Anyone got a Plasma yet?

sports might not look a whole lot different on a 480 line system vs a 1080 line system because most sports programming goes with 720p as the format so the spacial resolution is only 1280x720 but the frame rate is 60 frames per second.

 

It's a tough decision. The lady at the store said that if I'm more than 8' from the display, I would very very likely not notice any difference between the 2 even at 1080 - this being a 42" unit. She sells both.

She also made the point that in 3-4 years, when MOST programming is HDTV, the HD version will likely be the same price as the ED is today - so buy it then, and I'll have an extra plasma, which is one way to look at it.

BUt the more than 8' away is definite - I'm just over 10' away. She said I'm better of EDTV (on this particular unit). Which is a very consistent answer that I've been hearing.

 

oh. so edtv's just have a built-in line doubler.

i've been following the hdtv debate for ages. i remember hearing about a test of various tv signals and the one that people gravitated towards was standard def. now, maybe that's because it was most familiar or something, but i thought it was kinda telling. i'm still puzzled by the fcc mandating hdtv. i'd rather the gov't mandate something like alternate fuel sources before something so meaningless as tv signals. particularly since broadcast signals are so few these days. i mean, really, is anybody getting hdtv from a pair of rabit ears?

 

The government owns all broadcast frequecies - radio, cell, sattelite, tv, etc. You name it they own it.

 

my understanding is that hdtv is better through an antenna than cable.

 

cable?

but my point is really that while they can certainly mandate it if they wish, i just don't understand what the need is. television is essentially entertainment. i find it peculiar that they'd mandate how the american people are to be entertained by televisions.

how much is being spent on conversion to a new standard? i'll be it's well into the billions.

again, contrast this with other conversions -- such as from fossil fuels to alternative fuels. where's the forward thinking leadership in this arena? the president pledges $1 billion a few years ago. and then what?

 

i think you're right. the gov't has more control over the airwaves than it does over cable. also, cable companies learned long ago that with limited bandwidth, they did better by splitting it up into lots of crappier channels than a few really nice ones. the american tv viewing public prefers quantity over quality.

 

Ive heard the same. Got to have a decent antenna though. Rabbit ears wont do it.

 

Too bad HBO an ESPN need cable....

 

How do you think all those shows get to the local cable providers? Sattelite. Government owns it.

I know your point - and I am pointing out why it is flawed. The government owns the airwaves and actually makes a profit on them because they lease them out. They do not and will not own the replacements to fossil fuels. Did the government develop the airplane? The assembly line? The cotton gin? Hell, there were lots of private (toll) intercity roads until the 20th century.

You could possibly pursue the same model used to build the transocontental railroad - but then again the gentlemen that took all the actual risk with their actual money certainly aren't looked own with the greatest of respect today.