A Greek filmmaker living in Germany, Kostas Sampanis, just posted this great-looking short film on Vimeo. It was shot on a Canon HV30 with a 35mm adapter. Also, here’s a second film by him, with the same camera.

Many times I’ve written on this blog about how bad the Greek TV is. Apart the terrible daily live shows, there are the equally terrible scripted shows. Cheap, ugly, stupid.

So I was very happy to see a production seeing the light of day that had high standards. The show is called “The Island” (“Το Νησί”), and it’s based on the best-seller book by Victoria Hislop with the same title. It’s a period mystery/drama, about a leprosy colony in a small island off the shore of Crete. The show was shot on location, on the actual village/island the book was written about. The story spans 3 generations, from 1939, to today, and it’s told via flashbacks.

The production, by Indigo View (a production company in Crete), is the most expensive of all times for the Greek TV. Shoots for the 26 episodes will last a year, and half way through, it cost Mega Channel about 4 million Euros. Which probably means that it will eventually cost up to 9-10 million Euros (which equals to about $450k USD per episode). Now, think that American series cost between $1 million and $2.5 million per episode! And no, Greece is not a cheap country, definitely not Crete, a touristic island! Paying hotels for the cast and crew probably was the biggest cost for the show! I’ve read elsewhere that the budget was 4 million Euros *overall*, which would mean that each episode only costs 150,000 Euros. If true, then that’s a miracle.

So the question is, “how good is this show, then?”. And I can firmly say that it’s very well done. The photography is good, script is good (if not a bit cliche at times), acting is great for the most part, direction is stellar. I can say that this show looks and feels better than most American TV series! Not only that, but this is the first Greek TV series in many years that foreign TV channels asked to buy! You can watch the series for free, here (no subtitles, sorry).

The show premiered last Monday, and it had one of the biggest ratings for scripted shows ever in Greece! At some point during the 56 minute show, there were 72% of the Greek young population (15-48 year olds) who were watching!!! Overall, 48% of the Greek population watched! This is a staggering rating for any country! And it shows how the Greek people are HUNGRY for quality programming, rather than the complete crap the TV is feeding them for the last 18 years!

I feel that there are few things that they could be better on the show though:

1. The editing. The show is cut like a TV commercial (especially the first half of the first episode). There are some very impressive shots, but they’re cut at 1-3 seconds each! It’s too fast editing, the viewer doesn’t have the time to digest all that visual information! It feels almost like the tapes arrived at the editing room, and the editor guy, seeing this amazing footage for the first time in his professional life, he felt that it would be a shame to leave it out! But he must!

2. The three generations do not make logistic sense. If the mother of the English girl and the restaurant’s woman were born in 1930 (9 years before the story begins), they would be 80 years old today. And yet, none of the two older versions of them looks to be more than 55 years old. The “today” story should have been set in 1985 or 1990 instead.

3. The song in the credits is extremely cheesy. The music of the track is good, but the vocals take away a lot of the atmosphere. They make me cringe real bad. They should have kept the piano music alone, no vocals! Yuck.

4. The last scene, where the teacher and the kid leave the village for the leprosy island, is way too long. The farewell scene is SIX minutes long, in slow motion for the most part. That’s *way* too much, and over-dramatic. Again, an editing problem. I’m guessing that the foreign networks will have an easy time to cut material when they will try to fit the 56 minute episodes in their 45 minutes time slots.

Having said that, the beginning of the scene with the daughters and the villagers being outside their homes to say goodbye, was a tearjerker. I don’t cry easily, but this got me. But then, the prolonged farewell scene, killed the mood.

Instead, the editor should have cut out more out of the church and the farewell scenes, to make more sense out of the London segment (which was rushed too much). The show also required a few seconds of showing the beauty of Cretan village from afar, and its sea (e.g. a shot like this). Also, the last time we see Alexis looking at the small island, that wide shot from afar, needed to be on a high, moving crane.

