CGI - 'it's killing cinema'. So the frequent internet cries go.

Hyperbolic though it may be, there's some reasonable concerns with this mindset. Nothing sucks you out of a film quicker than some unconvincing, weightless CG. Many blockbusters have abandoned strong writing and characterisation in favour of shallow computerised spectacle. And the continuing decreases in old-fashioned stuntwork and practical effects work marks something of an ongoing tragedy.

But CG, like many tools, can be used for good as well as evil - and it's something that is often ignored in conversations about the technology.

Computer graphics can achieve a lot of impressive things without the audience even noticing. The scale of crowd scenes, for example, is often increased significantly through subtle CG - a more cost-effective solution than hiring hundreds of extras.

More objects - whether that's cars, trees or buildings - can be added to a scene pretty much seamlessly. And computers are also used to enhance existing effects - to give that explosion a little more punch, or make a rainstorm feel even more miserable. Even the colours can be made more vibrant - well, as long as they don't go too 'orange or teal' as many films do.

That's not even going into the examples that would have been impossible before the advent of computer generated imagery. From Gravity's incredible realisation of space to the elaborate, computer-aided camera work seen in many David Fincher films, CG has allowed talented directors to push the artform forward in meaningful, exciting ways.

A new YouTube video from RocketJump Film School goes into all these arguments in more depth, while offering plenty of examples to back up the points. As they rightly point out, when a computer artist is doing their job really well, the audience will barely even notice their impeccable handiwork.