SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Sunday, August 1, 2010, 8:44 PM

    1. The difference between knickers and capris.

    2. Why chocolate chip cookies are made with morsels instead of chips.

    3. That I still consider myself intelligent while voting.

    4. How anyone can think the jerkiness and pixelation of digital images is superior to film.

    5. Is there a role that cannot be successfully interchanged between Rob Morrow, Jerry O’Connell, and Kyle Chandler?

    6. Why posters here don’t use the “split” to keep more titles visible?  (4th from the right, top row of rich text edit controls.)

    7. Why America’s Got Talent is judged by 2 Brits and 1 Canadian.

    4 Comments

      Joe Carter
      August 1st, 2010 | 9:17 pm | #1

      Is there a role that cannot be successfully interchanged between Rob Morrow, Jerry O’Connell, and Kyle Chandler?

      I do not understand how you think that Coach Taylor could be played by anyone other than Kyle Chandler much less Rob Morrow or Jerry O’Connell!

      Don in Phoenix
      August 1st, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #2

      re: #7 – America’s got talent, but doesn’t have taste….it takes a Brit or a Canadian to recognize it.

      Chris Krycho
      August 2nd, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #3

      4. With sufficiently high bitrates and resolution, digital media far surpasses film. The complaints you offer are valid only for an increasingly small and outdated set of digital media, which will vanish into memory. The question is somewhat to a mid-19th century thinker asking in what way film is superior to painted portraits. The answer, of course, is that it was not, technically speaking (and, from an artistic sense, still is not: they are diferent, neither better nor worse)—but it soon far exceeded the realism possible with its older cousin. The same is true, only far more so, with this new sibling. Digital media lacks only the blemishes and degradability of real film. (Blemishes may make for interesting art; degradation makes only for the tragic loss thereof.)

      Collin Brendemuehl
      August 2nd, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #4

      Chris,
      Have you ever done a 4×5 or 8×10 (or larger) contact print?
      Ever watched a film movie side-by-side with a digital projection? Ever listen to brass on a good turntable, right beside a CD? Today’s digital is useful, but in simple, non-extreme, non-exotic direct comparison I find it seriously lacking.
      Ok, I’ve never watched two movies side-by-side. But I have watched them close in time. The others I have done and still do. Herb Alpert and Sergio Mendes are not so good on CD. I still have a turntable and a chemical darkroom.
      {Sorry, but you got me started. :-) ]

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact