Getting Your New HDTV Super Bowl Ready

From time to time I get emails from various companies, some of which ask me to help me promote a website or something because I do a TV blog. I have a whole thing about what I will and won't promote in this blog but this isn't the place to go into this. Recently I got a message from Retrevo.com, which describes itself as "a product review search engine focused solely on electronics." They also have a blog and recently did a post called Seven Super Bowl HDTV Mistakes You Can Avoid and because of my recent rant about the 3-D glasses for the Super Bowl commercials and Chuck, they alerted me to the post.

It is an interesting fact that the biggest buying time for new HDTVs is in the run-up to the Super Bowl, and that's not just true in the United States but in Canada as well. By now I think we all know, or know where to find, information on the technical aspects of TVs and hopefully know what qualities we want/need in a new TV, but this post has more to do with setting up and accessorizing your purchase once you get it home to maximize the enjoyment for the big game. There are a few things I think they missed but on the whole it's a good article. What I want to do is to relate some personal anecdotes and comments to what the writer of the post, Andrew Eisner, has chosen to discuss.

1. Offsides: Andrew Eisner writes: Viewing angle is an important consideration. When the gang comes over for the Super Bowl party you want everyone to get the best picture even from the sidelines. Rear projection TVs can offer some great values for the screen sizes but you're going to sacrifice viewing angle. LCD TVs used to get a bad rap for viewing angle but that along with Plasma burn-in problems is a thing of the past (along with these other HDTV myths). Both Plasma and newer LCD TVs offer wide viewing angles that should meet most demands.

My comment: Many, many, many, years ago I took a university class on educational media; producing things like posters, a slide show, and overhead projector materials for particular elements of a curriculum, and using audio-video equipment in an educational context. Our prof spent a fair amount of time discussing screens for movies and other media. He offered a rule of thumb that I have always applied in picking seats in a movie theatre: the best place to sit between two to six screen heights away from the screen and as close to the center of the width of the screen as possible. Various types of screens had varying reflectivity (brightness) but in many cases that had an impact on the maximum angle from perpendicular that the viewer could sit without there being a problem viewing the screen. While viewing angle on TV screens is not as important on modern TVs there is still a maximum angle on any type of TV – CRT, Plasma, LCD, Projection, and Rear Projection – where the image is not seen at its best. (One reason why I don't have an LCD monitor is because the whites on the LCD monitor of my brother's computer looked muddy unless you were looking practically perpendicular to the screen.

Oh, and my prof? He hated rear projection even for movie screens. Viewing angles for them was depressingly bad and they were very light sensitive.

2. Illegal Motion: Eisner: Fast action can be challenging for flat panel TVs. On LCD TVs, "shutters" have to open and close, on Rear Projection DLP-based TVs tiny mirrors have to move back and forth, and on Plasma TVs phosphor needs to be turned on and off. If TVs can't react fast enough the result is a blurred image. Features to look for include fast pixel response time (6ms. or less), 120Hz refresh, and other special motion compensation features like Motionflow from Sony. Plasma TVs have traditionally had the edge when it came to handling fast moving images but the new generation of LCD TVs are gaining fast.

My comment: I'm not sure that I've seen this on my Plasma TV, but I've seen something similar mainly when something fast moves laterally across the screen. In my case it was a bit of pixilation and I'm not sure whether the fault was with the TV or with the signal received from the cable company (in forum pages I've seen a number of complaints about picture quality from my cable company). Fortunately it doesn't happen that often, but it is something that you need to think about before you buy your TV because once you have it this is something the owner can't change.

3. Pass Interference: Eisner: HDTV often requires a higher grade cable than you might have installed in your house or apartment. If your old cable is labeled RG-59 and your picture often breaks up into little blocks or you don't get some channels at all, you may need to upgrade the cable to RG-6 which provides better shielding and can help with the higher frequency channels.

My comment: This is one where I have had more than a little experience. My home got cable back in the late 1970s; in fact Shaw Cable wasn't even the provider, it was a local company called Saskatoon Telecable. After the digital cable specialty channels became available in Canada in 2001 I bought my digital box. Initially my channels were fine but over time, in the summer, reception for a lot of channels deteriorated to the point where they'd break up or just not be there. The thing was that it was only happening in the summer so it wasn't that big a worry. Eventually (after several summers without BBC Canada et al) I called Shaw because things had become so bad. They did not replace the older cable in the house. Instead the service rep installed a trop amplifier at the point where the cable entered the house. This strengthened the signal coming to the two TVs in the house. Remember too that installing splitters to service more than one device weakens the signal to each of them.

