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.

The Panasonic G10 series disappoints tremendously

So it is now time to tie up a couple of loose ends from past blog entries.  As you know, I blogged a week ago back about the advent of the Panasonic G10 series.  I was quite sanguine about the force of Moore's law, and how this HDTV was quite likely a further proof that Moore's law applies forcefully to HDTV technology.

Well... it is time to eat some crow.  Nobody likes to be taken in by the hype.  Nobody likes to fuck up.  Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong about anything.  However, it is time for me to eat some humble pie.

There are three important conclusions I reached after one hour with the G10 series at Magnolia:

1. Technologically, the G10 is nothing special.  It is not even an advance over Panasonic's current line up.  The 850 series is better.  The only positive thing that can be said for it is that it is a low-cost option.  It is substantially cheaper the 800 & 850 series from Panasonic.
   
2. THX mode absolutely stinks.  You will never see a dimmer, darker, flatter, more lifeless color in your entire life.  Those who ballyhoo this technology are absolutely and completely wrong.  They couldn't possibly be more wrong.  The ultimate reason I did not buy the G10 is because THX mode looks just plain terrible.  I had to take it out of THX mode and customize it quite a bit before it began to look reasonably decent.
   
3. David Katzmaier and Bryan Gardiner must be smoking crack together.  That is the only logical conclusion I can reach after reading and viewing their statements about the Panasonic G10.  They both view this unit as the Pioneer Kuro replacement.  Readers will know that I am not a member of the cult of Kuro.  I regard it as a strong performer, but vastly over-rated.  With that said, the G10 is absolutely, categorically not comparable to the Kuro.  The Kuro is a lot better than the G10.  The only thing they share in common is glass and plasma
   

To say that I was not impressed by the G10 would be an understatement at best.  I could have saved some $1,400 by purchasing the G10 rather than the Samsung Luxia.  Believe me, I was very well aware of this fact as I made my decision... in the comfort of my computer room at home.  I had an Excel spreadsheet in front of me, mapping out all the makes, models, vendors, prices, sales taxes, shipping costs, etc.  I self-consciously pulled the trigger on a much more expensive unit.  Why?  Because I did not want to buy the G10.  The quality level was too low to be acceptable, and drastically better options were (ultimately) affordable.  

So don't be carried away with the hype.  The Cult of Kuro is going through grief, as they openly state, because their King has died.  They are casting about, looking for a successor.  This is the first fish to pop out of the lake, and it is a plasma, ergo it must be the new king.  Rubbish!  Balls! Poppycock! Blarney!

So Dave, don't you think you are being a bit unfair to these fine gentlemen of quality and merit?  They do talk about running benchmark tests.  

As I have already stated several times in this blog, such benchmarks are predicated on the faulty proposition that the BT.709 is a perfect thing.  It is not.  If BT.709 is a perfect thing, and cannot be improved upon, the road is clear:  Nail 709 or die.  Such is not the case.  BT.709 is a political standard, assembled by industry giants who wanted to manufacture HDTVs and programming at an affordable price.  There are many ways to improve upon this standard.  Ergo, nailing the BT.709 is not really that important, and may ultimately turn undesirable as technology advances.  Arguments based on nailing BT.709 can be discarded rather easily.

What Bryan Gardiner has to say

What David Katzmaier has to say

From whence comes this rubbish about Blu-ray failing?

One of the most persistently irritating aspects of CNET.com is their twice a week habit of publishing prophesies of doom upon Blu-ray. From whence comes all this rubbish?

Does it come from sour grapes? Is Blu-Ray just too expensive for these pee-ons to afford?

Does it come from a long-standing alliance with Microsoft? Let's remember that Microsoft backed the looser in the highdef war: HD-DVD.

Does it come from mis-predicting the outcome of the war? Let's remember CNET told us HD-DVD would win because of price advantages. This multi-component false prophecy yielded multiple black eyes. The entire basis was false. HD-DVD was never really cheaper than Blu-Ray... At least not during the war.

Does it come from the vast amount of traffic they get every time they publish one of these rants? It seems that each time one of these hit-pieces gets published, the item rises to the top of news.google.com. Remember this means page views and click-throughs. That adds up to dollars and cents.

