate CGI fake. And when you watch the full sequence, you see the “hologram” appear, but the studio guests react only after a noticeable delay. They probably looked at Blitzer and didn’t see anything, then turned to their monitors and went: Oh, THERE is the “hologram”. A really bad case of media charlatanry.

61. Rich Roy - November 5, 2008

I missed the actual coverage myself, but did catch it on the youtube videos. Impressive technology. Let’s hope more holographic imaging shows up in future broadcasts. In the not too distant future, this could replace the telephone in our households.

62. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

One look at this and I figure Jon Stewart just fell off his chair. This idiotic use of faux-science will be the most roundly mocked and criticized feature of the entire election. William via Hologram? Yeah right.

What is it Admiral?
Lord Vader, the exit polls from Virginia are in.
Don’t disappoint me….

CNN – The most Ludicrous Name in News.

63. Dennis Bailey - November 5, 2008

Yeah, well except for the fact that you don’t actually see the other person you’re talking to. These images weren’t visible to the newscasters; they’re inserted into the video.

64. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

Gotta disagree with the DS9 comment. That actor was actually standing on set. Jessica Yellin had the telltale blue flicker all around her. But remember now, Anderson and Wolfe were both looking at NOTHING because it is an in-camera effect!!

65. garen - November 5, 2008

Why does this have to turn in to CNN bashing?

It was fun to watch. And it didnt negatively affect the news coverage in anyway. Let it go guys. I feel like youre trying to judge it for something that it never claimed to be.

66. Silvereyes - November 5, 2008

#65. Actually CNN did call it a hologram, which it most certainly is not. I for one don’t appreciate being taken for a simpleton and I’m sure this is the case for the majority here. Hence the CNN bashing.

67. tribble farmer - November 5, 2008

Also reminiscent of the hologram of The Doctor in ‘The Parting of the Ways’ and ‘Doomsday’ from Doctor Who.

68. fred - November 5, 2008

Simulated holograms and simulated news reporting. Matches.

69. Ryan Spooner - November 5, 2008

This isn’t really new. Sky News in the UK has been combining their huge video wall with computer overlay graphics to give the appearance of the presenter walking inside and around the graphics for months, if not years.

Although the “beaming in” of people not at that location is something new I guess.

70. Anthony Pascale - November 5, 2008

got to love the nitpicks of Trekkers. Sometimes I wonder if it is a genetic predisposition.

71. lostrod - November 5, 2008


Yes, one “Republican” channel against “Democratic” channels – NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

CNN is as biased as any of the others. Unfortunately, that’s the nature of “News” these days. Everyone seems to have an agenda. The “reporters” can’t simply report the facts – they have to comment, editorilize, smirk, roll their eyes and so on.

That’s why I bounce between multiple news sources to try to get some perspective.

But, hey, that’s just me.


72. McCoy - November 5, 2008

It’s the same thing that happens every Sunday in football games where the project images onto the field and the images pan and zoom appropriately when the camera does to help make them appear to really be on the filed. However, the players cannot see the images of course—and Wolf above cannot see the woman in front of him, only on a monitor to the side.

73. Enterprise - November 5, 2008

CNN is probably one of the most moderate stations. MSNBC is the Democratic one.

74. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 5, 2008

I agree CNN’s “hologram” interviews were gimmicks and an attempt to improve their ratings. It was simply eye-candy and “look at how advanced we are only on CNN” type stuff. Remember, this was only a total of maybe five minutes (if you combine both interviews) of hours and hours of political coverage. CNN’s coverage of the election, the entirety of it, was the best on TV and mostly unbiased. Again, that’s why I watch CNN.

71, true CNN has a slight liberal bias, about as much of a bias that Fox has a conservative bias, but no one compares to the over-the-top liberal wet-dream that is MSNBC. MSNBC is the worst news organization in the country. It’s a propaganda station, not a news stations. As for switching between multiple news channels, that’s not a bad idea. I’ve always felt that if you want a true “Fair and Balanced” perspective you should watch CNN and FOX. Both networks have a slight bias, but nothing severe, CNN liberal, FOX conservative, and if you watch both you will get the perfect perspective.

75. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 5, 2008

73, well said.

76. =A= - November 5, 2008

well it could be both star trek and star wars..

77. RM10019 - November 5, 2008

53, I have to disagree. CNN is a news channel. If they reported that scientists had done this, we would expect those facts to be accurate. You can’t just say something that is factually wrong, esp. as a news outlet and expect people to say ‘oh well’ that’s cool who cares they called it something it’s not. There is no honor in being vague or wrong and it isn’t too much to ask for accuracy in the news media, even on something like this.

