If you are a Netflix subscriber, you know Blu-Ray is hot... unfortunately

Well, I just looked at my Netflix queue a few moments ago to see if they sent me any of the latest releases. Drat! Fucked again! They sent me some second tier stuff. I did not get Surrogates, or Gamer. I am a long-term Blu-Ray renter too! Since the very beginning!

Now whenever I scan down the list of most desirable Blu-Ray releases I see nothing but "Long Wait" and "Very Long Wait". It used to be that I score all the new releases within days of the release. Now you won't see one for a month or longer. This really sucks. What happened?

It's pretty clear that Netflix is suffering a resource allocation issue. They are not buying enough copies of the Blu-Ray to supply their renters. Presuming that this is a smart company, and I think they are, why do you think they've fucked up the resource procurement end? Probably because there are a ton of new subscribers applying pressure to the system. The N00Bs are probably screaming for Blu-Rays as well.

Blu-Rays are still very pricey to buy, and you can understand why everybody purchasing a new HDTV & Blu-Ray player falls in love with the media immediately. Everything else pales in comparison. Netflix is one of the few places you can go where you can (theoretically) rent absolutely anything that has been released on Blu-Ray.

All of this tells me we are drawing nearer ever nearer to the mythical crossover-point where Blu-Ray becomes the user standard, and DVD becomes the obsolete object of scorn. Most folks I know, hate to even plug in a DVD. Netflix needs to recognize this and start supplying the house accordingly.

The latest poll on Blu-Ray

http://blogs.zdnet.com/home-theater/?p=1075

So, this blog indicates that the so-called extinct format of HD-DVD is still outselling Blu-Ray.

The way this piece is written is troublesome. You should never exclude PS3 from the coverage of Blu-Ray player sales. I have no clue in the world why any rational empirical investigator would ever do such a thing, except out of pure study bias. You want to show poor uptake for Blu-Ray, so you exclude the top selling player. The primary function of the PS3 is Blu-Ray playback. Truth be told, it is a distant 3rd place as a game console. People like me seldom play games on our PS3s. We use them because they are the most advanced media consoles on the market. Nothing beats PS3 as a media player.

Nevertheless, this blog does eventually put a grip on the real issue. The poll at the bottom indicates that 41% of the people surveyed believe Blu-Ray movies are too expensive. I would qualify that in with the following tag: to buy and to rent. The cheapest Blu-Ray disks are about $9.99 on the shelf at Frys. These are Universal/NBC/SciFi channel made for Cable TV movies. That is, this is not sort of material videophiles desire in the first place. The more normative price, even when sharply discounted, is around $25. With tax or shipping (hopefully not both) it's $27.

In sharp contrast, the full spectrum of HD-DVDs {which is a very short spotty list indeed} can be had for less than $10. Most can be had for $7.99. This includes some damn good stuff. The whole first season of Battlestar Galactica can be had for $10.00. I can get The Sting for $7.99. I can have the Bourne movies for the same price.

There is a serious lesson here for Hollywood. Drop your prices and they will buy it. For some unseemly reason, Hollywood seems hopelessly fixated on the $30 price point. I understand their logic and it is utterly defeated by the realities of the market. Studios believe you should be willing to pay $30 per Blu-Ray. More than 3 people will watch it, in all likelihood. You can see it as often as you like. It kills both DVD and the theater experience. Since tickets cost about $10 per seat, why wouldn't you buy the movie at $30?

1. Perhaps we are not willing to buy until we know we like the film
2. That means we saw it at the theater at a high cost.
3. Maybe we make far less money than Hollywood thinks.
4. Maybe Hollywood produces cash at such a vastly different level of scale that they have lost all touch with typical Midwestern average people.

In any case, accept what the market is telling you, oh Hollywood studios. Make $11.99 the top price for any Blu-Ray. Sell many more at $8.99. Watch the system take off and fly.

One thing I want to insist on: If you can't tell the difference between a Blu-Ray and a DVD, you are vision impaired. Seek Lasik vision correction now. You have some real problems. If you say there isn't much quality difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray, you are just plain damn wrong. You can be mathematically discredited very quickly. Further, I can run a controlled experiment that will embarrass you. Of course, we know these kinds of statements, challanging Blu-Ray's undisputable quality, amount to thinly veiled sour grapes.

Of course there is the possibility that you connected a PS3 to a plain old fashioned NTSC CRT. If you did this, you are just a plain old flaming fucktard, and there is nothing I can do to help you.

You HDTV is just a TV without Blu-Ray

It's funny... I went to Fry's this morning to buy a portable hard disk. My pal Joe bought my iMac, so I need to off-load some stuff. I don't have any disks formatted in Fat32. Networking Windows 7 and Mac OS 10.5 is a bitch.

So I went to Fry's. There at the front-entrance is a big booth and sales campaign stating "Your HDTV is just a TV without Blu-Ray". That's a good campaign! I like it. I totally agree with that statement, and it is very well said.

It bothers me to no end when I go into one of these restaurants that have just invested in a nice new shinny HDTV and see a distorted squashed SD signal on that screen. This just happened last night at Poquito Mas. There we were, watching Cleveland and Orlando play basketball on a brand new 1080p 55inch Vizio. The players were squashed and picture was pixelated. What a shame!

