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?!

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.

The Outland TIE fighter was first depicted in the mobile app Star Wars: Card Trader as part of the set Illustrated Outlaws released on October 4, 2019.[4] It appears in the final two episodes of the first season of The Mandalorian, a 2019 Disney+ television series.[2][3]

The ship was originally designed by Industrial Light & Magic concept artist Doug Chiang for the 2015 film Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens,[9] though it went unused in the film itself. Later, during the development of The Mandalorian, series creator Jon Favreau and his team saw Chiang's concept and decided to incorporate it into their project. To bring the vehicle to life, a physical prop of the ship was built on the show's set, whereas the TIE's folded wings were realized through computer-generated imagery.[10]

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Outland_TIE_fighter

I'll get back to you after reading, but i actually cringed when my dad sent me a video read by some computer generated voice he said he listens to daily.

Are you sure the voice isn't computer generated? I thought that accent was unique to computer voices.

I don't get this at all..., the guy doesn't say the comedian, or the joke is stupid, he's agreeing that the sign in the joke is stupid (the way I interpret it).
This just feels like a set up or something.....

To top it off, I have NO idea what that even is. Is it his finger? Is it computer generated?
Why is it so slow? Why does the crowd go silent and not move? The action resumes when the "appendage" touches the guy... people erupt, then it starts to get smaller again/
What is it?

Yet another completely awesome thing that would have been ridiculously expensive to film without drones.

Not sure if this is truly tilt-shift, as all the focus blur is computer generated. Probably just being pedantic.

A computer printer output is, by definition, a Computer Generated Image.

The fact they composited in the analog version of After Effects doesn't impress me.

Your video, NC: Has Computer Generated Images (CGI) Gone Too Far?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well, I think it seems more like she doesn't get it because she didn't have much experience or interest in sci-fi stuff, and didn't understand some of the basic concepts (like they were in a computer-generated reality). In other words, I don't think her "perception and perspective" are due to genre unfamiliarity rather than old age.

The insurmountable problem with the holographic universe theory is that it simply does not answer the question about the nature of the universe, all it does is push it back one meta-layer.

If our universe is only a simulation running on a mega-computer, that computer itself must reside in a universe, along with its creator(s). That is, unless you're willing to claim that it itself is running in yet another higher order computer generated construct etc. etc. ad infinitum and that's no answer at all.

A simulation is by definition a model of something that does exist.

Nice try!

Computer-generated bananas don't count.

>> ^Kesavaram:

>> ^EMPIRE:
SO... FUCKING... FAKE.
Where to start?
-The obviously not cop/military van.
-The obviously shitty looking bomb disposal robot (this seems to be in israel. They probably have the best bomb disposal robots on the planet. That looks like someone took an RC car and attached an airsoft shotgun to the front, and one of those fake surveillance cams on the top.
-The paint cans which somehow managed to spray paint the whole bus stop with a single shot, precisely when the camera points down.
-The fact that they were standing, no more than 20/30 meters from a potential bomb, and the cop? somehow seems to think that's enough.
etc.. etc..
edit: after a second viewing, even the shotgun fire is completely fake and digital.

Doesn't look fake to me, I live in Jerusalem and have witnessed more than a few "Bag frags". The van is equipped with surveillance gear and is meant to look like an average van.
- The shity robot is shity indeed,but real, did you expect a huge Mech?
- The robot fires bursts of rounds to make sure it doesn't miss areas in the bag itself, not single shots
- didn't see a problem with distance or the cops behaviour, to me, the fact that the camera man ducked and missed the actual explosion shows that he was genuinly afraid.


you forgot to hit the sarcasm button. the fact that you think the ducking at the end was genuine fear is hilarious. they did that so they wouldn't have to do a complete computer-generated explosion, because it would have looked just as fake as the paint and smoke does when he brings the camera back up. christ, just look at the muzzle flash at 0:54.