I watched some behind-the-scenes footage, and it seems that the production used an HDV camera (looked like a Canon), with a 35mm adapter. I was totally expecting a Red ONE, but I was surprised to see a 35mm adapter + HDV camera. Some of the scenes were a bit too shallow of depth of field, almost unnaturally shallow. The quality of such a cam is not going to be as good as the Red ONE, but this is not a major problem, since most Greeks don’t even have an HD TV signal. The production possibly saved $10k to $15k overall by using an HDV camera. The other Greek TV series are shot with plain HDV cameras, and they look super video-y, and ugly. Even the “better” TV series, like this one or this one, they can’t hold a candle to The Island visually.

The interesting thing is, from all the “somewhat better” TV series in Greece, are all produced by the Mega Channel. And with “The Island”, they indeed show a clear understanding that true quality programming pays back big time. Your turn, US TV.

My rating for the first episode: 8/10

UPDATE: Second episode, not so good. Fully agreed with the review here. Despite this, ratings got up to 62% overall! Much higher than the first episode!

I don’t do much calling via a cellphone. Maybe about 20-25 phone calls per year. The bulk of my calls is done via Skype for free, and occasionally Google Voice/WiFi, or a landline. Therefore, I don’t need more than a Pay As You Go, a’la carte plan, which is indeed what I use.

However, while I’m not big on calls and SMS, I’m big on data. I want to check my email, twitter, the news, check for comments on my blog. I need data more than I need phone calls. The phone call functionality on my smartphone is there only in case of emergency.

So far I haven’t had any data plan on my phones. I want to have one, but I find them ridiculously expensive. AT&T and T-Mobile, the two main GSM providers in the US, recently restructured their no-contract data plans. Unfortunately, the prices are as high as ever: T-Mobile’s, and AT&T’s.

I ran a little utility called Smart Monitor Lite on my Android phone for a few months now. It calculates your Wifi or 3G usage of data per month. What I found out using this utility over a long period of time is two things:

1. To use data on a smartphone in a pretty conservative manner (just email, RSS app for news, twitter app, very lite usage of few web sites), I need 500 MB per month.

2. To use data on a smartphone in a modern way (e.g. Google Maps, media streaming, full web browsing etc), I need 2-2.5 GB per month.

The real question is, how much do these options WORTH for me. And the answer is this: I would never pay more than $10 per month for option #1, and I would never pay for more than $30 per month for option #2.

Basically, what I would ultimately prefer is this:
– $120 per year, for 500 MB of data per month.
– $100 per year, for voice/SMS at standard prices (as it is now).
– Both voice/data have roll-over to the next month/year.
– I can roam when out of the country, at least for voice (currently I can’t).
– Ability to tether. Since I’m paying for the actual data, the carrier should stop putting limits on how I’m using that data. If I just want to add mayo on the data and eat them in one go, I should be able to.

So basically, I want to pay $220 per year, and to be done with it (or go month by month, or 3/6 month intervals, with adjusted prices). I want to use my own phone (I don’t need stinking subsidized phones), and I want to have this basic voice/data plan. Why can’t I have something so simple?

Some people tell me that cell data is a very expensive affair for the carriers, and that I need to respect that fact. But when I see AT&T charging $35 for 200 MB, and “just” $60 for 5 GB, I somehow have a very difficult time believing that. I think they’re just toying with us at best, and defrauding us at worst. These words might sound harsh to you, but I’ve had enough waiting for the 21st Century to really arrive.

UPDATE: My review of the Roku XD|S.

For those who follow me on Twitter they know how angry I’m at Netflix and their PS3 performance: all their Netflix software streaming discs they send to be used with PS3 are dying after about 20 days of usage. The Blu-Ray on the PS3 is literally burning the discs! There is a brown circle of death around the disc after a few days of usage (and it seems to die easier if you pause a streaming movie for a few minutes, and then you come back to it). The problem is well known on the web, I’m not the only victim of this.

Instead of asking Netflix to send me a 4th disc (plus, JBQ is very protective of his rare model PS3 and doesn’t want me using it anymore), I started using our Wii. Unfortunately, I have to use the Wii via WiFi instead of the more robust ethernet, and the streaming experience is just not good (it stops streaming, and goes to the “retrieving…” screen for a whopping 5 minutes before it restarts playback). We live in a very congested WiFi area, and the router is two rooms away, which just makes WiFi flaky.

