Thanks, I just walked out of a theater earlier today and saw a poster for this and thought the staff had been playing with Photo$hop again.

This is why the "monkey selfie" photo controversy of a couple of years ago (damnit, it's 10 years!) baffles me... it's not always the artist, it's often the editor that spots the art. I can take 60 shots per second of the waves on the coast of a lake, but that doesn't mean I should own the copyright on the one that happened to look great at 01:05:51.304 on 26/11/22.

Conversely the inverse may also be true.

Art is art. Don't tie me down, baby.

My uncle worked at NASA…he was in charge of all the Apollo moon rocks, allocating them for study, did the cutting of them with a Diamond saw, and later curated the collection for decades. He also helped train the Apollo astronauts on geology so they could collect interesting and new samples and not more of what we already had.
He was also my dad’s roommate at Stanford.
I wonder if he had anything to do with the encased rock….the photo is too low grade to see exactly what you’re talking about.

Fake news….your evidence? Retracted tweets!?!

Posted at your request, dumbshit. Do you think you just pulled a fast one or something? Did you really just ask me to post a video just so you could parrot “fake news” because you read something different on twitter? Yes … yes you did.

My evidence….His Facebook, twitter, and truth social accounts, blogs, likely others. His voice heard by 911 operators, police, emts, etc. Also the weapon and zip ties he brought to the home invasion. Did you not listen to the video? Was it not OAN so no fact could penetrate your anal shield to your ears?

Funny, it’s the police saying all these things. Not reporters, police spokesmen. Are you saying they make up stories about innocent people so regularly that they would do it in this public of a case? Evidence? Of course not. Just more baseless denial of reality.

Glass breaks in and out when you break it. It also breaks out during struggles inside, or when you rip a glass door open violently. Are you seriously suggesting this is staged, some false flag attack, and Pelosi’s husband is so committed to this lie he smashed his own skull in?
It’s clear from photos and videos that the vast majority of broken glass, and the wood/vinyl cross member are inside the house.

Um….now onto baseless silly gay slurs and accusations because you have no information, no way to contradict the FACT that he’s a MAGgot moron that believes every conspiracy theory you do and worships the same ochre ogre.

I never knew you were into eating men’s asses, but if you say so, you must be.
I never knew that’s what MEGA meant, no wonder you sissies changed it but wouldn’t explain!
Be careful, lots of diseases you can get from eating shit, but it’s clear that’s what you’re into, you’ve been doing it here for over a decade, you probably know all the pitfalls well by now. Then again, your mantra is


Edit: thinking about it, this is your last question until you can answer just one. You never can, you just ignore them every time.
Since I know you’re incapable of answering questions, that means you’re done asking me any. Until then, the answer to any question you pose is “Ashley Babbitt”….it should be “what charges came down for Clinton”, another claim you refused to back up. I haven’t forgotten many questions you dodged.

Your video, The Secret Optical Tool that Let you Draw like a Photo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I just saw the scene photos, and the markers for bullet casings went to at least 96, which they are reporting as “near 90”. WTF?

Incorrect, as pointed out above. Some second hand accounts of tantrums, and many first hand accounts of criminal activity like knowingly inviting heavily armed thugs into his crowd to prepare for his planned attack of the capitol building and saying Pence deserved to be lynched so Chump wouldn’t make a statement telling his people to stop as his thugs actively hunted the Vice President in the halls of Congress. She witnessed those first hand. I know, you’re just repeating what some liar told you, and you have no first hand knowledge of her or anyone’s actual testimony because you aren’t allowed to watch the hearings….so your arguing over your own second and third hand accounts filtered through biased liars.

Note, the secret service was so in Trump’s camp that Pence refused to get in a car with them because he believed they would murder him or deliver him to the murderous crowd….the one allegedly denying it, Ornato, still works for Trump today (and hasn’t actually denied it, there are just reports claiming he WOULD….and Ornato has been accused of lying for Trump repeatedly including personally telling the blatant lie that Lafayette square wasn’t violently cleared for a Trump photo op at a nearby church….


