Buying a flat screen plasma t.v.

[pittypat]

We are finally going to break down and buy a flat screen plasma tv. The one we liked was 48" (?). Here's our dilemma-we do not have HD cable. The guy at the store said that we HAD to get that type of cable or the picture coming over the regular cable would be distorted. Is that really the case with a large flat screen tv? I don't really want to pay the extra money each month for the HD cable access, but is there really any point in getting this new tv if we aren't going HD?

 

[cardaway]

I don't really want to pay the extra money each month for the HD cable access, but is there really any point in getting this new tv if we aren't going HD?

IMO it doesn't make sense to get the new TV until you are going to use it to view HD content. Just wait until your ready and the price will no doubt be cheaper and the technology better than it is now.

 

[mill4023]

Agreed.
I'm not sure why you would spend thousands of dollars on a new tv and not spend the $10/month or less that it costs to get the HD channels.

With that said, we have a 50" LCD RP Sony and while the regular channels don't look great, they are certainly watchable. But I definitely prefer watching the HD channels when we have a choice. DVD's will look much better on an HDTV also.

I wouldn't call it "distorted", but because the standard signal is much lower definition, it will look fuzzier and any imperfections will be amplified by the larger size of the new tv.

 

[katerkat]

We don't officially get HD channels and our TV shows the regular channels just fine. HD is a TON better, and DVDs, but the regular TV is fine too. I need an HD Tivo before I'll splurge on HD channels.

 

[GoofyJeff]

You can get over-the-air HD signals for free. Check your local broadcast stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, WB) to see if they broadcast HD in your area, pick a tv that has a built-in tuner, and pick up an antenna.

There's lots of good info at hdtvoice.com

 

[rgf207]

We are finally going to break down and buy a flat screen plasma tv. The one we liked was 48" (?). Here's our dilemma-we do not have HD cable. The guy at the store said that we HAD to get that type of cable or the picture coming over the regular cable would be distorted. Is that really the case with a large flat screen tv? I don't really want to pay the extra money each month for the HD cable access, but is there really any point in getting this new tv if we aren't going HD?

The guy at the store was wrong. We have a 50' LCD TV and the picture is not distorted. Plus, not every channel is in HD. Only about 10 are available in HD (at least in my area) so it would not matter. We do have HD but again we only get a handful of channels that are broadcast in HD. Plasma TV's are great but remember that since it is just a piece of glass for the screen, you will get glare. LCD's cost more but no glare. That was a big factor.

 

[cardaway]

Some HDTV's do have issues with displaying SD content which can make it actually look worse than a standard TV of similar size.

 

[diznygirl]

We are finally going to break down and buy a flat screen plasma tv. The one we liked was 48" (?). Here's our dilemma-we do not have HD cable. The guy at the store said that we HAD to get that type of cable or the picture coming over the regular cable would be distorted. Is that really the case with a large flat screen tv? I don't really want to pay the extra money each month for the HD cable access, but is there really any point in getting this new tv if we aren't going HD?

Will you be using the HD at any point in time? Because you should - the picture is great!

But you can live without it for the time being. We did. We got and Out Of Box Special at our Circuit City, but DH was holding out for the new DirecTV dish for HD - and some other technical mumbo-jumbo that all I understood was "we have to wait!"

 

[bicker]

"Distorted" is the wrong word. It's simply expanded. Surely, that is a problem, because you've been used to seeing the non-HD channels on a smaller screen, with less detail -- now you'll see all the imperfections blown-up in size. You get used to it -- but don't be surprised if you start out feeling like you've taken a step back in quality by getting an HDTV.

Truly, though, without having HD source material (HD channels), I wouldn't bother buying an HDTV now, unless you simply had to buy a new television anyway. Every year, everything will be better and cheaper than the last, so don't buy it until you're going to start "using" it, eh? If you actually could pay just $10 or even $15 extra a month and get the HD channels, then definitely do it. That's a small price for the improvement you'll see.

DVDs, though, could be an incentive, albeit a small one. Many DVDs these days are widescreen. While DVDs are generally NOT HD, they are 480p (instead of 480i, which is what "non-HD" channels on television are), so they benefit from being displayed on an HDTV two ways: (1) the HDTV is the right shape for the DVD, and (2) you do appreciate some of the added detail that you get from 480p over 480i.

 

[pittypat]

Thanks, everyone, for the advice so far. DH and I are not big tv watchers, but DS16 is big into college sports and since "we are the only family in the world without a plasma tv", we thought we'd consider it. In our area there are only certain HD channels that the cable company carries (about 10-15 I think). Thank you, GoofyJeff for the link.

 

[bicker]

Why plasma, then? Plasma is often the most expensive technology of the HDTV options. If you don't need plasma, specifically, you should look at the more affordable, and often better quality options.

 

[diznygirl]

Thanks, everyone, for the advice so far. DH and I are not big tv watchers, but DS16 is big into college sports and since "we are the only family in the world without a plasma tv", we thought we'd consider it. In our area there are only certain HD channels that the cable company carries (about 10-15 I think). Thank you, GoofyJeff for the link.

If it's for the sports then pay the extra $10 a month for the HD channels. Your son will be glad you did!!!

 

[pittypat]

Bicker-I am wide open to suggestion. What do you recommend?

