i don't understand the point of this. is this fooling people? do people think this is a cool filter?

What is the point of life? Don't let it keep you up at night. Enjoy it for what it is and what it isn't and what it could be. Sweet dreams...are made of these

it isn't anything except a bad attempt at misleading people.

Hmmmm….

The tags are “cgi” and “fx”. Channels include animation.

Also, do you really think they had kaiju rides?

I thought I was pretty clear this wasn’t real.

As to the point…I thought it was pretty.

So you have a better attempt at misleading people I suppose. What would you do to make it better to mislead people?

the original title is misleading and this isn't "CGI" or "FX" or animation in any meaningful way. it's a static filter. all that adds up to a very strange thing to post. i'm just confused why anyone would make this.

Ok, maybe slightly, but certainly not as it was presented here.

Even a static filter is CGI…it’s a computer (phone) filter generating an image. It’s exactly what I think of when I think of “effects” for digital photography or videos….what does it mean to you? Since it’s “computer” drawn moving images, it’s animation, no?

Why? Art.
Why would Van Gogh paint swirling stars in “starry night”?
Why would Cyriak dismember a million digital sheep to reform them into nightmare creatures?

you're stretching the terms "CGI" and "art" to their absolute conceptual limits and i respectfully disagree with your use of both. duchamp did more to create "the fountain" than what went into this video.

I respect your right to be wrong if you wish. 😉

An image generated by a computer is CGI, it doesn’t have to be Avatar to qualify.
Art is art, whether you like and respect it or not. It doesn’t have to be good to be art.
People in England are painting potatoes, inserting some painted nails, and calling it potato art. This took more effort to make than that does, but they are still art just as much as a 3 year old’s drawing or a fresco by Michelangelo is.

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.

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.

ok, you're right. everything is CGI. i definitely don't know what i'm talking about. i defer to you, king of "mount stupid". long live the king.


"If the term is so meaningless, why argue against it?"
because it is the source of so much confusion and stupid opinions by laymen. see above.

Oh boo-hoo. Don’t have a hissy fit.


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-cgi#what-is-computergenerated-imagery

From above….
“ 4. Special effects: CGI can alter the color and intensity of light, changing the appearance of an actor’s face or body in a shot. It can also simulate environmental effects, like rain storms or cloudy skies. CGI can also age or de-age an actor in post-production.”

Are you the layman you speak of?

lol. that doesn't actually support what you're saying. maybe you should read the rest of it for better context.

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.

they're using "CGI" as a substitute for "CG" which, in the industry, specifically refers to 3D generated assets, as i stated a while ago. NO ONE in the industry uses the term "CGI" for all the reasons i also stated above. they are using "CGI" in this sales pitch because they're aware laypeople know that term and don't know the distinction between CG, FX, comp, previs, and all those department's sub categories. all their examples, including the one you quoted, are referring to CG generated images, which are explicitly NOT 2D processing, filters, compositing, editing, or DI.

"CGI can alter the color and intensity of light, changing the appearance of an actor’s face or body in a shot."

this means building a digi double of an actor's face or body, match moving/rotomating it, relighting it with scene lights, then a shit ton of work in comp. NOT a colour correct or a shitty filter. it's a huge amount of work.

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!

i'm not disagreeing with established definition, i'm telling you what established definition is. if you would stop being an internet contrarian on a subject you know next to nothing about and listen to the professional for one goddamn second, you might pick up on that.

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.

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?!

holy shit. whatever man.

if your brother is still at ILM, tell him to say "hi". hopefully he's less of a pig headed asshat than you.

So mature.
What a well thought out and expertly presented counterpoint. You convinced me with this undeniable logic.

point successfully missed. again.

i am deeply ashamed i ever got dragged into this profoundly stupid conversation. clearly i refuse to learn the lesson that the internet is not actually a place to share ideas.

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.

My only point is that you had two ways to view this video. As entertainment or deception. Why you picked the deception instead of being entertained tells me you may have a problem looking on "the bright side of life." If that's true you may have a deeper problem than what the video uncovered about you and what may be going on in your life. You shot a torpedo at the wrong ship.

There are good people out there that deserve to be appreciated even if they are not perfect. I like to think you are a good people.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.