General Moderator of TFG2.com“机动擎天柱零式特攻型(Mobile Optimus Prime Zero Special Attack Type)” has posted a new pic，this’s his own photography:


CGI:


together:



Click this link to see more

 

he sure does have a lot of protection

 

that may be the most accurate movie-to-toy conversion I've seen so far.

 

that isn't cgi, it's concept art.

 

Mixmaster would be 100% win if he were contructicon-green.

 

I am amazed he is that close to the concept. Really like the barrels on the arms

 

Mixmaster is reeealy close to the movie model, like, almost TFA level close.

 

Mummy always taught me never to go out without plenty of protection too.

 

I'm sold on the toy thanks to that. That is sweet!

 

I like your toys of BW...

 

CGI isn't just 3d models done in Maya...

 

well, actually, it is.

computer GENERATED imagery - as in the images are GENERATED by a computer based on models and rendering instructions provided to it, not drawn by a human using a computer as a tool.

 

close, but you're saying that 6 of one thing does not equal a half-dozen of another. CGI is computer-generated imagery, you're right. And traditionally speaking, yes that does refer to rendered models that are composited into a true-life scene. But that is still a creation by a human artist using the computer as a tool. And so is a comp that is created using a tablet. Different output and uses, but both methods are using computers to create imagery output based on human-supplied instructions.

 

Very nice, MixMaster is very cool.

What is that background he is using? It's really neat.

 

The problem, I think, comes from CGI being a loaded word. Most people assume CGI is a 3D model. As someone who does a lot of CG work, even I still attach preconceived notions to the word CGI.

To a certain degree, however, 3D modeling is a little more generated by the computer. Yes, the artist/animator model it, create the texturing, set up lighting and everything, but a lot of it comes down to the program doing the rendering. You then have to wait and see what happens. A lot of times a scene is rendered multiple times because something goes wrong.

With a digital painting, however, there is a LOT more control over what is going on. You are using the computer as a tool just like you use oil paints. You can use filters and what not, but they are not needed to make the final image, just to adjust it.

I do agree, you can look at a digital painting and it is accurate to call it CGI but I feel it takes credit away from the artist. The computer didn't generate the image, it was just a tool.

 

maybe its time to change the meanings and generate a second acronym maybe CRG (computer rendered graphics ) or CIG ( Computer illustrated graphics) heh CII seemed a bit silly.
CIG would a be good one and yet this all seems silly but god knows the general public loves its accronyms.

The real solution would be to call 3d cgi just that 3d cgi and everything else cgi.

fun topic.

 

I know a funner(;P) Topic:

Micmaster looks badass, both as a toy and as a Digital Painting.

 

The amount of control is no different, you just get quicker results with digital painting. You're right that with modeling/animation, the computer is processing far more information and is doing more "work", but at their core both processes are the exact same: artist inputs, computer outputs.

And I also usually only refer to rendered+composited scenes as CGI.

 

Mixmaster looks awsome with sheilds. Cant wait to see him on screen he can fly aswell cant he because the vortex that sucks things in as part of devy is made up of mixmasters body

 

Semantics for sure. Usually, I refer to 3D generated Imagery as CGI and 2D Digital Art as Digital Painting, so as not to confuse two very distinct artforms.

This Mixmaster here is 2D Digital Art. Were he 3D, we could choose from any number of angles around him from all angles, if we were the guy rendering the image. This image is a one-shot deal. And it looks to be Ben Proctor's work.