78. Enterprise - November 5, 2008

I can’t watch MSNBC. Keth Old Man, is just painful to watch and Rachel Maddow looks like a dude.

79. Thorny - November 5, 2008

I watched mostly CNN last night, sometimes switching to NBC for local returns. The “people” holograms were interesting, but nothing spectacular. The Capitol Building “hologram” (showing the Senate and House races) was very nice looking, though. I still like John King’s “Giant iPhone” unveiled during the Primaries.

CNN is liberal, they only seem moderate when compared to CBS or MSNBC. They do make a serious effort to have balanced political commentary, I’ll give CNN that. MSNBC seems to have abandoned that except for having a token ultra-conservative in Pat Buchanon, and CBS seems to be the entire Democratic Party’s trumpet section.

80. Mike - November 5, 2008

Gimmicks aside, that was awesome anyone who disagrees is kidding themselves.

81. Enterprise - November 5, 2008

I wanted Emperor Palpatine to appear on the hologram and execute order 66.

82. cd - November 5, 2008

I always like the hologram communicator on DS9. Cool idea and cheap to film since no special effects because the actor actually being there. The CNN hologram was kind of cheesy, but what can you do? I liked the real time virtual Congress model on the table. They must have virtually mapped the studio the way they would put it in all the camera views that it would logically be in, even those where it was not the center of attention.

83. Franbro - November 5, 2008

All this nifty expensive technology and they still cover 1/2 the screen with redundant words.

84. VoR - November 5, 2008


How are you a Star Trek fan exactly? Just here for the fancy ‘splosions?

P.S. Rachel is gorgeous

85. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

#65 Garen.

I resorted to CNN bashing because it was perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever seen perpetrated by a serious news program, especially during such an historic event.

86. Oregon Trek Geek - November 5, 2008

I suppose it probably is gimmicky, but…. it’s totally cool!

So, the in-studio anchor sees the beamed image? Right? It’s not just a cut-and-paste that is only seen by the viewer? Can anyone confirm that?

87. DATA KILLED SPOT! - November 5, 2008

There should have been at least one rickroll last night!!! C’mon people!!!!!

88. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

73 and 74

About two weeks ago, CNN ran a piece on the fact that John McCain had black relatives, only to amend that these were descendents of slaves owned by JM’s great-grandfather who carried the family name. It had no relevance except to inflame black viewers and raise the ugly specter of slavery. There is a definite liberal bias there.

89. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

86, I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not, but no. THEY DO NOT SEE THE IMAGE. THEY ARE PRETENDING. THAT MAKES IT UNCOOL.

Now, if they can create a system, perhaps with smoke, like the one of Davie Jones at the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, and the anchors can see it in real time, that would be perfectly legitimate.

And come to think of it, the blue twinkle is actually more of the dead Obi Wan look than hologram look.

90. Enterprise - November 5, 2008

Hint – the actors on Trek couldn’t see the image either. it was added later.

91. Anthony Pascale - November 5, 2008

OK lets get off the left/right BS guys

92. Databrain - November 5, 2008

‘I can see the merit in maybe doing this to show 3D objects at various angles, so the viewer can see the entire object – – but will.i.am the freaking hip hop rapper?!

GIANT WTF and EPIC FAIL in my book’

Yea like totally UBER fail dude. Cause they shoulda used a not so UBER trendy star to display this UBER technology with man. T-O-T-A-L-L-Y

93. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

Yes, mother

94. Databrain - November 5, 2008

‘Yeah, well except for the fact that you don’t actually see the other person you’re talking to. These images weren’t visible to the newscasters; they’re inserted into the video.’

How do you know this with certainty? Is there an article that specifically states this that you can point us all to? Thanks.

95. Keith - November 5, 2008

Star Trek’s holoprojector had better resolution, while the one in Star Wars had longer range.

96. Kirk's Girdle - November 5, 2008

Re; 94

You’re the guy we’re looking out for.

97. Enterprise - November 5, 2008

I wish they would apply this tech to sports games.

98. Xplodin' Nacelle - November 5, 2008


I want one of those red circles in my house, yesterday.

99. Johnnie Five - November 5, 2008

Personally I preferred our local station’s “Logan’s Run” hologram version of John McCain repeatedly groaning “There is no santuary” ad nauseum.