 

[DawnCt1]

Our tv died in December as I knew it would. After looking and viewing all of the options available, we decided on plasma. We liked the clarity and the fact that you could sit off center and still get a great picture; something that isn't as good with LCD. The goal then was to decide on which plasma. Hand down, Pioneer had the best tv. While plasma is generally not recommended in bright rooms, the glare reduction screen works beautifully, and we have no glare at all, even on bright days. The TV we selected was one model number off from the Pioneer at Best Buy. Its the same TV, just not the exact model number. I searched for an authorized Pioneer dealer on the net and settled on one, based on the extended warrantee and the cost. We got a great price in December. Our neighbors saw our tv and felt that it was the best one they had seen. They got theirs in March, same dealer, less money. The price comes down all of the time. We love our plasma.

 

[disney1990]

IMO it doesn't make sense to get the new TV until you are going to use it to view HD content. Just wait until your ready and the price will no doubt be cheaper and the technology better than it is now.

Just don't wait too long - analog television will cease to exist in February 2009.

Millions may miss digital TV deadline
The shift from analog to the new format in 2009 might leave many viewers in the dark.
By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writer
March 28, 2007

"WASHINGTON — For millions of Americans, the digital revolution might not be televised.

One in 5 U.S. households — more than a million in the Los Angeles area — depends on rabbit ears or a rooftop antenna to watch TV. Without converter boxes, most of their sets will go blank the day in 2009 that federal law requires broadcast stations to turn off analog signals and transmit only in digital.

The shift is being hailed as broadcast television's most dramatic upgrade since it bloomed to color from black and white half a century ago. The technology gives free TV viewers vastly sharper pictures and enables networks such as ABC and PBS to offer a wider range of channels.

The 80% of Americans with cable or satellite service won't be affected by the change. Neither will those who have newer, digital TV sets. If you do have an old analog TV hooked up to an antenna, you need only buy a converter box, which will probably cost about $50. The federal government is going to hand out subsidies to help pay for it, and you have two years to get ready.

Civil rights leaders and lawmakers are uneasy anyway.

A recent poll found that 61% of people who rely on broadcast TV aren't aware of the digital shift. What's more, households without cable or satellite service tend to have lower incomes, and blacks and Latinos are more likely to receive only over-the-air TV than whites.

The worry isn't that people will miss vital episodes of "American Idol." It's all about staying connected. Even today, with news a 24/7 affair on the Internet and pay TV, nearly two-thirds of viewers say broadcast news is the main way they find out what's going on in the world.

"When I walk into people's houses, they're tuned in to the news," said Alex Nogales, president of the Los Angeles-based National Hispanic Media Coalition. He is testifying on the digital-TV transition before a House subcommittee today. "Am I concerned that our community is going to be left out? Of course."

Federal law requires broadcast stations to turn off analog signals and transmit only in digital on Feb. 18, 2009.

 

[Anewman]

Buy a TV with a built in HD tuner, you should be able to at least get your local networks in HD with an antenna.

 

[bicker]

Bicker-I am wide open to suggestion. What do you recommend?

I'd buy plasma or LCD flat-screen only if it was essential to have one of those technologies to "match my decor". Other than that, you're paying a hefty premium for the fact that the television is super-light and/or super thin (so able to be hung on the wall). You get the same or better picture quality, at much larger screen sizes, with projection technology.

Now this is NOT the old projection technology you may be thinking of, either the big unit from classrooms or boardrooms with three huge guns beaming red, green and blue onto a white screen halfway across the room. This is what my set looks like:

As you can see, it is still relatively thin, only 16" from screen surface to the back. And the picture really does look that good, especially for programs like Planet Earth, now playing on Discovery HD Theater (a cable channel). And even the small sets, like the 50" I have, are still more affordable than plasma or LCD flat-screen sets of similar size and quality. My DLP set is running $1500 now (down from $2500 when I bought it less than a year ago).

Now, I'm not sure I'd buy DLP now. Since I bought it, a new projection technology has come out which has a lower cost-of-maintenance: LCD projection. Instead of the standard projection bulb in the back of my set, they've replaced that with an LCD projection bulb, so it may never need to be replaced. (My bulb will need to be replaced every two or three years. If you do go for DLP, since it is more affordable even than LCD projection, don't worry much about the bulb. It's a do-it-yourself job, doesn't break the warranty whatsoever, and the bulbs only cost $180. Just factor $180 every two or three years into your financial calculations.)

So my main point, though, is don't buy-into the flat-screen stuff (plasma OR LCD) unless you really "need" the flat-screen aspect of it, i.e., hanging it on the wall, or trying to match some futuro design scheme for your decor.

 

[bicker]

Just don't wait too long - analog television will cease to exist in February 2009.

Yes and no. The law you're referring to, and described in that article, only affects over-the-air broadcast, i.e., if you're using an antenna. It does not affect cable or satellite. Cable and satellite can go right-along broadcasting analog for as long as they want.

However.

There are a lot of reasons cable and satellite companies might want to switch to digital: They can get a lot more channels, each with better quality, down their pipes, if they were all digital.

However.

Cable companies have made tacit intentions known, planning to providing analog service well past the February 2009 deadline, to support all the analog televisions, VCRs, DVRs, DVD burners, etc., people still have in their homes. I have three analog televisions, three analog DVRs, and an analog VCR, in addition to my digital HDTV. So 88% of my television equipment would fail if the cable company stopped supporting analog.

Also, at least one of the satellite companies makes you buy the tuner. So here they are with customers they just sold a tuner to, turning around and saying that they won't provide programming that that tuner can handle anymore? That would be "bad", eh?

However.

Cable companies, at least, are pulling back from earlier intentions. Comcast, in Chicago, is playing with the idea of switching to all digital NOW, rather than waiting until 2009. They'll offer cheap digital tuners for extra sets, at a moderate fee, but they recognize that they have more to gain by incurring the pain of disappointing analog customers than by keeping a whole bunch of bandwidth clogged with analog signals for a long period of time.