All the CGI budget goes into sucking all the creativity out of the anime.

Somehow, the plot twist/reveal was exactly as I guessed seconds it transitioned into the interior bedroom scene.

WTF are Disney/Pixar/Marvel burning so much money in their brain-dead CGI fests if THIS can be done by 6 students?

I can tell the changes in the animation, but it doesn't improve a thing about Akira, and needn't be. I upvote because of Akira, not 60fps (as pointless as the CGI added Star Wars Ep IV-VI... and I'm being charitable). Akira is something that every generation needs to be aware of and watch.

Also, if you have access to it, read the comics (manga). While I wouldn't say it's more entertaining than the movie, it's far more intriguing. Same deal with many of the Studio Ghibli adaptations (like Valley of the Wind). Go for the comics, you'll get more of an emotional rollercoaster ride than the visually amazing, but plot-weakened film versions.

Spinning CGI rats are so hot right now!

Probably? Watch the credits! All cgi.

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.

Clearly not. I gave you the professional definition directly from master class. You disagree with them too.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cgi
Any “computer generated image”.

You do disagree with the established definition, and you have every right to be wrong. I have every right to contradict you.

Because your argument is not professional, logical, technically correct, or rational, I’m not picking up on that.

You have no idea what my CGI experience might be. My brother was offered a job at Lucas Ranch (before ILM, before Pixar). I’ve been exposed to computer generated images and the terminology surrounding them since the 80s.

I’m also not trying to use the definition you and your close office mates might have decided is correct among yourselves, I’m using the definition you can find in any dictionary or classroom. You aren’t giving any definition nor any citations to back it up.

Edit: PS- again, what sales pitch?!

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.

It means both, and everything in between.
Like art, the level of detail, work, or competence involved have no bearing on whether it’s cgi, only is it an image that’s been created or altered digitally. Period.
CGI is not a term reserved for multi million dollar high res photo realistic purely computer created images. Any image altered or created digitally is cgi.
I get that you disagree with the established definition. That doesn’t change it.

Removing a mole digitally is cgi.

Any image generated by a computer is cgi, including alterations. That’s what cgi means!

"CGI can alter the color and intensity of light, changing the appearance of an actor’s face or body in a shot."

this means building a digi double of an actor's face or body, match moving/rotomating it, relighting it with scene lights, then a shit ton of work in comp. NOT a colour correct or a shitty filter. it's a huge amount of work.

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.

Explain please. I read the entire article/page. Their definition was exactly what I quoted, so it does actually support exactly what I said.

“ Computer-generated imagery, or CGI for short, is a term that describes digitally-created images in film and television. CGI is a subcategory of visual effects (VFX), imagery filmmakers create or manipulate that does not exist in the physical environment being captured on film or video. CGI is instrumental in the making of movies and television shows and serves as the primary method for creating 3D-computer graphics for video games.”

Imagery Filmmakers create OR MANIPULATE that does not exist in the physical environment…exactly what this video is.

Did you actually read it? Because it does say what I’m saying.

You mean because their three examples of CGI films were all pure cgi animation the specific definition they gave doesn’t apply? Lol. It wasn’t an all inclusive list, it was 3 cgi blockbusters.

I hope that’s not your argument. If it is, you should feel ashamed.

Oh boo-hoo. Don’t have a hissy fit.


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-cgi#what-is-computergenerated-imagery

From above….
“ 4. Special effects: CGI can alter the color and intensity of light, changing the appearance of an actor’s face or body in a shot. It can also simulate environmental effects, like rain storms or cloudy skies. CGI can also age or de-age an actor in post-production.”

Are you the layman you speak of?

ok, you're right. everything is CGI. i definitely don't know what i'm talking about. i defer to you, king of "mount stupid". long live the king.


"If the term is so meaningless, why argue against it?"
because it is the source of so much confusion and stupid opinions by laymen. see above.