Talk:Computer-generated imagery

message: Is there a good weblog that covers the latest developments in CGI, e.g. new movie releases, software, etc.?--Eloquence* 22:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
"The first real CGI character was created by Pixar for the film Young Sherlock Holmes in 1985 (not counting the simple polyhedron character Bit in Tron)."
Wasn't the MCP in tron also conputer animated? Or was that simply hand-drawn animation appearing to be computer animation? If so, it certainly counts even if Bit doesn't.
Also there is a movement to refer to CGI as CG instead, as CGI is more commonly (in technology) used to refer to Common Gateway Interface, the protocol to submit web forms.
Dodger 18:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good CGI weblog 

message: This is mostly a history of CGI, but gives little clue as to how it's done. While I know something of this, I'd like to know how characters are moved realistically, how many variables are involved, is it done by entering numbers, or by dragging opbjects, or by people wearing lights that are tracked, as I've seen demonstrated? Can someone write a section headed, "how it's done"? The modelling page is mostly about rendering, and does not answer the question.--86.135.122.101 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is mostly the history of CGI - need 'how its done' 

message: This is only one of many good articles on aspects of Animation, all of which tend to be suffering from omissions and duplications, as well as misconceptions over what constitutes CGI for example, as opposed to, computer animation, and whether CGI is a 'film technique'.
I've solved a similar dilemma on other topics by introducing the concept of a 'Root page', in this case Animation, and a hierarchy. I suggest that CGI is computer animation, is animation. If anything, CGI is 'hi-end' computer animation, meaning probably hi-res 3D rather than 2D, but the distinction is disappearing. CGI cannot be a 'film technique' as fully animatied 'movies' like Toy Story are now about to be delivered to cinemas digitally without ever seeing 'film' even as 'videotape'. Avatars and games come 'highest' in the hierarchy, as they involve real-time CGI.
The newcomer to CGI, or to Computer animation, may need to have animation explained, hence the need for hierarchy, with the 'Root page' listed at the top of 'see also' and described as such. The Root page should list all key associated pages in the hierarchy first. --Lindosland 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy needed? - the '[[Wikipedia:Root page|Root page]]' suggestion 

message: This page has been vandalised but for some reason I can not do a rollback like on the Afrikaans wikipedia. --Renier Maritz 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Computer-generated imagery is often referred to simply as CG (though this is a less specific term). The initialization CGI also has different meanings, which could be confusing. Maybe these should be mentioned here? WurdBendur 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CG 

message: At the very beginning, the term CG was used for Computer Graphics, and CGI was used for Common Gateway Interface. I wonder that people mistakenly used CGI instead of CG for Computer Graphics and then invented the term "Computer Generated Imagery" to justify this mistake.
I hate the term CGI refferring to CG as well  :(
61.231.211.106 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CG vs CGI

message: Is Motion graphics a synonym of CGI? I thought a merge to this might be OK. thoughts? --Clubmarx 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion graphics  

message: How is Maya free?
--Chewxy
*I think whoever wrote that is thinking of Maya Personal Learning Edition. However, I think that the section in the article is a permanently incomplete list stuck in the middle of an otherwise useful article. I'm about to remove it in a minute or two. Ayavaron 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Free?

message: I cleaned up the external links section, but was reverted by an IP address with no comment.  I would be interested to hear how those links meet our guidelines, or otherwise make this a better encyclopedia article.  They appear to mainly be a directory of studios who do CGI.  I'd like to remove them again - any objections? -- SiobhanHansa 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I notice it is only movies where computer-generated imagery has been used that is mentioned in the history section. Why not also include shorts and early technologu and experimentation, like the The Kitte, which was an example of Russian computer animation from 1967? 84.48.35.203 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Only movies?

message: The image :Image:Movie poster toy story.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Movie poster toy story.jpg

message: Apologies for my last edit; I got confused between my own user page and the actual page;
Rpgsimmaster (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: There is a big gap in history in the article between "The Last Starfighter" which was released in 1984 and Jurassic Park/1993. In between, there was a Terminator 2, which was released in 1991, and don't tell me, that T1000 was not CGI. And what about Tin Toy, released in 1988 by Pixar?
Slidersv (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big gap in history 

message: On the topic of "The Last Starfighter", the CGI article mentions it as a commercial failure along with Tron, yet the article for TLS says it was a financial success earning 28$m on a 15$m budget.  --Laserhead (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not commercial failures? 

message: I think the 360 entry timeline database is probably not pure spam, because it is compiled by Barbara Flueckiger who is a professor in some department of cinema and a search on Google books shows up entries for her. She has a book "Digital Bodies" (just translated from German) that I have not seen, but she probably knows what she is talking about, so I think it has reasonably sound information in it - probably. But it will make sense to extract info from it and add, rather than just have the link out there, for the link may die in 2 years. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does spam begin, and information end?

message: Please include the abbreviation of this in the top of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface 78.92.66.40 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common gateway interface 

message: Surprised this article has yet to discuss the history of CGI...i.e., it deserves a dedicated history section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be the one to write it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the history of CGI was about animation. There is History of computer animation and its existence should probably be clarified somewhere here. Alas that article is in need of serious help. I had hoped that user:Amichaelnoll would have done it, for he would know the topic better than most. But that did not happen. I will try to fix Computer animation sometime in 2012, then touch up the history afterwards, perhaps by the end of 2012. History2007 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of CGI section? 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Computer-generated imagery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer-generated imagery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Computer-generated imagery]] for deletion 

message: I've perused the information on this page, and while I think the content is mostly complete, there is a section of information that I believe is missing. This is related to the usage of Computer Generated Imagery along with motion capture. The motion capture page mentions CGI, and so does the Computer Graphics page with which this page was almost merged, so I believe it relevant to add a section related to that here. I'll add a blurb about the usage with relation to motion capture, as well as a few examples. Regonvera (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of relation to Motion Capture