Get his denial under oath then try again.
Edit: today the story from Trump’s team became “Trump was too fat and out of shape to lunge for the steering wheel.”, which if true made him too fat and out of shape to reach out <3ft, which makes him far too fat, feeble, and near death to be president.

Keep your head up your ass if you wish. You’ll find yourself alone in there.
Why not call them to testify? Because that bit, while salacious, is hardly the main point or even a crime that might be prosecuted, so why waste time on red herrings. I know you wish they would focus on his infantile tantrums, they distract from his treasonous terrorism.

This woman worked 10 ft from Chump. She was a personal assistant for his chief of staff, you would expect her to be about as loyal as they come to be in that high position with direct access to the president ….and his behavior was so intolerable and anti Democratic she tanked her career and personal life to expose it. Do you have any reason why she would lie? There are many reasons why she wouldn’t have testified, including the death threats against her if she did. She’s clearly from team Trump, not an anti or never trumper.

Fools like me, and around 70% of everyone else….everyone not in the cult with full blinders on, and even some who are. Your little world is crumbling, your great leader exposed for the petulant child and treasonous terrorist leader he is, publicly. Fox is running away, republicans are running away, independents are flying away at supersonic speeds.

You would know about drinking bath water. How does Trump’s ass crack taste?

Edit: You know this is the Trump methodology….
1) deny you did “it”
2) equivocate, claim “they do “it””
3) still deny, but insist it would be fine if you had done “it”
4) admit you did “it” just a little
5) revel in the fact that you can now admit you did the evil inexcusable thing and more without your base caring

You are so stupid you think the accusation is that violence took place during the planning stage on Jan 5th as they cased the joint in preparation for the planned assault against America and democracy the next day?

Wow, I never gave you any credit for intelligence, but that’s just brain dead sluggery. If you were capable of shame, you would be feeling it now.

What was Benghazi if not dumping on Clinton to try to keep her from running in 2016? Don’t start whining now, snowflake.

The difference is there’s an actual investigation, a bipartisan one at that, going on here, not just baseless accusation, and actually evidence of a plot to subvert democracy and stage a violent coup, where the charge against Clinton was indecipherable and without fact or evidence, and multiple investigations and hearings that SHE didn’t hide from proved it.
Trump tried to stage a coup, but is a loser so he failed. He wants another try, and you want to give it to him despite 2/3 of the country despising him and refusing to go along.

Edit: I wonder, if these tours were so innocuous, innocent, and just normal families….why did Loudermilk spend so much time vehemently denying they ever happened….then more time denying there were no more than 4 people including 2 children, eventually admitting he gave tours to up to 22 red hat Maggots that took photos of back hallways, stairs, security posts, representative escape routes, routes to Democratic representatives offices, etc? False denials are indicators of guilt, and he gave denial after denial that he eventually admitted were lies.
Asking for pardons is also an admission of guilt….who asked for them again?

Oh sweet zombie Jebus….Boebert was a hooker in Colorado and had multiple abortions. Her weak denials are less believable than Cawthorn’s, and the evidence is her “sugar daddy meets.com” page with provocative photos of her looking for “pay to play” dates, and an unreported $70000 “donation” from Ted Cruise after her sugar daddy introduced them and she visited Ted in Texas (when she was still an “unlicensed escort”).

The investigators that made this public have BEGGED her to sue them so they can depose her under oath about these charges. She’s toast.

This on top of the revelation recently that her mileage fraud, where she was reimbursed for her claim that she drove almost 40000 miles in a few months campaigning in Colorado, was perpetrated because she was bankrupt and needed $20000 to save her family restaurant (she hadn’t been paying taxes and the state was going to foreclose on her), almost exactly the amount she was overpaid for her fake travel expenses. Now under investigation.

And let’s not forget she was with her husband when he exposed his penis to two 15 year old girls in a bowling alley and defended him over it, making her complicit in child sex abuse.

This is the Trumpist heroine, his “best people”. Oof.

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.

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!

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.