We have an XBoX360 too, but it requires an XBoX Gold yearly subscription to get access to the Netflix app — which I personally find disgusting having Microsoft milking us like this for an app Netlfix wrote for free.

So, I decided that it was time for another device, plus, I wouldn’t mind getting something out that’s more than just Netflix. Practically and realistically speaking, there are five Netflix devices to choose from: WD TV Live Plus, Roku XDS, new AppleTV, Logitech Revue GoogleTV, and Boxee Box.

I weighed in my options with each and every of these devices, also taking into account that I have a first generation AppleTV, so some functionality I don’t need duplicated:

– WD TV Live Plus
Pros: The device with the best format support for local files. Youtube.
Cons: No Hulu Plus, no uPnP, expensive since you also need to buy an HDD with it. Mostly geared towards local files rather than services.

– AppleTV
Pros: iTunes streaming, possible app support in the future.
Cons: Everything else. Their Youtube channel is filtered to not include videos that are music videos or have commercial audio — so they can sell them via iTunes. Boooo! I don’t want to rent/pay for individual episodes/movies, I want a monthly fee, like Hulu Plus.

– Logitech Revue Google TV
Pros: Youtube channel. Hmm…
Cons: No Hulu. Expensive. Just not what I want.

– Boxee Box
Pros: Some legitimate video.
Cons: Mostly illegitimate or unlicensed video. No, thanks. Expensive.

– Roku XDS
Pros: Hulu Plus, AmazonOnDemand, Vimeo, new channels are added all the time. Cheap.
Cons: No RDIO (it has MOG instead, but I prefer RDIO), no Youtube Channel (there’s an unofficial one, but I would prefer an official one), no uPnP (although they said they will add a client for it), no good local format support (although its chipset supports a variety of formats, so it might happen in the future).

So from all these devices, the Roku XDS does it best for me so far, and it has potential for growth since things that I want, like Youtube/uPnP/formats are within their reach. The only device that could potentially do it better is a future GoogleTV device. So far, I don’t like what I see from Logitech Revue, but if Android apps and Hulu gets added in the mix, then maybe we will have something to challenge Roku. But I think we’re at least 1 year away from a good Google TV device. Until then, there’s Roku.

Now, that’s music!

Disclaimer: This article is published with Sony’s permission, but they had no say in the content or benchmarks.

Vegas Pro 10 is almost out of the door, with many new features (particularly 3D support). One feature that is of major importance to modern dSLR and digicam videographers, is its new h.264 support.

In the past, Vegas was using Quicktime or MainConcept to decode the various h.264 streams. However, especially when Quicktime was used, there was a major stability and speed problem. Add more than a handful of h.264 MOV files on your timeline, and you will be most likely looking into a crashed application. And when it would not crash, you’d probably had to deal with low frame rate performance. A very common problem for dSLR users.

Thankfully for all of us, Vegas Pro 10 has dealt with the problem by optimizing their own h.264 Sony AVC decoder, named “compoundplug.dll”. Here’s the kick of the story: the decoder does not use special h.264 decoding APIs from graphics cards (like CUDA) for full hardware acceleration (like Premiere or CoreAVC do). Instead, it’s using the generic Windows APIs, but with some hard-earned hand optimizations. The downside is, that while fast, it can’t be faster than true hardware acceleration. But it might just be “good enough” for most of us who don’t own very expensive graphics cards (and a good bonus for laptop users too who can’t install fast nVidia cards).

