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?!

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.

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.

the rub of "good guys w/guns" is the "good guys" requirement.

if the argument is "those that can be proven to be responsible, safe, and sane can own guns" then why fear the 'proof' part of the equation?

it's in their motto!

'bad guys' helping 'bad guys' get guns is bad guys, bad guys...whatcha gonna do?

plus

the idea that teachers/school kids can be expected to keep the doors closed - turn on the a/c or the heat up and just see if YOUR home doors are kept shut!

more fantasy from the infanticidally idiots. as if the uncompromising are themselves 'compromised'.




just think...this song is 30 yrs old...and it doesn't raise an eye brow now...

Imagine the scenario where a bad guy pulls out a gun, the first "good guy" pulls out a gun, then a second "good guy" pulls out his gun... wanna bet the probability who the 2nd guy points his or her gun to? And the subsequent 3rd-nth good guys' guns going to point theirs to?

Oh, then unevitably the "no duty to protect" police forces come and shoot ALL the guys with guns.

Total chaos, and good luck untangling the legal lawsuits that will inevitably come after. America! F**k YEAH!!

"Good Guy With A Gun" Theory. These NRA honchos reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally don't want their subservient cohorts think one more step ahead of any argument. The sad truth is there's enough of mindless American too lazy (or even capable?) to think ahead just as they wished due to America's educational system and pathetic "freedom at all costs" patirotism & American 2nd Ammendment Exceptionalism crap.

There are many democratic countries that said no to widespread gun ownerships (Australia, NZ, Japan) and are far better for it. I guess (read: I don't watch C-SPAN) that sense of American Pride infects even the Democrats to be gutsy enough to compare the US to other countries during legislative gun-control debates?

That assault-style (like the ARs) gun ownership rights is pretty FUBAR from the get go. If that's a right, why not grenades? Tanks, fighter jets, subs and heck, nuclear missiles? As long as I'm a "no criminal record" American citizen, isn't it my God-given right -- and my freedom! -- to own any weapons as long as I can afford it? Unhindered Capitalism at its finest we're talking here! The most American of values!

Lol. You wish.
Too bad you already (privately) complimented me on how well I write, research, and how intelligent my arguments are, saying I should be a professional writer.
You can’t say I returned the compliments.
Go cry to mommy, little boy. You embarrass yourself with this projection.

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

- Karl Popper from The Open Society and Its Enemies [1945]

More pure projection.

The right is screaming about the leak and not their theft of women’s rights by hook and crook because they don’t want the credit for this horrifically unpopular power grab by a severe minority, because it will lose you the midterm by a landslide, and for no other reason.

Hilarious you try to argue it’s because you strong gun toting Mericans are terrified of some soy boys standing on their sidewalks and chanting “no”. Cowards.

The left doesn’t try to kidnap representatives to blackmail the government into change, they don’t harass school shooting victims until they have to move a dozen times because a gay frog opponent told them it’s a lie.

The right are purely criminal, uncivil, racist, and completely insane liars that commit ACTUAL violent crimes constantly, like bombings, shootings, kidnappings, government building takeovers (not just surrounding them, but breaking in intending to hurt the occupants), false flag murders (even of police), (fake) terrorist anthrax attacks, mail bombings, ransacking, sometimes kidnapping officials, etc.
point to some current Democrats convicted…even just charged with armed kidnapping of a governor, or seditious insurrection. You can’t unless you make them up.

The left is civil, far too civil with the cheating treasonous violent racist thugs that comprise the right. We should be shooting you in the streets like republicans do to protesters. We should be holding closed door sessions with no republicans to write laws and pass them with no bipartisanship, like Republicans. If we didn’t have a 48-52 minority, maybe they would.

When have Democrats had 60% of both houses and the presidency? Never, you bold faced liar and loud know nothing fool.

Yes, when those 2 seats were STOLEN bu Republicans they saw this day coming, so asked each nominee about it, and they all indicated they had no plan to change the law, it was settled, reaffirmed precedent, the strongest kind of law besides an amendment, with constitutional interpretations supporting them. With no new evidence, no new science, based on religious misinterpretation, they tossed that in the garbage for politics…the respect for and honor of the court went with it.

Democrats do not have a majority because Manchin and Senema aren’t Democrats, they are bought and paid for Republicans. It’s shocking they haven’t been thrown out of the party…a true shameful mark on the Democrats.
I would point out, when Republicans had a majority in both houses and the whitehouse, they didn’t fund Trump’s fence.

They should remove (with extreme prejudice) Manchin and Senema, replace them, remove the filibuster, then add 5 seats to the courts…next month….republicans had control fully in 2016 and failed to make that illegal, major error of the Republican Party, totally fair play. No whining like a bitch when they do.

No, we didn’t lose any argument, nor was it fair and square. Republicans abused their power to steal the court control, installed multiple activist judges who rule based on religion, not law or science, and its going to cost them.

Such lies. You really have severe brain damage and zero honesty. List where you can get an abortion until birth. *crickets*.
Republicans just believe their right to kill you begins at birth.

