Augie finds common interests with Blu-ray fans who want newer and better editions of their favorite material, even if it doesn't exist. Also, did a new Dark Horse book break a rule of photography, and does it matter?
I'm with you on the Comic Book reprinting matter. I love the Swamp Thing Paperbacks with the greyish paper. And after I heard so many bad things about Fourth World Omnibus I was really expecting Bible-like look-through paper that breaks and tears when you touch it and I was so glad, that it was printed on great (and probably kinda authentic) paper! I can't understand why people complain. (Plus there's even new comics on newsprint-like paper, e.g. Traditional Comics and most Vertigo. I was actually disappointed when Joe The Barbarian #1 came out and was on glossy paper).
With BluRays there's a big difference, because they reproduce the original better than DVD or VHS. While Absoulte editions are a nice addition, sometimes even enhancing the enjoyment, BluRay (on a big big TV screen) is closer to the original moviegoing experience. Except for old TV series...they made Star Trek BluRays!
I'm with you on a lot of the webcomics. A lot of the creators seem to just think "I can draw something resembling a human figure, it's time to start making comics." And then they set out to mimic Questionablecontent.net or Penny-arcade.com or whatever other popular comics are out there, without adding enough to really make it seem different, so in the end it's just "Oh this is like ctrl-alt-del/Sam & Fuzzy/etc except not funny."
Yeah, comics break the rules of photography literally every day. Really, only with modern digital coloring techniques could comics even try to approximate true photographic techniques.
Later in that same link, there's a huge establishing shot of a school, with trees in the foreground going all the way through a crowd of vehicles, a parking lot and a building in the distance. And while the amount of line art and detail lessens as the objects get further away from the "camera", they're all still in perfect focus. That big satellite dish is as crisp and clear as the leaves on the nearest tree, which should be impossible by the laws of photography.
But what I think puts comics in a unique area is that comic book art, by and large, allows the reader to explore the art at whatever pace they choose. As artists, we may use every trick in our arsenal to try and control the flow of our readers eyes across the page, but at the end of the day they're going to do what they want no matter WHAT we do. And as such, focus tends to be determined by the eye itself. When the readers eyes run across a page from image to image, they end up doing a little bit of that cinematography FOR us, racking and panning from face to face or action to action and letting elements fall in and out of focus as they choose.
I can't ascribe intention to the artists of "Hellcyon #1" but I found the image to be successful in drawing my attention from the action of the foreground to their assailants in the distance. The image might not obey the rules of photography as a single image but works as a larger canvas with discreet but connected framings. The active within the static.
As the reader, as Derrick noted, my eyes tracked from the gunfire to the bikes and then to the robot. Then, his exhaust was treated with a heat haze that was effective enough to establish a middle ground although the background details are also in perfect focus.
When I first encountered the cover on Robot 6, I immediately logged this as one of the more unique covers I've seen in some time for it use of the vantage point, scale, and composition within the tall comic rectangle and for the clean treatment and playful details (like the hands on the bike). Hell, by today's standards it should also be lauded for having narrative value.