4. Unnecessary Roughness: Eisner: It shouldn't be that complicated to run all your home entertainment gear. A good investment to make your home theater easier to use is a good universal remote. Logitech's Harmony remotes are the most popular. They aren't cheap but are super easy to program and very friendly to use. If you got $200 to spend on a remote go with the Harmony One. Otherwise you can buy the Harmony 880 for around $120 or you can get the Harmony 550 which will cost you around $70.

My comment: Eisner recommends the Harmony remotes by Logitech, and they are extremely good devices that are easy to program and intuitive to use. They can be set up so that a single button will allow you to activate every device needed to do what you want to do. Want to watch a DVD? Push a button that coincides with the task "Watch DVD" and it will turn on the DVD player, TV and home theatre gear all at once. That said you don't absolutely need something that high tech. The remote that came with my digital cable box allows me to turn on the TV and the cable box or the TV on its own. And of course there are other manufacturers who make remotes that can control multiple devices. The big differences between what they offer and what Harmony offers are the ease of programming the Harmony and the one touch activation. If only they weren't so darned expensive.

5. Delay of Game: Eisner: It can become a real drag to have to unplug the DVD player before you can play high def Madden NFL 09 on the XB360 or PS3. If your set doesn't have enough input ports you may end up having to unplug and plug in cables in order to get the game console or DVD player to work. Most new HDTV gear including DVD players, and set top boxes come with HDMI ports. Component ports offer as good a picture for most applications. Look for at least 3 HDMI ports, a component port for starters. A composite port and s-video are usually a given....If your set is HDMI port deficient you can always pick up an HDMI switch box with a remote control for switching ports.

My comment: I'm not a big platform gamer so this isn't a huge thing for me. What I do know however is that the more inputs you have the better. My brother's old TV had two inputs, and switching between switching between inputs involved crawling behind the TV and physically connecting and disconnecting wires. It was a real pain.

By the way, when discussing HDMI cables try not to be tempted by the high price name brand cables if you don't have special needs. You can get usually generic HDMI cables from places like local computer stores – I got mine from a store called OTV Computers for a couple of bucks over $10 for a 6' long cable. By comparison Future Shop here in Canada sells a 4' Rockfish cable for $54.99 – in other words about four times as much as I paid. Even a "cheap" 6' Dynex cable at Future Shop is $30. Don't be locked in to buying from big box stores.

6. Roughing the kicker: Eisner: It's a well known fact that good audio can make the picture look better. Most high definition broadcasts include 5.1 channel surround sound. Don't splurge on a TV and scrimp on the sound system. For a few hundred dollars more you can get a very good quality speaker set including a subwoofer that will help you experience the roar of the crowd or enjoy the half time extravaganza. Home Theater Systems can include a DVD player and receiver for under $500.

My comment: This is one area where I really feel like my TV is deficient. Even though the TV room is small and could easily be overwhelmed by a home theatre system I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's something I need to explore. The thing that I've noticed initially was a tinny quality in the sound from the big screen TV that I don't really find in my older CRT. It seems as though the modern flat screen TVs were made to be used in conjunction with a home theatre system.

7. Too Many Men on the Field: Eisner: Don't forget, all you male sports fans out there, that women want to watch HDTV too. Selecting a set with the best features and image quality is important but the Wife Acceptance Factor or WAF (a term coined by LCD TV expert, Bruce Berkoff who also just published a guide to HDTV) can be raised with a good looking set like the Samsung LNA650T or quality installation. Flat panels mounted on the wall can be less disruptive to the living room design while large Rear Projection TVs and Front projection TVs might be better off in the playroom.

My comment: This isn't exactly the point that I would have given as my final point. I would probably have mentioned the need to get the picture properly adjusted in terms of colour, tint, brightness and contrast ahead of the "Wife Acceptance Factor." Buy, borrow, or rent a copy of Digital Video Essentials to help get the set calibrated just so. It's not as hard as it used to be. Most TVs come with a home mode and a store mode, the store mode being brighter and more contrasty than the home mode. On my TV the home mode was perfectly adjusted as it came out of the box but yours might need some work. You don't want to see the Cards go up against the Steelers on a blue field after all.