Optimization was carried out especially around Canon’s dSRL/digicam MOV clips. However, the optimizations are also very visible on AVCHD and .MP4 h.264 files too! How fast you ask? Here’s a rundown, from my own PC:

Vegas Pro 9 32bit (Pro/Platinum 7/8/9 numbers should be pretty close to this):
30p 1080p Canon 5D file: about 8 fps
720/60p 7D file: about 10 fps
720/30p Canon P&S digicam file: 25-30 fps
Main Profile CABAC MP4 720/30p: 12 fps
AVCHD 60i: 28-30 fps (near real-time)

Premiere Pro CS5 64bit (software rendering):
30p 1080p Canon 5D file: choppy (~10-20 fps, no exact numbers available)
720/60p 7D file: choppy (~10-20 fps, no exact numbers available)
720/30p Canon P&S digicam file: real-time
Main Profile CABAC MP4 720/30p: real-time
AVCHD 60i: Anywhere between 10 and 30 fps (very choppy at times)

Vegas Pro 10 32bit (64bit version was identical in numbers):
30p 1080p Canon 5D file: smooth, real-time playback
720/60p 7D file: smooth, real-time playback
720/30p Canon P&S digicam file: smooth, real-time playback
Main Profile CABAC MP4 720/30p: smooth, real-time playback
AVCHD 60i: smooth, real-time playback

The PC used was a DELL workstation, with a 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Quad, 6 GB of RAM, 64bit Vista, Quicktime 7.6.6. Proper project settings, and Preview(“Full”) fullscreen view were used. The video performance was measured while running on a secondary 1080p screen. Please note that playing back a file on a 1080p screen, in full screen, is slower than on a smaller window — but it makes for a better stress test, and it is how most professionals would edit anyway.

Also note that my PC does not support Adobe’s Mercury Engine (it requires an nVidia card with 768 MB of VRAM, while my 9800GT is “only” 512 MB). However, even the plain software rendering on CS5 is significantly faster than on CS4, so this is a more even comparison to the “software-only” Vegas Pro 10 decoding ability. I have no way to test this for you, but common sense says that the Mercury Engine would be faster than any software-only hand optimization.

Anyways, the point is that for us dSLR/digicam users, Vegas Pro 10 is a major update in terms of h.264 stability and performance. h.264 is now fast enough, even on less fortunate machines.

For those who prefer the old way of doing things, like, converting to Cineform, you will also be glad to know that Vegas now uses the Cineform SDK to decode Cineform files, rather than the old “Video for Windows” API. This means that some modern, extra features of Cineform (e.g. 3D) will now be working on Vegas too, the same way they do on Premiere.

Update: A friend sent me a link to test a Kodak Zi8 file (1080/30p h.264), and the results were:
– Vegas Pro 9: ~7 fps
– Vegas Pro 10: 30 fps, real time.

Update 2: Another friend sent me a link to a 1080/60p file from a Panasonic AVCHD camera. The results were:
– Vegas Pro 9: ~3-4 fps
– Vegas Pro 10: 18 fps.

I’m a big fan of futuristic-everything. I’ve worked with user interfaces when I used to live in the UK, and since then I’ve always tried to think of possible ways to better the ways we interact with machines.

First of all, the future is mobile, and there’s little dispute about this. Desktop machines will only be used for very heavy, specialized purposes, the same way trucks are used today. Most of the people will just own fast-enough mobile, portable devices, rather than desktops. Even tablets will hit the ceiling of what people would want to carry with them. Basically, anything bigger than a 4.5″-5″ screen smartphone will be too much to carry with you. It will be seen no different than the way we today feel about 1981’s businessmen, carrying around the Osborne 1 “portable” computer.

The biggest problem that such small devices will face is their minuscule screen, while the web expands to SXGA and higher resolutions as a minimum. Sure, they will all use very high resolution (1080p is around the corner), but the small physical screen poses problems for applications that actually do require a lot of widgets, and a large real screen estate working area (e.g. serious video/still editors, 3D editors, complex js web sites etc).

There are two ways to deal with the problem. One, is holographic projected displays. Unfortunately, we’re far away technologically from something like it. The second way, which is closer to our reach, is a projected display via glasses.