Most of you folks don't seem to know or understand that you don't get the goods out of an HDTV unless you change your signal. You don't seem to understand that DVD contains only 216,000 pixels per frame in 16x9 letterbox mode. You don't seem to understand that Blu-Ray contains 2,073,600 pixels in that same 16x9 mode. That is a 960% increase in resolution. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between a 622% to 960% increase in resolution 100% of the time. Conversely, the DVD contains only 10.4% of the resolution of a Blu-Ray. This is a massive differential. If you can't tell the difference, you are vision impaired. Go get lasik.

It should be noted that Blu-Ray has been custom tailored to perfectly match your 1080p HDTV. Displaying 216,000 pixels on a screen designed to display 2,073,600 pixels sucks. Ergo DVD on a HDTV sucks, period. What about upscaling? I have the best upscaling DVD player in the world. It is the Playstation-3. This is par for the course. They best upscaling DVD players are always Blu-Ray players. As the proud owner of the best upscaling DVD player in the entire world, I can tell you I would rather see the Blu-Ray every single time. DVD is a last resort.

HD-DVD players can do this trick also, but they have been surpassed of late. They ceased advancement more than a year ago.

It should be noted that the audio difference Blu-Ray and DVD is quantum. DVD does audio on the basis of 16 bit integer sampling. That's pretty good. It is CD quality. Blu-Ray can do 24 bit integer sampling. How big is that difference? It is the difference between 65,535 and 16,777,216. If you make $65,535 bucks a year, you're doing okay. If you make $16,777,216 per year, you are one rich bastard. A lot of studios, particularly LionsGate, do 24 bit almost exclusively these days. DTS-HD Master Audio is awesome.

So what the hell is the objection? Why the hell would anyone dis this concept? Why would you reject a vastly superior product?

I find that there are two answers. One comes from the lower class. The other comes from the upper middle class.

The lower class rejects this technology claiming they can't see or hear the difference, but this is nothing but sour grapes. The reality is that they cannot afford a $300 device. Most still haven't bought an HDTV in the first place. Getting a 5.1 surround with HDMI is out of the question. DVD's just became affordable two years ago when they hit the $99 point. Some members of the lower class had to pay that off in three monthly installments. I don't intend to insult you if you make a total household income of $40,000 and have 3 kids to raise. That is a tough budget assignment. You have my sympathy. However, you should be honest. You know Blu-Ray destroys DVD... if you have ever seen it.

Some members of the upper middle class reject Blu-Ray claiming this is a crass attempt by Hollywood to re-sell you all of the same movies you have already purchased before. I understand this complaint. I too feel that there is a bit of truth to this complaint. I did buy some of my favorite movies on DVD. I have replaced some of them (Road Warrior, Bladerunner, Dark City, The Thing, Being There, etc.) with nice new shiny Blu-Rays. I am passing along the DVDs to friends and family as I replace them. Still there is no question that the Blu-Ray utterly crushes the life out of the DVD. Dark City never enjoyed a good release before Blu-Ray. Bladerunner also had some moderate to poor releases. This new Blu-Ray is astounding. I am not bitter or upset about getting vastly better copies of my favorite movie. On the contrary, I am delighted. It is irrational to be otherwise.

However, one key point should be noted: I never went hog wild for DVD. It took me a long time to sign on with DVD. DVD did nothing to replace the TV recording function of the VHS. This was a huge missing feature. I did not feel that rentals warranted a $500 initial investment. PS2 eventually got me into the clan, but not for several years. Also, I fully understood that DVD was just a transitional format. DVD is not HD and never has been. We were already talking about an HD revolution in 2001. I knew there would be something better soon.

It astounds me to see how many upper-middle class gentlemen with good graduate degrees, great jobs ($200K plus) and a good investment portfolio absolutely missed these key points. They went hog wild for DVD and bought as many as 2,000 movies in this format. I don't understand that investment at all. Why did you do that? Did you not know that HD was coming? Did you not know that DVD was just plain-old NTSC standard definition? Did you not know that a much larger container and more powerful device would be necessary to push 2 million pixels and quantum audio improvements? Why did you run after DVD like that?

Naturally, if you bought 2,000 DVD movies at around $12 per pop (average over time) you spent about $24,000 USD. You won't appreciate the fact that this investment is now obsolete and vastly better copies can be had. It makes you feel stupid. It makes you feel like you have been had.

I don't know what to tell you. You fucked up. Blu-Ray is still the best there is. Everybody aught to have one.

One of my best old bosses recently sent me an eMail asking the following question: "So have you heard about the coming Super HD revolution? What are you going to do with all those Blu-Rays when the Super HD Blu appears on the market?"

He was trying to get me to see it his way. He bought 3,000+ DVDs. His catalog is posted online. He likes to boast about it.

Yes indeed, there is something on the wind right now. Super HD is indeed on the way, but I don't want to get my hopes up just yet. I would love to see 8 megapixel screens. I would love to shoot 8 megapixel videos. I would love to buy a Super HD Blu. I can't wait. Unfortunately, I think Hollywood may disappoint me.