Is it because John C. Dvorak no longer yields this sort of controversy and traffic with anti-Mac hit-pieces, and the revenues he once generated have to be replaced? Let's remember John C Dvorak now uses a Mac. {According to rumor he was offered a Dell or a Mac at his new place of work. The company John hates more than Apple is Dell, so he took the Mac.}

Could it be that they own stock in download firms?

Could it be that it is difficult to rip Blu-Rays and trade them on the Internet (although this is done on Bittorrent).

So just what is the substance of their argument and does it have any merit?

1. A year after HD-DVD died Blu-ray still isn't doing more volume than DVD.
2. Blu-ray players are not selling. (At least the ones that aren't PS3s aren't selling)
3. Blu-ray players are more expensive than upscaling DVD players.
4. Blu-Ray discs are more expensive than DVD disks.
5. Downloads will replace DVD. Blu-Ray will not replace DVD.
6. Apple isn't supporting Blu-Ray as they once said they would.
7. I can't rip my Blu-rays, and watch them on 2.5 inch portable LCD screen, as I can with DVD.

This, in short, is the full case they make against Blu-ray. Each time they post these 7 points, and they do so about twice a week, posters knock each other over to make the usual ripostes.

1. Two years into the format's life span Blu-Ray is way ahead of where DVD was in terms of acceptance.
2. PS3 constitutes 70% to 75% of the total installed base of all Blu-Ray players because it is the finest value in the land. It is the best damn media player in the world... for all types of media. Critics are foolish to expect inferior media players (which are often more expensive) to sell in the face of such tough competition. You cannot simply disregard the PS3 because it is not “A true Blu-Ray player” such an argument is utterly false, fallacious and preposterous.
3. Since Blu-Ray players offer 622% better resolution and quantum improvement in audio, we would expect them to be more expensive than upscaling DVD players. Surely you do not believe that much quality comes for free? Do you really expect a 0.0% difference in marginal price and profits?
4. Diddo for the disk. The disks are too expensive on average, but they are remarkably better.
5. Now we reach the absolute balderdash, poppycock and rubbish. How are we to disinfect the ignorant of their ignorance? It is clear to anyone who understands binary bandwidth issues that HDTV and broadband are a mismatch made in hell. The typical broadband connection carries approximately 2.5Mbits to your computer. The typical video image stream on Blu-Ray is approximately 24-35 Mbits. Let's call it 10x higher. That's just the video. Then you have the audio stream. For uncompressed PCM, that is another 4.6Mbits. For compressed, but lossless, DTS-HD MA, we're talking about 1.5 to 2.5Mbits. Remember, we're talking about 7.1 surround sound sample at 24 bits and 96Khz in a best case scenario. A typical Blu-ray movie occupies something like 17GB of space. You try downloading 17GB of anything and just see how long it takes. Now you can compress the hell out of the stream, but then you decimate the quality. You can reduce the resolution, but then you aren't offering HDTV. Some people protest that they are downloading their movies right now. I do solemnly assure you that if you are downloading it now, it certainly is not HD. Even the crap Apple is downloading to you is just 720p. What you see on Netflix is standard def 480p. No crap-hounds, I am sorry to inform you that the Blu-Ray spec was designed from scratch to be almost untouchable. Until the mode, mean and median bandwidth in this country hits a brick solid 40Mbits, you are not going to be able to offer a service that streams Blu-Ray quality video through the net. The consumer market just can't handle it. The business model is not workable. Some fools may try, but they will lose lots and lots of money. Certainly FIOS has the potential to yield Blu-Ray bandwidth. How soon will FIOS become ubiquitous? With the current recession, project 10 years. That is a nice, long happy life span for Blu-Ray to prosper and become the institutionalized standard. If media tech writers understood anything about binary bandwidth, they would not embarrass themselves by stating that downloads will supersede Blu-Ray.
6. So Apple is not supporting Blu-Ray as they said they would...? And...? Let us remember that Apple is a very little company after all. A lot of their Macs are being used to run Windows. That's how much market influence they have. Apple wants to sell you 720p movies through Apple TV, a product which is the biggest market failure they have offered in quite some time. Everybody who owns Apple stock knows that AppleTV is not doing well at all on the open market.
7. Point 7 utterly defies logic. Do you really think you can display 1920x1080 pixels on a 320x240 screen? What made you think that HDTV was made for 2.5inch LCD? Truly, some people do not understand the entire concept of HDTV.