Of course appearance does count for a lot and if that has to be relegated to "Wife Acceptance Factor" so be it. Your own tastes may vary as will the requirements for your TV, although I agree totally that the front and rear projections TVs should very likely be exiled to purpose built home theatre room. The size of the room should be a consideration in your TV purchase. Though most men won't acknowledge the fact it is possible for a TV to be too big (heresy I know but it's a fact). And while that wall mount might be less disruptive to the room, it may not be the best way to go if you want the TV up and running by tomorrow. You might even have to paint the room; studies have shown that the colour of the walls surrounding your TV can have an effect on how you perceive the colour and the brightness of the image on the screen.

And have you ever noticed that those TVs in the commercials that are mounted on the wall but seem to have absolutely no cords or cables attached to them? It's not going to look like that unless you're really willing to do some major construction. Otherwise your TV is going to have a cord to the electrical outlet, and a cable from the source of your signal, whether it's a cable or satellite box, the cable outlet or an antenna (indoors or outdoors), other cables to the DVD player and the game console, and of course cables everywhere to connect up the home theatre system. That's a lot of wire, and don't think I really need to mention that these cables aren't that attractive against a shining white wall.

Having an HDTV is a great way to watch the big game but it's not always as simple as it used to be, when you could just buy a new TV set it up and turn it on. It can be, if you live in a place that has broadcast HDTV signals available and you play your games on a computer and not with a console and you don't care about the sound, so you only need the remote that came out of the box. For the rest of us though it can get complicated. But fun; always fun.

A Non-Political Political Post

There are two debates on Canadian TV tonight. One is the U.S. Vice-Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The other is the Canadian Leaders debate between Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe (but not Green Party leader Elizabeth May even though her party has as many candidates as the three national parties and more than Duceppe's Bloc Quebecois). I know which debate will be the better debate in terms of cut and thrust and intellectual discussion and I know which I'm going to watch. They aren't the same.

I'll be watching Biden and Palin. I know it probably comes as a shock but there are reasons. I know who I'm going to vote for in the Canadian election. It's mostly a case of holding my nose and voting for the candidate who isn't a Conservative (Harper's party) that is most likely to have a shot at beating the local Conservative candidate, although I am fairly sure that the Conservative in my constituency will win. My vote will be cancelled out by the vast sea of rural voters who move in lock-step for the Tory candidate. On the other hand I don't have a dog in the American political hunt – though as I've said, I like most Canadians would probably vote for the Democrats because they come closest to advocating policies that most Canadians hold dear (although in some ways they're a bit too far to the right). The thing is though that while the nature of the Canadian system means that Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe are undoubtedly more skilled as debaters, the American Vice Presidential candidates are likely to offer greater entertainment value.

Part of this is simple. Harper et.al. are experienced at the art of debate. Every day in the House of Commons the Prime Minister faces questions from his political adversaries on any number of subjects. And then all of the leaders face a press "scrum" which in its own way is just as difficult because the press in Canada regards itself as an unelected opposition party woe be unto any Canadian politician who tries to replace the daily scrum with press conferences – it's been tried before with unhappy consequences...for the politician. An American politician wouldn't know what to do if faced with the combination of Question Period and the media scrum. If this process does nothing else it means that Canadian politicians are used to a more lively and open debating style during the televised leaders debates, in which they confront and question each other with little restraint on the part of the moderator. That's not something you're likely to see from the Vice Presidential debate.

What you are likely to see is some fascinating political theatre. There are some fascinating questions to be answered formed largely because of Palin's performance in her interviews with Katie Couric. Is she really as uninformed as she comes across in those interviews or, to use an example from the final season of The West Wing (which is increasingly relevant in this election season, as if the writers had a time machine and used it to create the script by referencing the future) was it all a ruse to create a depressed expectation from the public so that when she actually does face Biden she exceeds them.