So it seems that the press is turning around on the subject of Blu-Ray

Well, well, well, it's about time.  I was just reading the New York Times, and it seems that Eric Taub is getting enthusiastic about Blu-Ray.  He found the nuts to go against the prevailing gainsayers in the media.  This is the biggest news blog yet to come out in support of Blu-Ray.

At the same time, media pundits have noted that Blu-Ray movie sales have doubled from a year ago.  Also, the industry claims it will ship 12 million new Blu-Ray players in 2009.  Somebody even noticed that Blu-Ray acceptance is well ahead of where DVD was at the same point in both of their life-cycles, despite the massive bite of the Great Recession.  Some estimates claim that sales rates will triple current numbers 2010.  Ergo 2010 should be the cross-over point where DVD becomes legacy material, like VHS, and Blu-Ray becomes the standard.

I am pleased.  This is part of a larger trend.  More and more experts and consumers are questioning what they have been told by so-called experts in regard to Blu-Ray.  They are having a hard time squaring their experiance with the twisted tales of a mis-begotten technological misfit, favorited by a small cult of fans, doomed to an early death.  Many are making noises that sound something like this:  "Jesus!  What the fuck were you bastards smoking when you reached that preposterous conclusion?"

For about 4 years now, predicting the failure of Blu-Ray has been an ultra-fashionable thing among would-be experts.  It has been functionally good, as it has placed great pressure on Sony and Samsung to cut the cost of ownership.  One might even argue that predicting the failure of Blu-Ray has been an underhanded way to insist upon price cuts.

Still, there have been persistent blithering idiots who have popped up on the net saying foolish things like "I can't tell the difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray" or worse "There is not much difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray".  In the first case, you could be vision impaired, so your statement might be accurate.  In the second case, you are absolutely and completely wrong, and it is easy to mathematically prove.  If you think there isn't much difference, you have neither seen a Blu-Ray, nor studied it.  Ah-hem...  Let me try this another way.  If you weren't suffering from sour grapes, you would be honest and say "It's great, but I just can't afford it."

For the first time, it would appear that mainstream media is beginning to test Blu-Ray seriously. Gone are the foolish claims that DVD can compete with Blu-Ray.  Those claims have finally been thrown out of court.   Now the NYT has investigated the claims of Video On Demand (VOD) firms also.  Guess whay they found?

1. VOD firms don't offer much HD
2. When they do, it is 720p
3. The encoding of said 720p pretty well sucks.  Maybe its better than SD, but...
4. We don't have enough bandwidth to get constant 720p without jerks.
5. Or maybe they don't have enough bandwidth to serve-up constant 720p without jerks
6. I don't like running an Ethernet cable to my TV.
7. I don't like having a computer in my entertainment system.
8. Blu-Ray seems to crush VOD in terms of quality.

In a nutshell, this what they are starting to say now.  It's about time they figured this out.  

I learned most of these things 2 years ago.  Nothing has been able to change my mind since.  I tried the most recent incarnation of the Apple TV recently.  While better than all VOD solutions before it, it still sucks.  Blu-Ray absolutely destroys Apple TV.  I am talking about a total-annihilation demolition.  It is the defeat the dimensions of which Apple has never experienced:  A route from which no honor can be salvaged.  I returned the unit to Fry's electronics.  It wasn't worth owning.

Allow me to make a positive case for Blu-Ray.  My family members, friends and I have come to the conclusion that a Blu-Ray image, when displayed on a high quality large screen, is so compelling we find it difficult to summon the motivation to go to the theater anymore.  The images we see on the big silver screen seem dark, drab, lifeless, colorless, undetailed and soft (meaning unfocused) in comparison to the razor sharp, detailed, colorful pictures we see at home.  The movie always looks better at home.  The movie never looks better at the theater.  There is a wide gulf too.  This is not a small or marginal victory.  We are talking about a 38-10 route.

When watching incredible Blu-Rays like Wall-e, or No Country for Old Men, or Sin City, I have frequently asked myself the following questions:

1. How thrilled were the authors of this movie when they first saw it on Blu-Ray?  They must have been ecstatic.  To see your creation preserved and presented in such an astounding format must be extremely gratifying.
   
2. How long is going to be before the movie theaters realize they are being completely outclassed by home theaters?
   
3. How long is going to take before studios realizes that they should not optimize for the movie theater, but rather for the home theater?  Movies should not be shot in 24fps or on film anymore.  They should be shot at 60p on digital.  You are only in the movie theater for 3-6 weeks.  You will be on Blu-Ray [or something better] forever.  Optimize for your true distribution channel.  Forget the glamor vector.
   

There are plethora of other benefits to watching the movie on Blu-Ray.  You can talk about the movie if you want to.  You can eat your favorite popcorn, and you can have it your way, cheap.  You can drink any damn thing you want, and it is cheaper than the theater.  You can hit pause and go to the bathroom.  You don't have to miss parts of the film.  You can start whenever you want to start.  You can watch with the subtitles on if you are hearing impaired.  None of these things have anything to do with fundamental image and sound, but they are very nice bonuses.