IANAL but I think internal prototype names can be anything - it's only if they bring it to market that there could be some chance of consumer "confusion".
I'm still waiting to see the lawsuit from Microsoft, who has owned the "X" trademark for many years.
Also, Elon has been promising such a robot for years - at least it's not a human in a robot costume this time... but could easily be CG. I'll believe it when I see some 3rd party people putting it through its paces. (yes, I was skeptical of the Boston Dynamics videos as well until they let others in to film)

man, that was lot of CG.

Your video, Garden Party | Oscar Nominated CG Animation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 146 Badge!

and then they'll replace almost everything with CG.

Awkward CG transition at 2:50, but most of the wipes were pretty clean (like 3:27). Well-choreographed and -flown though.

probably CG and no drone

CGI = Computer Generated Image….this includes computer altered and purely computer generated images, and includes still and moving images. Perhaps it’s not an industry term anymore, it’s still an English term/phrase I used properly according to every reference I can find.

I’ve offered multiple citations backing that up.

Can you offer any backing up your contention that there’s really no such thing as cgi? Since CG only counts for 3d computer generated objects, what do YOU call computer altered images like aged actors and lighting effects (Blade Runner) on photos/film etc? Can you offer a citation to back you up? The dictionary calls that CGI.

It may be silly to call it that, but not as silly as this argument.
Remember, the CGI tag was there to indicate this was not some attempt to fool people into believing it was real, as you originally accused. So was FX. They both served their purpose, although they had to be pointed out.
Remember, you also wanted to quibble over whether this was “art” as if your liking it or it taking a substantial amount of work to create was the measure.
Now you want to quibble over a lay term that was ONLY intended as an obvious clue that this was altered.

Why?

I’ve explained multiple times why I posted it. If you still don’t know why, you have a comprehension problem, because I was quite clear. I thought it was pretty.

I think you just wanted to gripe.

BTW, bro didn’t take the job at Lucas, and regretted it immediately. He was running a few egghead stores at the time and thought his future was in computer sales. He still works with computers, has been building them since the 70’s (Apple 2) and runs his own server farm and is his own ISP. He stopped making computer art a while ago.

Not everyone is in the industry. CGI is used as a layman’s term, although the professional definition still fits.

Um…”they” who? what sales pitch? WTF are you talking about? I used it as a tag. WHAT!?! Are you on crack, sir?

If it’s an image of reality altered digitally, it’s not purely cg, it’s cgi…

SFX is the overall category, not a sub genre of CGI.

Yes, their three examples of well known blockbuster CGI films were pure CG images…they were not an all inclusive list, they weren’t even varied examples of all different types of CGI, they were three of the best known examples of pure CGI in main stream cinema.

OMG, that WAS your argument. LMFAHS!!! Feel shame. So incredibly stupid. That means absolutely nothing beyond those were the three movies they chose as well known examples. It in no way argues that the rest of the definition they gave is in any way incorrect. Derp!

Like saying the article on dogs had a pictures of a poodle, so all dogs must have curly hair. Just silly.

they're using "CGI" as a substitute for "CG" which, in the industry, specifically refers to 3D generated assets, as i stated a while ago. NO ONE in the industry uses the term "CGI" for all the reasons i also stated above. they are using "CGI" in this sales pitch because they're aware laypeople know that term and don't know the distinction between CG, FX, comp, previs, and all those department's sub categories. all their examples, including the one you quoted, are referring to CG generated images, which are explicitly NOT 2D processing, filters, compositing, editing, or DI.

HA!

this img wasn't generated by a computer. altered [slightly], yes, but filters ≠ CGI. blurring an img, using a blue filter, or cropping an image does not make it "CGI". you can argue the semantics of if it being "generated" by a computer, but arguing it is means all digital photos, images, hell even text of any kind are "CGI". "CGI" is already a stupid, near meaningless term and pushing the definition to "any image that appears or had appeared on a computer in any way" makes it even less useful. [generally VFX/visual effects is the umbrella term people are looking for. CG is the term if they're referring to rendered assets. this is neither. this poor use of language is a huge pet peeve for me.]

imma ignore the "art" argument because that is regularly a black hole of silly and i don't feel the need to engage that but those painted potatoes more effort than this.

I always prefer these type of mostly hand-drawn animation than the CG fare we get all the time now.

It's one the select few animated movies I revisit every now and then outside of Ghibli Studios.

Uhmm... that is just bad cg. The feet have no contact shadows.

More like CG than SM, the skill, planning and patience this takes is mind-boggling!

I hate to be a buzzkill, but I'm pretty sure this is CG. With the forces involved, that arm would have to be very very very securely bolted into the floor, and... it doesn't look like it is.

Still a cool video and idea though.

Your video, Star Wars: Squadrons – “Hunted” CG Short, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.