good ideas. Moore is fun. 'tho not a fan of text-to-speech videos.

here's a link to a GREAT film of his...https://youtu.be/qgU0I8rl-ps...even the far-gone far-righters had difficulty dissing.

too on point, to the point, that the pointy heads couldn't pinpoint any large flaws.

I could be tempted to watch a new _Star Wars_ film if all the Jedi scenes were like this.

Just an fyi, this is how the sift defines "snuff"

"snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

As a side note, i didn't/don't consider this video snuff.

Your video, Chump’s Campaign Staff Didn't Notice Film Crew At WH, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Forgot about this film. I remember that I quite enjoyed it.

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.

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.

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.

How many traffic laws did he break filming this? I'm 2 minutes in and I've counted about a half-dozen, including blowing through a red light.

It’s almost like you forgot that every congressperson charged with child trafficking is a Republican, every one charged with pedophilia a Republican, every one that knowingly covered for years of forced sexual abuse of children a Republican. Everyone trying to pass laws making it legal for adults to marry 9 year old children and have sex with them is a Republican. Every person claiming their political colleagues have wild drug fueled orgies is a Republican.
🤦‍♂️
Every one filmed lusting after 10 year olds and cat calling them in public is a Republican. Every one who said the thing they have most in common with their young daughter is “sex” is a Republican. Every one that bragged about trying to buy their way into their friends wife’s pants repeatedly is a Republican. Everyone we know that left their pregnant wives to sleep with porn stars without protection is a Republican. Every one that hosted private parties for Epstein, some they attended with no other adults allowed was a Republican.
🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️
The way you people project this nonsense makes me believe that somewhere out there is a pizza place with a basement where your elected officials rape, murder, and eat very small children. It sounded completely insane when the accusations were made, but you people ARE completely insane AND guilty of EVERY charge you morons lob at Democrats.

Democrats, on the other hand, are never brought up on child rape and sex trafficking charges, never have photos come out proving their debauchery, do not have a party platform based entirely on scapegoating and hating huge groups based on skin color, nationality, sexual preference, gender, etc….all protected classes under the constitution btw.
Democrats also don’t try to overthrow democracy because they lost an election and can’t accept it.
Democrats also don’t legislate based on frauds like Desantis, don’t put out insane lies about their opponents, accusing them of child molestation without evidence, certainly not just as a fund raising plot. They don’t set up straw men like CRT to give their base something to be outraged about despite it being fantasy. They don’t create a big lie that the election they ran was fraught with fraud (with absolutely zero evidence besides the frauds they committed themselves).

You really should try looking in a mirror sometimes. If you think you hate Democrats over these false charges, you are going to really hate yourself. Party of debauchery….if you really believe that’s the Democratic Party and not Republicans, you had a clinical break from reality and need professional help before you hurt yourself or others.

You are so delusional you could be committed if we only knew your real name.

Edit: I suppose I should thank you for being such a ridiculous blowhard that always buys into the Republican lies, without you I would have no idea what nonsense needs debunking. You couldn’t be a better straight man even if your name was Laurel.

100% agree. The reaction was more disturbing than the assault.
Haddish reverting to the mindset of the early 80’s to say Chris was calling Jada a lesbian, tacitly excusing Will’s physical attack, Jesus fucking Christ could you do more mental gymnastics!? Remember that little known independent film, Black Panther? Were those bald, fit women thought of as lesbians, or strong warrior women? WTF?!
Also, if she was right, is being called lesbian really an insult to Haddish in 2022? I don’t see it as insulting.

I think Will should see prison/jail time. He should be sentenced to the absolute maximum allowed by law, he, with every advantage and privilege possible, brutally assaulted a 57 year old man with a sucker punch/slap from Muhammad Ali (lest you forget Will’s size and training at throwing punches)...not just in public, but on an international broadcast. Then I think Chris should sue for $500 million for damage to his international reputation and career. It has to be an amount that hurts, not a few weeks work worth of pay.

Does anyone think Will’s bare minimum late apology is sincere, or that he deserves less punishment because of who he is, how much money he has, or because he eventually “apologized”?

Would he think so if Chris had slapped the shit out of Jada in public, then cursed her out during her performance?! (Don’t get all sexist, the size and power difference are similar.).
That should be the measure of damage IMO. If someone did the exact same thing to his loved one, what would Will think is an appropriate punishment? Guaranteed a fine and stern talking to wouldn’t satisfy, so it shouldn’t be on the table.

I used to use Kodak TP-2415 for astrophotrography, and it's the most insanely fincky film I've ever used, with one exception: Fuji made FF slide film for the same purpose that were ISO 10,000. The stuff was so reactive to ANY heat that it came delivered on dry ice and you had to slam the slide into the back of the camera as absolutely fast as you could. The darkroom processing on those slides was best done by someone who dealt with nothing but Fuji -- and not just Velvia.

If you've only shot 400 - 800 35mm, MF and FF is a world you cannot imagine.

Excellent video!

Have had much experience with Kodak films. B/W film of which I had much time in the darkroom processing the film and then making prints. I also had the chance to work with an Award winning Press Photographer.

One question I had for him was, how does he process his film to get such clear, sharp negatives? My prints would sometimes look grainy or flat. His answer was just 5 words that made me feel like an idiot.

"I just follow the instructions" he said without being insulting.

He told me that Kodak spends millions of dollars to come up with the processing instructions so, "why should I do anything different?"

That's when it hit me. I'm processing film, not mixing drinks.

who decided to film it this way? I dont mean to complain...but i wanted ... idk... to see more of something that would give me a sense of scale of the ship maybe with some close ups where an old timey sailor carved his name into the deck...


Instead its some weird still shots from a distance with slow zoom and i cant fucking hear what the water sounds like because all i can hear is this crazy EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE awWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

That said, I still liked seeing the ship.