The idea is this:
– Smartphone in the pocket, is connected wirelessly, via Bluetooth or other similar protocol, to special glasses.
– When the glasses are activated, a transparent, high-resolution computer screen is shown in front of the user, at a certain perceived distance.
– Glasses feature an HD camera (or dual HD cameras for 3D, located where each eye would normally be), and they capture the real world ahead of the user, at 120 fps. The “real world” view is overlayed with the computer screen view. This way, the user can still walk on the streets of NY, and use his cellphone at the same time, without having to look down for it. Update: No reason to capture/overlay the real world, you can have transparent glass that can change its transparency to solid on demand. We already have the technology.
– Using gestures, by placing his fingers on the virtual screen, and by “reading back” by sonar (“acoustic location”) and/or the cams, the phone would know what you clicked, and carry out the actions.
– Voice recognition will be an alternative way to use the system. In the last 2-3 years there have been major strides in voice recognition.

Of course and it would look a bit funny at first, seeing people on the streets move their hands around like idiots, but if enough of them bite (and Apple has an uncanny way of making people try new things), then it can be deemed “normal.” Besides, silliness didn’t stop people wearing Bluetooth headsets that made them look like they talk to themselves. And Bluetooth headsets are less useful than this idea, which can greatly improve universal productivity and usability on the go.

So, I expect such a device to be reality before 2015. We already have the technology to do all this, it’s just that the experience won’t be perfect yet. It’s just a matter of time though.

Soon, the glasses will just be transparent screens that will couple as your real reading glasses, so they won’t look outlandish and silly at all. The smartphone itself will shrink, and will just be inside a wristwatch-like device, since the main interface will move to the glasses (that was previously optional). Its other usage would be to act as a webcam.

After that, the whole system will move inside your eye (like Futurama’s “eyephone”). And you won’t need your hands to control your device anymore: a simple device implanted on the back of your head, or it could be in the same device as the “eyephone” itself, will be able to read brainwaves (we already have the technology to do this, in a smaller scale, for medical purposes mostly).

By 2050 (maybe sooner), you won’t even need a mobile device with you to pair your eyes with. The device inside your eyes will be able to wirelessly connect to your data/network, using your body as an antenna for the closest “tower”. It (you) will be a dumb terminal for the most part.

The era of true Cyborgs will begin.

It’s no secret. TV channels are doing worse and worse each year. Primetime shows are very rarely renewed for a second season! What it used to be a 50%-60% rate of shows renewed each year, it’s now down to 10%. Many blame pirates for it, but in reality, there’s a whole lot of other facts to consider.

– The internet
People spend more time on the internet, rather than in front of a TV. In the olden days, one had no other form of entertainment, so ratings would be pretty high for all shows. Today, people prefer to turn on their laptop rather than their TV. Or, they use their smartphone.

– Hectic lifestyles
People have less free time than they used to have in the ’90s. Kids are overloaded with more homework, individuals have to work longer hours, usually farther away from home. Just not enough free time for TV.

– Bad shows.
There seems to be a major lack of innovative, risk-taking, and good scripts, good cinematography, and good editing. This was the difference between Flash Forward and LOST for example. The fact that the two teams involved with their respective shows were not of the same caliber. Basically, while both show ideas were stellar, not both finalized shows were as stellar. Plus, TV is full of cop shows, which is the bread and butter of older audiences, not that of younger audience (which is what advertisers care about).

Here are some ideas to fix the problem:

1. Fewer commercials, more show time

A 1-hour primetime TV show now lasts just 42 to 44 minutes. The rest of the time is filled with commercials. Back in the ’60s, there were only 4 minutes of commercials. In the ’70s, about 8 mins. In the ’80s, about 11 mins. In the ’90s, about 13 mins. Today, it’s between 16 and 18 mins of commercials! Enough with the so many commercials! People prefer to just skip the ads on their DVR, or pirate the show. Some don’t even bother at all, or wait for the DVD.

Of course, to be able to pay for a show, you need the money off of the commercials. Well, the problem with this is that the more time you cut off from a show, the less time the director has to enrich the plot and characters. And it’s the plot/characters that hook up people, not Ford ads. Adding just a few minutes of show time, can make the show much more interesting, because it would give the time needed to the script writers/director to realize their vision better. My suggestion: make shows 48 minutes minimum.

