Comments on: Say

Say

Robot Johnny — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:21:59 -0800

A Polaroid in a Polaroid in a Polaroid in a...

By: poopy

poopy — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:31:19 -0800

very Escheresque cool

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:31:26 -0800

Nifty idea and nifty post. However, what's with that blink tag on the first page? I've seen some lousy uses of blink but that a weird one!

By: sharpener

sharpener — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:37:13 -0800

Very cool. Wish I thought of it.

By: sharpener

sharpener — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:37:40 -0800

Polaroids being about the only camera I can operate.

By: rocketman

rocketman — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:43:27 -0800

Blink tag aside, that's turbo-cool.

By: Outlawyr

Outlawyr — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:52:25 -0800

Metacool

By: willnot

willnot — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:53:28 -0800

Holy Crap - That is so brilliant, I weep* not to have thought of it. Excellent Find! *or, I would weep if I wasn't such a cynical and unaffected type of person.

By: piskycritter

piskycritter — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:01:59 -0800

Now, if only Matt would adopt this technique for the next ten years...

By: waxpancake

waxpancake — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:02:19 -0800

Someone should definitely make a zooming movie of that. (If they start from the beginning and zoom out, they can continue to add onto it as he takes more photos...)

By: Flat Feet Pete

Flat Feet Pete — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:22:39 -0800

There a zoomy type thing here. It may have been mentioned before. The weird bit is trying to pick out a square edge.

By: o2b

o2b — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:30:32 -0800

what browsers do you guys use that the Blink tag actually works?

By: linux

linux — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:33:02 -0800

Firebird works fine.

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:50:21 -0800

Mozilla 1.4.1

By: squirrel

squirrel — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:34:33 -0800

Great idea, but why the small image sizes? My question is really rhetorical, I think I know the answer, or some strong possibilities. It's a pity that the web--such a powerful potential exposure source for up-coming artists must be hobbled in fear of piracy. True, I don't get free gorgeous duplications of this work--which begs the question of whether I would have otherwise bought it--but then I also don't even get to *see* the images in a reasonable size. Sort of self-defeating, don't you think?

By: willnot

willnot — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:44:50 -0800

squirrel - I didn't get the sense this was a commercial endeavor. I assume you know, but clicking on the thumbnails does load a slightly larger version of the image into the center frame. That larger images doesn't look too much smaller than a normal Polaroid would be. I suspect this is a matter of keeping it small so it loads a bit quicker and saves on drive space/bandwidth and the nature of the source medium.

By: hellinskira

hellinskira — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:13:00 -0800

Reminds me of when I consider the generations that have passed before me. You can only make out what was in the polaroid originally for about three or four more photos. I don't know anything about my own heritage any farther back than three or four generations. It's the entire thing that's nice to look at. Perspective on perspective? Also reminds me of those zooming fractals. /these thoughts should be making me stoned...

By: crunchburger

crunchburger — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:27:20 -0800

Cool link! hellinskira - try one of David Hockney's Polaroid collages.

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:49:17 -0800

my friend has been doing this with his desktop wallpaper/digital camera for about 2 months now..... Gives me a headache.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:00:25 -0800

blink baby blink I finaly gave up on IE a couple days ago and switch back to da moz.

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:32:43 -0800

Not cool. Just silly. Get an imagination.

By: ao4047

ao4047 — Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:49:03 -0800

I think that it would be bad-ass if when he finished the project he went back to where the first picture was taken. Now that would blow my little mind.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:46:13 -0800

willnot, I don't know the artist's reason for not using a larger scan, I'm just speculating and lamenting. If the jpgs were bigger, we would probably get more of the intended effect, don't you think? I find it ironic that the same technology (hi-rez scanning) that enables an expansion of this medium beyond the previous confines is also seen as a liability. Also, what HTuttle said. Not that original, once you're seen the cover of Memento.

By: webmutant

webmutant — Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:30:18 -0800

So, what -- you're saying that this guy ripped off the idea from a movie poster that wouldn't be out for another four years?