Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
HOLOGRAMS HAVE COME back into the news again after news that the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan delivered a political speech through the medium.
Delivering the speech to Justice and Development Party supporters in the city of Izmir, he spoke about the country’s upcoming election as well as an ongoing corruption scandal that’s happening there.
As a publicity stunt, it’s impressive, but what was witnessed in that video wasn’t a hologram. Instead, the techniques used to create this effect go back as far as the 19th century.
What is a hologram?
By definition, a hologram is a photographic technique that records the light that bounces from an object and then reproduces it. What separates it from a traditional photo is that a hologram uses a laser instead of light to capture the object.
By splitting the laser beam into two – creating a reference beam and an object beam – and redirecting them using mirrors, the object beam is used to capture the object.
The reference beam is directed into the medium itself, so it doesn’t clash with any imagery that comes from the object beam. When both are combined, it creates a virtual image for you to look at.
(Video: Head Squeeze/YouTube)
When has it been used?
Apart from the Turkish Prime Minister using it, probably the most famous example happened at the Coachella music festival in 2012 where Snoop Lion (then known as Snoop Doog) and Dr. Dre performed alongside a hologram of Tupac.
The stunt was covered extensively and generated talk of former stars gracing the stage through this technology.
(Video: westfesttv/YouTube)
However, neither Tupac or the Turkish Prime Minister were true holograms by any means. Instead they were created using a number of illusionary techniques.
So how were these ‘holograms’ created?
All of it come down to a technique called the Pepper’s Ghost illusion. Created by the 19th century magician John Henry Pepper, it allows you to create an illusion by reflecting an object onto another screen.
This object is reflected on a transparent foil, located on the stage, which creates a ghost-like figure for the audience to see. For the Tupac projection, it cost between $100,000 to $400,000 (€73,000 – €292,000) to create, which also included creating a CGI version of the artist that was projected onto the stage.
Some of the technology used to create Tupac’s performance in Coachella in 2012 (Image: AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes).
A similar technique was used in Turkey, except the screen used to create the illusion is clear to see, especially near the end of the video. It’s probably more accurate to describe both as projections instead of a hologram.
Why hasn’t the technique taken off?
In the case of music artists, the reason why the idea went suddenly quiet and why former stars aren’t performing on stage is because it’s time-consuming, it’s costly and getting the required image and song rights for an artist is tough.
Also, it didn’t help matters when the company responsible for the Tupac projection – Digital Domain Media Group, who created CGI effects for a number of films such as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Tron: Legacy – ended up filing for bankruptcy later that year.
Expense and time are other factors since creating the effect isn’t the easiest, especially since you have to set up the required equipment and have as little lighting as possible before the projection is done.
Since there’s no way to project real-time actions through this method, it means the use these holographs have are limited.
So how long will it be before we see proper holographs?
While events like the one in Turkey puts the idea back in the spotlight, the technology is still a long way from appearing in our day-to-day lives. While there have been developments with holographic technology in recent times, the setup required severely limits what you can do with it.
The technology is slowly developing, but it will take some time before we see them appearing in our lives and even longer before true holographic projections appear.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Didn’t get far into the article before I got the general gist. Doxxing is perfectly acceptable to one side and not the other…guess which side.
@Briscoe Sundara: It is inconceivable that whoever wrote that dross cannot see how bad it is. There’s a paragraph there near the start that try’s to justify Far Left Vs Far Right Doxxing….. Ultimately it says……..
Far Left Doxxing….. Gooooood, because they’re harassing people on the far right….!!!
Far Right Doxxing….. Baaad… because they’re harassing people on the far left….!!!
Can we not all agree…. that you’ll all nuts…. The Nazi’s\racists on the far right and the loons on the far left like the author.
You would need a Pint after reading that carry on.
@Gerard: well this is awkward, didn’t really take long to find one Irish account. https://mobile.twitter.com/antifa_drone
@An Breasláin Nua: where, specifically, are the people on the left approving of doxxing in any significant number?
On the other hand, the far right approval is right here…
My comment linking an example of an Irish far left account openly doxxing people on Twitter was removed… The bias here is very concerning.
I think the cut and paste nature of right wing politics from the UK is the main reason it remains on the fringes here. It is extremely sympathetic to imperialism and loyalism, a deal breaker as this is at odds with the views of the vast majority of Irish people who would otherwise agree with others elements e.g. anti abortion.
“the far-right in Ireland is effectively a “copy and paste” groups in the US and Europe. ”
Very well described! It’s so pathetic how many of them don’t even understand the very basics of Irish politics.
One of their favourite mantras when they found themselves with a brown taoiseach was to claim he was “unelected” because they could only equate leadership with american style presidential contests.
The liberal consensus is creating opposition which it has labelled ‘Far – Right’.
The leaders might be opportunists looking for a cause and they are finding support from men who are reacting to being vilified, shouted down and discriminated against.
However the ‘liberal consensus is also well populated by opportunists and as they say “it takes one to know one”.
There is an economic concept, called the law of diminishing returns in play here. When you have got more than you ever asked for don’t start coming up with new “asks” and historical grievances as supporting facts.
The Catholic Church might have been a focal point for earlier generations but it doesn’t have the moral authority that it used to.
This was meant to be a response to Ned Gerblansky’s post above.
have your say