100. Johnnie Five - November 5, 2008

By the way, the anchors on stage don’t see the hologram “live” anymore than the weatherman sees the weather map live. The weatherman has to look at a monitor just like Wolf Blitzer had to in order to see the image that viewers saw. I don’t see why anyone would need documentation for that, it’s pretty basic common sense. But there are numerous web articles out right now that you can search for that explain that it was a green screen technique and not a “hologram.” CNET has a nicearticle about it.

By the way – One hundred!

101. lostrod - November 5, 2008


Sorry to disagree, but a discussion on whether major media outlets are biased or not, is not “bs”.


102. HSIV - November 5, 2008

OK…to clarify: CGI stands for COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE… whats a hologram? A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE…

true it wasnt quite up to true trek tech, but we are living in the 21st, not 24th, century.

this ‘hologram’ is to trek holograms as motorazr phones are to communicators

103. Trekgate - November 5, 2008

Haha, I saw this, thought it was so cool!
However – is it a hologram in the sense that the reporter sees the image of the perosn in the studio? Or is it a visual effect that is “edited” in, so basically, the reporter is looking at a blank studio, and the hologram is added afterwards? Because I don’t think technology is at the point yet where you could see the image in the studio.

104. Son of Sarek - November 5, 2008

LOL! I was watching Jimmy Kimmel Live! just now and they edited a clip with WIl.I.am and Anderson Cooper from last night. A Klingon beams in shouts something in Klingonese and promptly vaporizes both Cooper and the hologram with, interestingly enough, a TOS starfleet phaser. I am sure a clip will be uploaded online within a few hours or so.

105. Trevacious - November 5, 2008

One day the President will be a simple hologram.

106. DonDonP1 - November 5, 2008

Cool. I think that technology is both Star Trek-ish and Star Warsy at the same time.

107. Caribou Barbie - November 6, 2008

It’s not a hologram. The reporter doesn’t seen anything in the studio.

It’s just edited in like a green screen overlay, except the camera computer knows which angle to show to the audience depending on where the camera is pointing.

Waste of money designed to impress gullible people.

108. FREAKAZOID! - November 6, 2008


109. Cervantes - November 6, 2008

I wonder just how many folks that watched that on the night ACTUALLY believed they were watching TRUE ‘holographic’ technology….

….plenty I bet.

Coming from Scotland, I couldn’t vote in the U.S.A. election….which is a pity, considering that many various decisions of America’s elected President’s (and their nominated advisors) seem to affect the rest of the world in one way or another….

However, I personally am delighted with America’s latest choice!

Here is something I came across recently. It’s a site where folks from all over the world could make an ‘imaginary vote’…. This in no way totally accounts for EVERYONE that makes up this world, but I reckon it’s an probable INDICATOR of the views held by many, and makes for an interesting look – http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/

110. Cervantes - November 6, 2008

‘Voting’ has ended of course, but click on ‘view results’ for the sample of those that did. The site has been set up by 3 guys from Iceland with no affiliations, by the way.

111. Trekkie88 - November 7, 2008

I have never really been a fan of Star Wars, so thats not what I thought of at all. I thought of the Holo-Communicator used in “For the Uniform” and “Doctor Bashir, I Presume” by Sisko. I have to admit, it did look pretty good, but they need to be able to project it on the set, not just superimpose it over the broadcast & have the anchor watch the person on a screen like a local weatherman.

112. Spockish - November 8, 2008

In my high school Physics class back in 77 I made holograms. And in the mid 80’s did laser light shows for Rock bands.

I watched CNN start in 1980, but when you can show me the single phased light source that is bright enough that it can be viewed under the millions of candle powers of light used in TV and not start making the anchor person’s skin looking like an over cooked dinner. Then I’ll believe Hologram.

Until then I’ll know it’s just CGI with a fancy name.

And why 36 cameras, with some software and just two cameras a 3D image database can be created. And with Terrabit fiber optics they can send 3D CAD info with more than enough detail that you could count the hairs on the anchor persons arm.

So can the IBM inventors of the name Hologram sue CNN for mis-use of a name.

113. Jamie - November 10, 2008

I don’t get it.

Why did they need to use multiple cameras for this effect? Why not just use ONE remotely controlled camera — exactly like all the cameras in the TV studio?

Or is the idea that this system is easy to move around from place to place?

114. From Star Trek to Star Wars to…CNN? - January 11, 2009

[…] “For their election coverage, the cable network CNN introduced new ‘hologram’ technology, where they would ‘beam’ onto their set from remote locations where they would be rendered in 3D. CNN referred to the beaming as ‘like Star Trek’ but some in the media can’t decide if this was ‘Trek’ or ‘Wars’ technology.” —more useless, misleading info via TrekMovie […]

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.