Again, despite Republican representatives being actual murderers, terroristic anti American seditionists that tried to burn the capitol, and many are actual charged child rapists and sex traffickers, you call Democrats those things with zero charges filed, no instances to point to, no pending investigations, nor any evidence….because you are nothing but an insane liar, Bob. A worthless treasonous liar and likely child abuser based on what you’ve told me about your alleged children (but you’re such a liar I don’t believe you actually have any because you said you do…and if you do, you admitted that they have serious mental issues from living with you)

You’re just a liar spouting nonsense bob. Why are you so dishonest and uncivil?
I’m uncivil with you because I can’t stand liars or insane narcissists.
Eat a bag of baby dicks you constant (but not consummate) liar.

Of course the right is screaming who leaked and not Fuck yea we finally won because the right don't want leftest nut jobs circling this houses , business, etc and harass the shit out of them. The left are un civil.

The democrat party has known this day would come. They had 50 years to codify abortion into law and didn't.

To make it worse Democrats saw this day of reckoning when the last SCOUS was appointed. Democrats won 2020 and had full control and did not push any law at the national level to make abortion legal . Major error of the Democrat party.



You lost the argument fair and square..
But at the state level you can keep on killing . and some even up until birth.


Democrats : The party of Death, Destruction, Debauchery,

Your ‘nothing to see here’ opinions, red herring arguments, and dismissive comments have also been noted.

Enjoy your moving on.

Not sure what you’re afraid of. Maybe being called out for your own changes of opinions you won’t admit to? (Like happened here-https://videosift.com/video/A-Better-Way-to-Tax-the-Rich)

Holy shit sticks! We're all numb to the nazi Germany comparison being thrown around during arguments.

But the fact is, a description of the social and cultural state at the time of the rise of the nazi movement by a man WHO WAS THERE and fought against it....is identical to what's happening with maga/fox. Trump literally IS a new age, American, Hitler, and Bob and his ilk, the modern brownshirts.

Neo nazis are just niche bigoted haters, but the maga crowd are the literal successors of the historical nazis with the power to actually destroy our society.

Precedent is just that until evidence proves otherwise.

Pluto was a planet until it wasn't. Truth evolves over time.

1857 Slavery was fundamentally ruled legal under Dred Scott. Truly a wrong decision and a study in judicial overreach.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of color.


Finally this is just a leaked draft opinion. One must wait to see if overturned and on what grounds .


That being said The left waited decades to get abortions. The right has waited 50+ years to get a legal argument that might overturn that decision.

50 years later and finally have a conservative court and a case that might alter Roe V wade.

Actually no you haven’t, and yes you clearly do care what party they’re in. You may have said you think that, but your actions and arguments speak louder than your lies. Remember claiming you weren’t sexist at all minutes before (keyboard) screaming MGTOW!!!
Remember saying it was not just ok, but smart that Trump lied in depositions under oath? That only a stupid person would tell the truth if it might get them in trouble? Then you clearly stated wrong is right….and those are not the only instances.

You ignored the vote stealing, actually claimed the Republican vote harvester that admitted (his campaign workers) voting for himself thousands of times was punished when you KNOW he wasn’t because it was your district, and he remained in office until he withdrew on his own for personal reasons. Zero punishment whatsoever but you lie about it because he’s Republican.

You still call democrats the party of debauchery with zero evidence to cite, but can’t fathom that the reason I never find “my team” (I’m a Democrat only by default btw) doing that kind of wrong is because I only pay attention to reputable sources like court records and not often anonymous lying blowhards trying to score political points against their enemies, and reputable sources and police never find democrat representatives molesting children, trafficking them for sex, having cocaine fueled lemon parties, exposing themselves to pre teen girls in bowling alleys, picking up 12 year old girls in malls, having parties with Epstein and young girls and no one else, covering for child molesting coaches for decades, being long term pen palls with convicted kiddie porn producers while in office, admitting to driving for hours intending to have sex with an 11 year old girl, rewriting marriage laws so it’s legal to marry and have sex with 9 year old children, etc. …do I need to put names to all those charges? Because I can. You ignore every one of those credible accusations against Republicans and make up random accusations out of thin air about Democrats constantly.

Stealing, your hero Trump was convicted of stealing from charities for veterans, and students, and every contractor that ever worked for him, you don’t care one whit. He tried to steal an election (or two) and you cheer it on.

Cheating, why are you a Republican then, they get caught cheating for real daily, not MTG style baseless accusations based on someone’s Twitter claim. Your own district was the most egregious cheating scandal in decades, by republicans, and you would have gladly voted for him again, maybe twice. Have you forgotten how many of Trump’s administration ended up being unreported foreign assets? Hiding their foreign payments and cheating the system to allow foreign influence in our whitehouse?

It is odd, you would think statistically there must be some Democrat representative child molesters, I assume there are, but if there are they are smart enough that they aren’t getting caught. Republicans constantly are getting caught, and you are constantly ignoring it.

I do call out Pelosi for insider trading, and say she isn’t the only Democrat guilty of that crime against America, but I also say Republicans do it as a matter of course daily. Republicans went to court to make it legal for corporations to bribe them with pacs and super pacs and block any attempt to make bribery illegal again.

So you are just incorrect, again. Doesn’t that get tiring?