As for Biden, how does he approach Palin? Does his knowledge and experience come across as a negative when debating the self described "Joe Six-Pack candidate?" (Palin to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt: "It's time that normal Joe Six Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice-presidency.") Biden can't be arrogant or condescending to her for fear of being seen as bullying her. That's most assuredly a negative and a trap that male politicians reportedly face all too often when debating women candidates. And yet do "ordinary Americans" really see Palin as "Jo Six Pack" and better yet do they prefer that to someone with decades of experience in the fields that a Vice President, or more crucially a President, would face. Palin gives a good speech (written by others) but based on her performance in the Couric interviews and other extemporaneous public statements she seems to underperform, meaning that there might be circumstances where Biden, unleashing his considerable knowledge (and perhaps his own history of making embarrassing gaffes) could turn the audience against him.

And the audience is key. Earlier this week, when I was discussing the season and series debuts for this week I wrote about the Vice Presidential Debate, "All of the networks – well except The CW have that new reality show The Vice Presidential Debate. I hear it might be cancelled after the first episode though." I was being humourous – or at least trying to be – but at least one commenter (Andrew) thought perhaps that I was being ignorant. In truth though, the debates in the United States do mimic aspects of reality shows like American Idol, Dancing With The Stars or America's Got Talent. Victory in the debates is measured not by objective standards of who scored the most points either in accuracy or in flashes of rhetorical ability. Instead of ability is a question of who comes across as most popular as measured by tracking polls released within an hour or two of the event, and following the minute by minute variation in opinion from focus groups armed with little dials to tell us who is popular at a particular moment in time. In that, it's not unlike the way that TV shows are "fine tuned" by networks. In this way it is reduced to a reality show where popularity rather than ability is rewarded. There's a line in The West Wing episode "Mr. Willis of Ohio" in which Toby says that what he has gotten the representative from Ohio to agree to – sampling as a process to determine the population in the census could lead to dangers like polling rather than elections, to which Mr. Willis replies "It's okay by me. As long as it's not the same people who decide what's on television." We haven't reached that stage yet. Where we are however is that the techniques that are used to decide what's on television, not to mention who wins the big prize on reality TV shows, are being used to determine who wins political debates and in so far as those determinations by the media sway the political polls, the ones that tell us who is ahead and behind nation-wide and by state, then we are at least partially turning elections into reality – or perceptions or reality – shows. Whatever the case truly is, the Vice Presidential debate tonight promises to be good theatre.

A Tale Of Three Series

This isn't exactly how I planned to return to Blogging after an unplanned hiatus for most of the summer. I was working on a post that at least partially dealt with my "discovery" of a fifty year old TV series and how it underlines something that's missing in modern TV. But real world events have overtaken my own aims and the result is just too good not to blog about. (Before I start on this one I should mention that as a Canadian I don't have a dog in this fight, although like all but the most right wing Canadians my sympathies lean toward the Democratic party, primarily because the policies advocated by the Democrats are closer to the policies that Canadians hold dear, like Medicare.)

John McCain's decision to select Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee completed the real world electoral picture for the 2008 season. It is an electoral picture that has similarities to three different TV series of the last few years. The three series are 24, Commander In Chief, and The West Wing.

Let's start off with Barack Obama and 24. This is a pretty obvious one. The first season of the series featured Dennis Haysbert as David Palmer, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, and the first African-American to be nominated for the post. There has been some suggestion, at least partially from Dennis Haysbert, that the character of David Palmer might have had some sort of impact one making Obama's candidacy "acceptable" to the American public. According to a TVSquad article, which quotes an AP wire service report, Haysbert said, "My portrayal of David Palmer may have helped open the eyes of the American people. I mean the American people across the board – from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base – to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first." Yeah, I know, it sounds like a reach to me – and to a lot of the people who commented on the story at the time – too. Still, setting aside any possible influence that Haysbert's portrayal of David Palmer may have had on the sensibilities of the American public, there is no doubt that 24 at least suggested the potential of a qualified and charismatic African-American candidate winning the nomination for a major political party by, not to mention winning the presidency. (And before anyone mentions Jesse Jackson, while he was certainly a viable candidate for the nomination in 1984 and 1988, it is questionable how viable he would have been considered in the general election or how broadly based his support was.) In fact there are aspects of the David Palmer character, particularly his reliance on his younger brother Wayne as a political advisor (revealed in later seasons) that would really make the character seem closer to the real world Kennedys than any current politician.

