We’re not far away from the date, 2/17/2009, for the switch to digital television (http://www.dtv.gov/); are you prepared? Before I speak about the process that, I believe, will satisfy your search for an HDTV you need to know that your analog CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) television will still be usable. Although you will not be able to receive the digital signal through the television’s analog tuner you will be able to receive it with a set top box specifically designed for that purpose. The federal government has a Converter Box Coupon Program that will allow each household to request two coupons worth $40 each. These coupons are to assist in the purchase of two digital-analog converter boxes between January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 (www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/dtvcoupon.html).

There are two caveats:
1. Prices and manufacturer names are not yet available.
2. Congress’ initial allocation of $990 million for the program will allow every household the opportunity to acquire two $40 coupons, but if the administrator (NTIA) requests the additional $510 million also allocated then the program will be restricted to only those households that receive their signal over-the-air, not by cable or satellite.

Before I purchased my first HDTV, the Sharp LC-46D62U, I pored over available information on the internet until my head hurt. My primary problem was a lack of knowledge of the internal functions of the television and how it produces a clean high resolution picture. Because I follow the principle “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) I trust no single source’s interpretation of the criteria for purchasing consumer goods so I always collect and analyze all the technical information I can find. There were innumerable times when I felt that I had a good grasp of the technology and choices related to the purchase of the television that satisfies my desires, but I found that there is always something new. CNET and AVSForum both have much of the information that you require along with lots of opinions, but I tend to ignore the overall ratings from cnet since their score usually places too much emphasis on cost.

There are many technical processes governing the input and output of an outstanding HDTV. It can drive you barmy if you attempt to understand them all so focus on the following:
1. Establish a top criterion. Mine was a magnificent picture with eye popping colors and sharpness.
2. Decide on the technology that suits you: Plasma, LCD or DLP (rear projection television).
3. Try to understand some of the most important issues affecting picture quality such as color, contrast/dynamic contrast, sharpness, refresh rate, resolution, interlacing, deinterlacing, progressive scan, 3:2 (2:3) pulldown and viewing angles.
4. Hopefully you will be able to establish some trust with one or more particular brands since the brand is an important consideration. The top tier brands will charge more because of marketing etc, but they will also use higher quality components.
5. Check for the particular model that appeals to you technically and financially. It’s best to research the Manufacturer’s internet sites to see the list of models they have available.
6. Decide on the place of purchase. Internet or bricks and mortar, that is the question. I use the internet to compare prices but with a Best Buy or Circuit City you can return defective products with much less hassles
Most persons transitioning from CRT will be looking primarily at LCD’s and Plasmas, therefore I will be focusing on these two technologies.

The general pros and cons of LCD’s and Plasmas are as follows.
• LCDs consume less power. For example the Panasonic TH-42PZ700U uses 580 watts while the Sharp LC-42D62U uses 247 watts. Both are 42 inch 1080p televisions, 720p televisions use less power.
• LCDs weigh less than plasma. The Panasonic is 99.3 lbs, the Sharp is 75 lbs.
• LCDs are brighter.
• LCDs are not as fragile as plasma.
• LCDs are not as vulnerable to burn-in, but some plasma TV’s now include anti-burn-in technology.
• LCDs do not have glass screens therefore they do not reflect light as plasma TV’s do, although some plasma TV’s are now incorporating anti-reflection coatings.
• Plasma TV’s have better black levels with Pioneer bringing out a new line with 80% better black levels than the preceding generation.

The appropriate size (diagonal measurement) and resolution measured in pixels (1920×1080 - 1080p/1080i/720p, 1366×768 - 1080i/720p, 1024×768 - 720p) are considered next. I definitely prefer a larger HDTV but I would go for a 1080p front projector for anything over 65”. The higher the resolution the better the quality of the picture, at least that is the goal. Unfortunately this is not always the case because the chipsets built into the panel will determine how well the television will take an interlaced HD signal, deinterlace it and present it on your screen as a progressive scan image. This process will diminish the progressive resolution if not done properly, therefore the antialiasing capability of the television is very important. The Geek box from cnet is very good for sourcing this type of technical information. There is another issue called response time which is the amount of time the pixels in an LCD take in going from active (black) to inactive (white), then back to active (black). The faster the response time, measured in milliseconds, the less chance there is for ghosting, some LCD’s are now down to 4ms.

