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.

"Maps" doesn't adequately describe the extent of information that things like these convey. They are more like "animated visualizations".

I took a computer graphics class in college where we learned about data visualization. One of the most famous examples in that field is Charles Joseph Minard's map/visualization of Napolean's march into Russia in 1812. On the surface, it is a 2D map. However, the width of the line showing the path of advancement conveys troop numbers, the color denotes whether they were advancing or retreating, and a connected chart below shows the air temperatures that the soldiers were exposed to, etc.

Basically, at a glance you can easily see the broad strokes of the advance and retreat, and you can get much more depth of information if you look a little closer. These kinds of animated visualizations are definitely continuing on in that same vein -- packing a lot of information into a presentation method that is easy to pick up and also very deep with some more inspection.

Wikipedia article about Minard showing that famous Napolean march visualization if anyone is interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard

from the yt description:

A Galton board, also known as a bean machine, quincunx or Galton box, was developed by Sir Francis Galton in the 1800 to demonstrate the central limit theorem.
In reality, this machine doesn’t exist. This video is a computer simulation of a “Galton board” with Blender, an open-source 3D computer graphics software.
Firstly, simulation was run with all white balls. When the objects all settled, they assigned each ball a color and ran the program again.

I'm not sure why it took off the way it did, but the University of Utah had a huge influence on the history of computer graphics. The founders of Silicon Graphics, Adobe and Pixar all came from there. And if you're into computer graphics you have probably heard of algorithms named after Gouraud, Phong, and Blinn, all of them were Ph.D students in the 70s at the school. It just seems like a crazy amount of foundational work took place there over the course of 20 years.

http://www.cs.utah.edu/about/history/

Yes... coming from a guy who makes his living in computer graphics, please make more models and practical effects!

Congratulations! Your video, Very Realistic Computer Graphics, 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 7 Badge!

Your video, Very Realistic Computer Graphics, 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 7 Badge!

Reminds me of computer graphic class, and that stupid teapot model:

I took a computer graphics class when I was going to college that talked about data visualization. Every time I see something on this topic, I am reminded about something the prof showed us in that class -- a visualization of troop losses during Napoleon's march on Russia in 1812-1813 by a French civil engineer named Minard.

Minard's chart gets a whole lot of dimensions and relevant variables displayed in a very simple, easy to read format. The "big picture" is evident at a glance, but details readily emerge when you look closer. It is a map, it shows number of soldiers and losses from cold/fighting, temperature data which contributed to those losses, etc.

I think that using CG including video and animation to expand on the ways that we visualize data is very interesting and exciting, but on the other hand depth and detail of relevant data is sometimes most impressive when it comes in a very simple package, like Minard's map.

Pretty neat stuff!

Ha! And a few other things about this film;

What's with the 3D computer graphics and in the "later" films there are no such things?

Would you really land your ship on the planet? And that easily? Wouldn't you have a landing ship for the occasion and have a bit of a job navigating as well? Instead they land right on the button and can drive back and forth from the alien ship as easily as going to the shops.

The first bit that made me facepalm was the panicking scientists who then magically get lost despite bringing the floating mapping balls. And they forgot their ipads with google maps on them.

And then they took their helmets off. Jay-sus.

When the other crew leave rashly bagging samples - they could surely pop back later - they hop onto the bikes because the truck has gone. Where did the truck go?

I could keep going. I don't mind silly things like this in the right movie but this tried to take itself reasonably seriously. But if you can't be bothered to get basic details correct and create plausible, believable characters then you end up with a dud.

I'm not hopeful for that Blade Runner sequel.

haha sure thing. I couldn't either but it was the first hit googling "nonsense technical jargon" >> ^Fletch:

In reply to this comment by freernuts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w&feature=related>> ^Fletch:
I'm going to drop "contact-invariant optimization" during a conversation at work tomorrow and act incredulous that no one seems to know what that is.


Thanks! I was actually looking for this a while back and couldn't remember the name of it.

You actually used a multiple of 360...good attention to detail>> ^dag:

Xbox 1440 is going to kick ass.

In reply to this comment by freernuts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w&feature=related>> ^Fletch:

I'm going to drop "contact-invariant optimization" during a conversation at work tomorrow and act incredulous that no one seems to know what that is.


Thanks! I was actually looking for this a while back and couldn't remember the name of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w&feature=related>> ^Fletch:

I'm going to drop "contact-invariant optimization" during a conversation at work tomorrow and act incredulous that no one seems to know what that is.