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?

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.

….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/

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.