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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

you're stretching the terms "CGI" and "art" to their absolute conceptual limits and i respectfully disagree with your use of both. duchamp did more to create "the fountain" than what went into this video.

Cool! Tell me more about the game, in layman terms please.

sending soldiers to war
executing prisoners
or spreading viruses

the Right does believe
in abortion
late-term abortions or
more accurately...

really late, late, term abortions

https://youtu.be/Pa39PUng9to

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

- Pastor Dave Barnhart at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama

Definition of sanctimonious
1: hypocritically pious or devout

other considerations;
https://www.vasectomy.com/article/vasectomy/procedure/no-needle-vasectomy or even https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

remember the cute "my body my choice" covid 19 zinger?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7047e1.htm#:~:text=Pregnant%20women%20are%20at%20increased,1%E2%80%933)

folks like yourself weren't against late, late term abortions. i.e. grandma/pa

also a DYK https://dirtysexyhistory.com/2016/07/28/ancient-birth-control-silphium-and-the-origin-of-the-heart-shape/

No one understands Republicans. Their ideas are completely divorced from reality, science, reason, sanity, and morality.

If you don’t like the law, you can just move (remember, that’s your answer to why it’s ok for Republicans to CHANGE the laws). There are plenty of places where abortion is illegal….mostly shithole countries as you call them. Don’t make America one of those.

More lies and nonsense.
No one kills children like that besides Republicans getting secret back alley abortions…I only know you people do that because you accused others, and that’s a guarantee you guys do it no matter how outrageous and unreal the claim.
That is what WILL happen to embryos (not children you tool) in back alley abortion clinics without the proper tools, doctors, and zero oversight. Abortions won’t stop because you drove them into back alleys, they’ll just get more horrific, and that will be 100% on your heads.

Have Republicans set up agencies to take these unwanted children, over 600000 per year, and raise them all at now $275000 each and rising 3% per year? Have Republican doctors figured out how to force live births (without endangering the woman) at 6 weeks or later, and incubators to bring it to term? That’s probably another million on average. Of course not, let those babies starve or be abandoned to the elements, as long as they get born. You aren’t going to spend money to raise them, that’s the rape victim’s responsibility to raise their rapist’s baby. If they didn’t want that responsibility, they shouldn’t have gotten raped.

Are Republicans prepared to be forced to live in hospitals as living dialysis machines, living blood pumps, and living donors of any organ they have two of? If saving lives is important, you would have done all that before trying to remove women’s rights to their own bodies….but you haven’t done any of that because you don’t see women as people who deserve rights to control their own bodies, what’s put in them, and what they have to let grow inside them. Of course not. That’s inconvenient, so fuck those people who need your organs to live. Saving lives isn’t worth losing YOUR bodily autonomy….it’s only worth stripping others of theirs. Hypocrites.

Republicans LOVE killing, all republicans LOVE the death penalty for lesser and lesser crimes and younger and younger convicts. It’s not about stopping life from starting (which happens at first breath, not conception), it’s about controlling those that are their lessors. That’s why there’s no exceptions for rape, incest, or endangering the mother (except extremely rare cases in a few places). You don’t care a whit about what happens to the baby, even less about the mother, they’re nothing more than an incubator to your incel ilk.

Blobs aren’t children….or is that what you call your children? It would explain a lot. Nerve pulses aren’t a heartbeat without a heart. Humans don’t have tails. Zygotes aren’t people. I know you disagree with these scientific and medical facts, that only proves they’re correct.

Once again, you make up nonsense based on your pure ignorance, Cartman. You just look dumber, more sexist, and more dishonest daily.