Don’t expect HDTV’s to be as good as CRT’s in handling standard definition broadcasts, they are built for higher pixel content, and do not confuse EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV) with HDTV. EDTV (720×480 - 480p) falls between standard definition and high definition.

I believe that LCD’s are best for everyday viewing of television, playing video games, as monitors for computers, and are tougher which means they will last longer around kids. High end plasmas are for the connoisseur. Hooked up to either HD DVD or Blu-Ray in a room dedicated to the theater experience is where I believe top end plasmas will outshine LCD’s. LCD’s are definitely ready for prime time but the newer crop of plasmas from Pioneer (Elite PRO-110 & 150 FD’s) and Panasonic (TH-50 & 58 PZ750U’s) have raised the bar.

A considered purchase of an HDTV will provide you with a much better viewing experience over the long term. Avoid saving a dime and ultimately losing a dollar.

PS. There is a new kid on the block called SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display). This is a new technology developed by Canon that has not yet been released to the consumer. There are plans to release this in the latter part of 2007 but because of legal issues between Canon and Toshiba and logistical issues relating to production for Canon I do not believe we will see consumer availability this year. SED’s have the best colors, the deepest blacks, contrast levels up to 100,000:1, a 1ms response time virtually eliminating ghosting to the naked eye, uses one-third less power than an equivalently sized LCD, and exceptional viewing angles. This technology gives us the best of all worlds which is why I am hoping it goes into production soon.

Look out for it.

Just when I thought that network TV news was heading towards its deathbed, along comes the writers’ strike to save it for another day, or viewing, whichever comes first or has the shorter duration and attention span. TV news can now be more important than ever. At least it is live, meaning the anchor, a reporter now and then, and a guest to interpret the news is a mainstay of most news programs. The writers on these shows are under contracts different from the one involved in the strike. The news networks should not ignore this open opportunity.

TV news is in a position to take advantage of a situation where the audience will no longer have its favorite sitcom, its favorite drama, or its favorite late night show to watch. Repeats have already started. Do we really want to watch Jay Leno and David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and Jimmy Kimmel talking to actors about a movie released six months ago? Do we want to see Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert in repeats, commenting on yesterday’s news? I don’t. Can these personalities perform without a stable of writers, in some cases as many as a dozen, who churn out new material as if they were on an assembly line? Should the networks give each of these comedians 3 minutes to comment on the day’s events, as stand-ups seated behind a desk in a morning news studio? Who would write their material? Can these men, because there is not a woman in sight among them, perform on cue without cue cards?

Opportunity does not knock often, especially in news broadcasting. I recall past strikes at the networks when those in power did nothing original to fill the gap of old or semi-comatose programs. Will the networks make more documentaries? They make almost none now, so one or two in the works would be a vast improvement. Will there be new emphasis on the once fertile but now dying breed of magazine shows? Probably, but they are not difficult shows to produce and once in production, they are very easy to cancel. Without anything ventured, there will never be any gain.

Some of the audience will certainly gravitate further to the Internet. This does not include the young who are already there. Yet there is mounting evidence that the older segment of our population is moving slowly but surely to the Web as the ability to navigate the Internet becomes easier. Web sites will see more traffic because of broadband and it’s now higher quality. The addiction to social networks and the interactivity they foster will surely grow. Increased advertising might flow to those sites and profitability may soon come, but don’t bet the house on it, at least not yet.

Does any of this mean that once the writers’ strike ends, those who fled TV for potentially higher ground will return to the numbing round of simplistic programming found on TV? Not necessarily, or not at all. There is also the question about the quality and accuracy of information on the Web. Rightfully much of it is suspect. That attitude will not change as long as those who supply the information have fewer and fewer qualified people looking over their shoulders.

Some critics who believe the Web is better only pander to that which is new. It is not difficult to become excited by so-called fresh approaches to processing information. Commentators put aside that those now full-time users of the Internet are an audience who, in recent years never watched much TV anyway. For them, the writers’ strike is meaningless. I believe the strike is also meaningless to many just plain folk. Some of these TV viewers will surely desert their favorite networks and channels but not in enough numbers to make a difference. The news divisions at the broadcast networks will not take advantage of this grand opportunity to give audiences anything new. In the end the entertainment programmers will stumble just enough on their way to making less money, but a ton of it anyway. I cannot and will not predict how the writers will fare. I think they will be better off when the strike ends. But I do not think the audience will benefit at all. One day, the couch potato may rise and fight back, but that will not happen any time soon, though the erosion has already started with the slow but steady flight to the Internet.