2. Modern shows

The vast majority of scripted shows are cop shows. Made for older people, who have nothing better to do than sit around all day and watch TV. To get a hold of that 18-49 age group that advertisers are salivating for, you need modern shows, not re-hashes, or recreations of old ideas.

Some examples: any character can die at any time, including the perceived main character. Show violence and sex as it really is (lobby FCC for more creative freedom that is). Where are brutal shows about soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are drama shows about junkies? Where is an exotic show about a doctor without borders? Where is a show about a team of an environmental organization that takes matters on its own hands and becomes a renegade? Where is a show about a Palestinian family in the strip? Where is a show about a lone Russian hacker in the midst of the Russian mob and human trafficking?

Talk about things that are important today among young people: stripping privacy, digital security, the internet, preserving nature, the disappointment of politics. Have long standing plots, of serialized nature. Episodic TV should die! Make situations feel real: if someone got shot in the arm, make this wound last for several episodes, and even have the character show uncomfortability on that arm years later! Characters should not ping-pong in situations as the writers see fit. They must feel real.

Instead, we’re fed with yet another episodic cop show, where the cops are winning on the end of each episode. Next week, it’s the same thing over again. TV channels & studios: take risks, or die.

3. No borders TV

The fact that there are fewer TV viewers these days is a wake up call. It means that channels must break free from their existing contracts with TV channels of other countries, and instead offer their live feed to ALL countries in the world, in real time, without IP restrictions.

4. Live TV on every device possible

And to achieve this, they must allow their *live* feed to stream via any device possible: PCs, cellphones, GoogleTV, AppleTV, Boxee, Roku, Hulu etc etc etc. As for their non-live TV, on-demand episodes should also be easily available, so new viewers can still hook up on serialized shows. Basically, make your content available to as many devices, and ways possible.

5. Core production crews only

$2-$3 million per episode is simply too high of a cost. Instead, use young crews, with innovative ideas about how things must be done. Use unknown actors that ask for less money. Use digital solutions instead of film. Basically, never go over $1 mil per episode, except for the pilot and season finales.

6. Start with a 2 hour pilot

To hook people up, start each new show with a 2 hour pilot, like LOST did.

7. Season scripts must be drafted ahead of time

Instead of having a script written, then shot, then broadcasted, all season’s scripts must be drafted before shooting (which means 6 months of work before principal photography starts). For serialized shows is very important that a logical plot is thought out from the very beginning. Otherwise, people just strive away from the show, feeling that “the writers are making it up as they go along”. This is the worst feeling ever for fans of serialized TV. The show must be not only script-drafted, but the writers must have a good idea where they want the show to go during its various seasons, how many seasons they need, and the TV network should give them exactly as many seasons and no more than that, even if the show becomes successful. Of course, the network retains the right to cancel the show if it it’s not successful, but if it is successful, it’s important that there’s a well thought-out beginning, middle, and end on the overall show.

If all else fails, then make all new TV series, a mini-series, up to 13 episodes each. It is more likely to have people invest for 13 hours, rather than years of uncertainty. This also has the added value of having a tight plot, with a real ending, which makes DVD sales/streams stronger — another way to make your money back.

TV is so bad lately, that I resorted watching teenage dramas, like “The Vampire Diaries“. Thankfully it has a fantasy plot, and the gorgeous Ian Somerhalder, to ease the pain. It’s also pretty well-written.

So, in the show, the main female character looks identical to a ruthless vampire, who somehow doesn’t hurt her. And this is my theory why all this happens. It requires knowledge of the show to understand the theory.

There is a good reason why the vampire Katherine looks like the human Elena. It’s because, through some magic, Katherine had the embryo of the pregnant Isobel turn into something that looks like herself. Maybe Katherine compelled Isobel to comply, or not. Maybe this first encounter was the reason Isobel got vigorously into vampire studies afterward. And why she has been working for Katherine after begging her to become a vampire too (although I expect her to be a “sleeper rebel”, and take revenge from Katherine for what she’s done to her daughter’s embryo, Elena). Obviously, Elena’s father took another route, and started hating all vampires, and actively fighting them.

