Not what I meant…because it was promised by the British long before WW2…as if it was really theirs to gift. Then they half assed the handoff and just walked away, at least that’s my take. It wasn’t handed to anyone as reparations…I know that.

The Palestinians have bled for that land at least 10 fold the amount Israeli have….just sayin.

I meant in a practical and ethical sense it would have made more sense for them to take part of Germany as actual reparations.

What I mean is the military equipment and funding we gifted them, and continue to gift them, without which they would have been destroyed in the 50’s.

Yes, in the 50’s through 80’s the Arab world was an obstacle to peace at least as much as Israel, but not so much recently….Iran being the main exception. The fact that the Arab world is at least 3 generations of military equipment behind means they aren’t a serious threat and haven’t been since America started defending them in the 50’s.

When they, as a people, invade a recently sovereign land and take it by force, then brutally subjugate the natives in the name of their safety for decades while expanding into their last remaining holdings constantly, all the while playing the victim, I’m 100% prepared to say the Jewish invaders are the bad guys….that’s anyone not granted refugee status by the Palestinians….likely over 99%. The refugees that didn’t take part in the violent bloody nation grab and subjugation and who went back home I do not blame.
.

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.

Well put. But what's the % of Western (or the whole World in general except the Middle Eastern region) population who can make the distinction? It's really depressing.

Here in Canada, IMO the political landscape is very much the same as in the US. It is firmly drilled into people's mind that anyone criticizing the government of Israel's constant harrasement, military action, and land grabs in Palestinian territories are automatically branded as Anti-semitism by the likes of the JDOs (Jewish Defense Organizations). There are many legit Anti-Semitism incidents in Canada that need to be condemned, true, but there are also real over-reaction and subpression of objective opinions by the JDOs. These "false branding" hurts people's lives. And we almost NEVER hear the word Zionist (or anti-Zionist) in the media, mostly isolated to academic circles only.

Nobody would be offended hearing someone criticize any country's policy and military incursion (say, you don't like Trump/Biden? No one will say you're anti-American), but any negative comment involving Israel? Damn it boy, you're begging for trouble. As if Isreal, Likud, Netanyahu and the Jewish people are one and the same. Criticize one, you criticize all. But why is that? What makes Isreal, above all other countries, well above any reproach?

Now, I'm not pro- or anti-Semite nor pro- or anti-Zionist. Such generalised sentiment is wrong to me. I'm just pro-peace, the history of that land is way too complex and the blood spilled between its peoples ran for generations and gone on for centuries. It's unrealistic for any leaders to settle anything between their peoples in a political term or two (and not even factoring outside influences that DON'T want them to settle). There are too many hate and zero trust between the peoples right now. Just let peace reigns for a decade then it'll be time to talk settlement of statehood. Give Isrealites & Palestinians some peaoce & prosperity first. Everyone, including the media, politicians inside and outside of that land, the UN, etc. just need to recognize that and not be just so lopsided in their support.

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?!

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!

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.

Lol.

Tell that to the makers of “a scanner darkly”.

This wasn’t a color corrected crop of a still photo, it was a complete change of a short film.

Technically any digital photo is cgi, but that’s a red herring…this was digitally altered video, a much higher bar.

If the term is so meaningless, why argue against it?

You exaggerate to the point of hyperbole, which indicates you know you’re wrong. This argument isn’t about any still image ever digitized, it’s about a video digitally altered so much that it no longer resembles the original. Just because it’s a simple process doesn’t change that it’s an image generated by a computer.

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 respect your right to be wrong if you wish. 😉

An image generated by a computer is CGI, it doesn’t have to be Avatar to qualify.
Art is art, whether you like and respect it or not. It doesn’t have to be good to be art.
People in England are painting potatoes, inserting some painted nails, and calling it potato art. This took more effort to make than that does, but they are still art just as much as a 3 year old’s drawing or a fresco by Michelangelo is.

Ok, maybe slightly, but certainly not as it was presented here.

Even a static filter is CGI…it’s a computer (phone) filter generating an image. It’s exactly what I think of when I think of “effects” for digital photography or videos….what does it mean to you? Since it’s “computer” drawn moving images, it’s animation, no?

Why? Art.
Why would Van Gogh paint swirling stars in “starry night”?
Why would Cyriak dismember a million digital sheep to reform them into nightmare creatures?

Don't be so sure. Due to the incredible amounts of views/money these videos generate, I had/have always been skeptical of the legitimacy of them. The below video had exposed at least one of these channels builds https://youtu.be/YCyLWhPnq1M

(edit) a quick google estimated $3000-5000 for a million views. This video at 114 million views would come in at between $340,000-570,000. Seems like it would be a lucrative business to be in.

Congratulations! Your video, Bertrand Russell - Message To Future Generations (1959), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 3 Badge!

Your video, Bertrand Russell - Message To Future Generations (1959), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.