The nomination of the little known Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate brings another show into the mix. Commander In Chief brought Geena Davis back to TV starring as Mackenzie Allen, a former member of the House of Representatives who is a Republican who was so at odds with her party that she ran as an Independent. After two terms in Congress she left to become Chancellor of the University of Richmond. She's a specialist in Middle East Affairs as well as a lawyer. From there she is selected by the Republican nominee for President to be his running mate, even though her principal attributes for the job are the fact that she can bring women's votes to his campaign and can balance the ticket because of her moderate, even independent stance on the issues. Of course everything changes after she's elected when President Teddy Bridges dies of a stroke. She is the Vice President that no one wants to see elevated to the big job and suddenly there she is. To compare, Sarah Palin is the one term governor of Alaska, who before becoming Governor was the mayor of Wassilla, a city of 9,000 people. She ran for Governor on a platform of cleaning up government in spite of the fact that the state had previously been governed by a Republican administration.

Of course the big comparison is to The West Wing. It has been stated by series writer and producer Eli Attie that the character of Matt Santos was directly based on the then new Senator from Illinois Barack Obama. There is also a suggestion that based on their perceived maverick stance within the Republican Party that Arnold Vinnick was at least partially based upon John McCain. The latter assertion is far more tenuous than the link between Obama and Santos, to the degree that I don't think that it has ever truly been articulated by anyone associated with the series, and there are a lot of people (mostly those holding a liberal perspective it must be mentioned) writing since McCain's involvement in the current Republican nomination process who have state that McCain is no Vinnick. It doesn't really matter that much of course; it is sufficient to note that both Vinnick and McCain have been perceived as outsiders within their own political party.

The Santos campaign nominated former Labor Secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leo McGarry as Vice President. Viewers may have thought that this was a case of Josh Lyman pushing his former boss (and long time family friend who Josh had come to see as a substitute father as well as a mentor) into one final bit of public service – he had after all suggested Leo as a possible replacement for John Hoynes during the second Bartlett campaign. However it is made clear that Leo's primary role in the Santos campaign and a coming Santos administration has a lot to do with McGarry's knowledge of the working of power and his strengths in foreign affairs and other areas where even a three term Congressman would be deficient. On the Republican side, Arnold Vinnick chose the two term Governor of West Virginia, Ray Sullivan to be his running mate. Sullivan is chosen by Vinnick largely to balance the ticket ideologically with Sullivan appealing to the conservative, religious, pro-life base of the Republican Party, a constituency that Vinnick's moderate Republicanism had alienated.

So where does that put us with regard to the current real-life political campaign? Well the selection of Joe Biden to be Barack Obama's running mate is fairly obvious. As was the case with Leo McGarry and Matt Santos, Biden brings a wealth of experience, particularly in the area of foreign relations, to compliment Obama's inexperience in those areas. Similarly, Sarah Palin's great strength is with the Republican base – she's an evangelical, life time member of the NRA, who espouses an extremely strong pro-life position and strong family values. Even if McCain's weakness with the Republican base is overestimated – which I suspect it probably is – Sarah Palin probably helps in this area.

Of course the real world complexities of selecting a running mate go far beyond what a TV series like The West Wing is able to portray. Joe Biden not only helps the Obama campaign with his perceived lack of experience, he also strengthens the ticket in Pennsylvania and some of the other battlegrounds states and is seen as helping with the perception that Obama is something of an elitist, a perception that can hurt the party's support with blue collar voters. As for Palin, she doesn't add any states to the Republican side of the tally – both Alaska where she was Governor and Idaho, where she was born, are solidly Republican – but supposedly she is meant to attract disaffected women who supported Hillary Clinton, and has strength with blue collar workers because her husband is a commercial fisherman and a member of the United Steelworkers. (For the record, I think this is a crock; Palin is about as likely to attract disaffected Hillary voters with her pro-life, anti-sex education needed, pro-gun rhetoric as a big plate of moose burgers is likely to attract a pack of roving vegans. Personally I think the selection is a disaster for the Republicans which is fine with me. But that's me being political, and after all this isn't my fight.)

Oh, there's one other political-television link which I actually hesitate to mention, but I'm not the first to note this and I probably won't be the last. Take a look at this

Sarah Palin and Tina Fey – separated at birth?