[john wilkinson]

I need to buy a new TV, but everyone I ask for advice has a contradictory opinion. I watch a lot of old TV, so a minimum screen size of 42" seems essential, so I don't end up with a tiny picture of 20th century TV. I thought a high-end plasma screen would be best, but I've been told that the quality of pre-90s programmes will be so terrible that I'll be unable to watch them. I find it bizarre that spending $3000+ on a TV will result in such poor pucture quality, so I'm hoping that I can get an honest, unbiased opinion from someone out there. Please help.
Thanks, John

[kitch428]

BB had a Samsung 46" for less than 2K today. You'll enjoy all kinds of programing on that whatever you like to watch. Garranteed!

[volswagn]

Unfortunately, the answer is, "it depends."

The problem you run into depends on the SOURCE of the shows you are watching. You say you watch a lot of old TV. Are you watching on analog cable (no cable box)? Are you watching on satellite? Are you watching on Digital cable? Are you watching them off DVD?

The real problem crops up when you're watching old television shows on analog cable because the high definition of any HD set really reveals all the horrible picture elements of the analog signal. If you're watching shows on digital cable, it can be just as bad because some channels, like many indie channels or "family" channels or other channels from 18-100 or whatever are just delivered in analog to the cable company, and then they just digitize that analog signal for delivery to your digital cable box. Still looks really bad. So it depends on what channel you're watching with digital cable. Usually the more prestigious networks and related channels are delivered in full digital.

Satellite is a little better because it's usually 100% digital straight through. They get a digital signal from their point of origin and then pass it on to you. However, some of these fringe channels that broadcast a lot of old shows are digitally compressed to hell on satellite, so you will see lots of pixellation, particularly with an HD set. If you're watching on DVD, that's a bit better than watching digital from satellite, particularly if the old shows have been remastered for DVD. The bitrate can usually be much higher on DVDs than it is on satellite, depending on how many episodes of a show they're cramming on one DVD.

So it depends on your source. If it's Satellite or DVD, you might be just as happy as you were with a regular set, and when you get a whiff of HD, believe me, you will go out SEEKING HD programming. I find it hard to watch anything in standard def anymore, not because it looks terrible, but because HD is just so darned beautiful.

But if you're not at all interested in HD yet, you might be better off just buying a nice, large SD set for the next couple of years. They're pretty cheap now. And by 2009, everything will hopefully be digital from the source to your home, so the cable/sat question won't be much of an issue anymore. Plus, plasma will have come down in price even more.

But there is one other thing you need to worry about with a plasma television that you wouldn't have to worry about with a large LCD set (don't know if this affects DLP) -- BURN IN.

If you're watching a lot of old 4:3 ratio shows 75% of the time, you will be watching your plasma screen with black bars on the left and right 75% of the time. This is not recommended, particularly with plasma screens. They are very susceptible to burn in. No part of the screen should be left at a static color or shade (or black?) for a large % of viewing time.

For this reason, you might want to consider an LCD screen instead of plasma. They are a little more expensive the larger you get, but they are dropping in price as well. The main drawback of LCD is the lack of proper blacks, but many companies are getting around this adequately (Samsung was one of the first to do this) by adding a special screen on top of the LCD that helps with black levels.

Hope this helps.