A person never dies on the Internet. How lucky is that for someone who craves immortality.

Unfortunately, reputation as we have come to honor it counts for nothing in cyberspace.

For some, the price of eternal fame is worth all the millions of mentions and references, accurate or not, he or she gets on the worldwide Web.

However, some people want quiet in their lives. They seek the peace of anonymity. They want privacy. They want to know no one knows their name. In today’s world of “the more you know the better off you are” there are those who want to escape celebrity. Three cheers for them and good luck. Wake up. It may never happen.

Due to the huge financial scandals over the last years, we know that once a person sends or receives e-mail the message lives forever. It is impossible to wipe any note from a hard drive. The United States government and other official entities not American, and the legion of dedicated hackers, have ways of discovering everything a person ever wrote. Now with the new science of computer forensics, where specialists can mine hard drives for even instant messages, hidden spread sheets, and once thought dead word processing documents, it is harder than ever to conceal the past. Unless, of course, the writer destroys his or her hard drive or sinks it in the ocean in a tub of concrete the way gangsters once did to those they cruelly eliminated. E-mail as something immortal is a major problem that no one will probably ever solve. Until someone develops software that wipes out, at his or her discretion, any or all messages, any injudicious musings in digital, we are all victims of the new media.

However, we face an even bigger quandary and this concerns the Internet at large, the world of cyberspace, infinite and timeless. Nothing and I mean nothing ever placed on the worldwide Web dies. Once on the Internet, whatever the listing, the sentence, the thought, the fragment, whatever is there about a person, his or her life, it remains there forever. Right or wrong, true or false, correct or in error, those so-called “facts” become part of one’s history, one’s life, and one’s lore. It becomes you whether you like it or not. Because of the complexity and the inability to kill material from the original provider of the information, a person is stuck in a ring of hell that not even Dante envisioned. And, as we all realize, if the information is wrong, a person’s reputation faces ruin. With that staring him or her in the face, he or she will probably struggle mightily to right the ship of accuracy. Sadly, failure is usually the result. The carrier where the information first appeared does nothing to clean up the problem. After all, said carrier, whether old media or new, has too much to do just keeping up with the new to worry about correcting the old.

However, no one, including reporters, is immune to making mistakes. And in this new world of 2.0, and the influx of so-called citizen journalists, there are more mistakes than ever. That is the human condition. It is the reason we have editors. Sometimes these editors, and even plain, untrained folk, catch errors, offer corrections the next day or later, as they attempt to reverse the mistake. But it is not always the case. Interested parties cannot erase words already online. Remember, those words are in place forever and impossible to eradicate. It is rare that newspapers, online publications, and magazines make corrections with all due speed. Often it never happens. We, as journalists and citizens, have to decide who and what we are willing to save and what person, business or reputation we are willing to sacrifice.

The majority rules in a democracy, so says the common knowledge. Everyone deserves a vote. If true, the minority, even if it is one, must somehow get recompense. Is this a greater good that those in media must serve to help make the world a better place? I am not sure we have the time or power always to do that, but something tells me we will be morally better off as professionals and purveyors of news if we make the effort to clean-up a reputation, and save someone’s skin, rather than to destroy a person for either a self-made mistake or an error made by another. Of course, there are commentators who are against cleansing a reputation. In other words, once written, it is set in stone, never to change. That is just tough luck in a world meaner spirited than kind. But who among us has never transgressed? Who among us has never thought better of a bad move we made minutes, days, years later? If the transgression is redeemable, should that person always suffer for it? I think not. Is this something we can do or should we, as some commentators believe, forget about it, let the sleeping dog lie and thus let the maligned person suffer. As long as there are commentators who in their arrogance are willing to sacrifice a person either because there is not enough time to repair the damage or, worse, no desire to fix a mistake, nothing will change.

Face it, once ingrained on the Web, eternal life — good, bad, indifferent, right or wrong, flabby or strong – makes no difference. Life on the Web, sometimes construed as death or a near death experience, is forever. Powerful institutions and individuals who lack power can do little to change what the Web says you are or are not.

Get used to it.