So Katherine had Elena’s DNA & looks changed, to look just like her. Why?

Because Katherine wants to take over Elena’s body. She wants to be human again. After many centuries of being a blood-thirsty vampire, she just wants to live a real life, have children, grow old, and die. This will be the ultimate twist that the writers have in store: that Katherine is actually much more sensitive about her nature than they let us think. I bet we will be given some heart-breaking speech about how fortunate humans are, about how it’s nice to not be hated, about how great is to feel love again, etc. etc. You know, the usual.

And that’s the reason why Katherine doesn’t harm a single hair from Elena. It’s not in her best interest to injure her future body. However, when this transition happens (and now that Elena is becoming an adult it’d be a good time for Katherine to take over), Elena’s consciousness will die. I expect both of Elena’s parents, or just Isobel, to save the day.

This theory basically makes Elena a “harvested being”. Similar to the ones we see in sci-fi movies, like “The Island”, where clones are created in order for their original people to harvest their organs — should they have a medical emergency. But since “The Vampire Diaries” is more of a fantasy show than sci-fi, then this will work via “magic”.

Another twist the writers can introduce is that Katherine doesn’t want to be a human, but that vampires have a 1000 year expiration date (“nothing is forever”, they can claim). We all know that Katherine is very old, and that is something that’s actually mentioned twice on the show. So she would kill Elena’s consciousness by occupying her body, and then she will try to become a vampire again. That’s why she needs Stefan. After she becomes human again, she needs someone to trust to turn her back to a vampire — as “Katherine” she probably made more enemies than friends.

In fact, Stefan coming back to town when Elena is becoming an adult might not be a coincidence. Maybe he received an anonymous email with the picture/info of Elena: an email sent by Katherine, to hook the two up. So Stefan bit, and went on back to his old town to investigate.

I used to get angry at Apple for not offering a 120 GB iPod Touch, so I still have to use the 120 GB iPod Classic with its clunky wheel (not very easy to navigate through countless of artists with the wheel).

Now, I feel there’s no point waiting for a bigger iPod.

You see, within a single year, my iTunes library increased from 7 GB to 87 GB (all with legal music). No matter the advances in hard drives or flash storage, my iTunes library increases at a much faster rate. There’s just too much good, legal, free music out there. I buy 2-3 albums a week too, and recently I started listening to jazz too (which means a lot more new music being added).

So the way to go around this “problem”, would be RDIO‘s or MOG‘s “sync to mobile” ability. Using this way, I will realistically never need more than 4 GBs of overall storage on my device. Which makes the iPod irrelevant, and my cellphone the only device to have with me at all times.

RDIO/MOG can stream music from their servers directly to your device, via WiFi and/or 3G. Personally, I’m not interested in streaming, apart from quick previews. Streaming via WiFi/3G is just too costly, both in terms of battery life, and data usage. And it’s also annoying when you have to wait for the connection to initiate, down-times, or when out of coverage.

So their “sync to mobile” feature is where it’s at for me. For example, before I leave for vacations, or go out on a day trip, I can go to the RDIO/MOG web site, mark the albums I want to listen, and then sync them to the device. 1-2 GB of data later, the music is downloaded in full, and lives on to the device, and I can play it locally.

Yes, you can “manually sync” your iPod too with iTunes, but the upside of RDIO/MOG is that you can select through terabytes of music rather than just your own iTunes library. Also, if you leave for vacations and you forgot to sync an album/song, you’re screwed until you come back. With RDIO/MOG, you can always stream it, and even sync it at any time, if you acquire an internet connection for a few minutes.

So it’s MOG vs RDIO. I’m leaning towards RDIO just because their Android app is more stable than MOG’s. My only problem with RDIO right now is that they don’t have all the music I want to listen to. A lot of new hip releases arrive weeks later, if at all.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, I’d love to see a GoogleTV app of RDIO too, fully controlled with the RDIO mobile app (with the actual TV being OFF, the way we can listen to music today with our AppleTV/Remote app).