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.

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.

Congratulations! Your video, You don't need visual effects if you have steel balls., 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 120 Badge!

Your video, You don't need visual effects if you have steel balls., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Actually some of those shots did use visual effects. Specifically, they were run backwards. The first clip is a famous example of it - they didn't time the drive forward to just get ahead of the train, they timed the drive backwards to cross the tracks just after the train had passed. No real danger involved.

I can't speak for all the clips, but you can see a fair few of them were done backwards or significantly sped up.

Still, a nice compilation, and I sure as hell wouldn't be doing most of those.

pretty much everything he said about CGI are wrong. like saying it's called "special effects". it's called "visual effects". "special effects" are practical effects.

Your video, Every Best Visual Effects Winner (1929-2018 Oscars), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, I don't see how they can fit any significant component of the 2nd GiG season in a movie, let alone any philosophical depth. Stylistically they seem to be on the right track, although Hollywood has never been short of pretty visual effects.

Have to admit the Major suit does look a bit silly as almost like a fat suit, but I understand that they couldn't have done it any other way without CGI. Whatever, as long as it's a stylistic action flick that doesn't butcher the story it will have met my expectations.

Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't) has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Behind the Magic: The Visual Effects of The Force Awakens has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

No, they don't.

Fury Road and The Force Awakens were probably the two most hyped "hey we're doing practical effects" movies of the last year or two and both have a tonne of CGI, it's just hard to see.

Practical effects are great for some stuff, but good CGI allows for things that are simply impossible with practical effects.

Both have their place.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Why-CG-Sucks-Except-It-Doesnt

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Behind-the-Magic-The-Visual-Effects-of-The-Force-Awakens

This has to be the most easily faked viral video out there. No visual effects, just a convenient accidental recording and stock 'glass breaking' sound effect. I'm not going to pretend to be an internet detective and 'prove' that this is fake, but it seems so much more likely that it is fake than anything else. And of course the licensing contact info is right up in the description.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I followed my passion and it worked out. Grew up in a bunch of small oil towns in Canada, no where near any big cities in the 80's and 90's(oil is where most of my friends from that time ended up and look where that's gone.) I really liked to draw and had a lofty goal to work in visual effects for film, which was a VERY difficult, niche thing at the time... very unrealistic to get into. People laughed when I was getting a bachelor's degree in fine art in Uni because there was no money in it. Long story short, I'm doing quite well, have worked on many films at several companies including Pixar, and am currently working on the next Starwars at ILM. People from my childhood can't even believe it, but that's the difference between following a passion and "applying passion" to what seems a sensible, realistic choice.

Following a passion may not lead you to where you expected to go like the post above, but there is no right and wrong decisions, just choices that tell the story of your life. All you can do is negotiate the fork your currently at, with some loose idea of where you want to go and you'll go somewhere interesting. Maybe I should have been a fucking motivational speaker...

Mills mess isn't an easy juggling pattern, and he does it well, but these cubes are definitely painted with visual effects.

How is stock footage of an iceberg calving a 'visual effect'?
Same question for Morlock costumes. A costume is hardly an effect. There were certainly visual effects in 'time machine', but the costumes were hardly in that catagory.