I Can See Clearly Now

Christmas is done, but Hanukkah lingers on (as is its historical point). The late arrival of Hanukkah is a result of the quirky Hebrew calendar that adds a month. Its first day hasn't coincided with Christmas since 1959. This fact evokes a series of childhood memories. For one, my parents, in the spirit of assimilation, always presented their Hanukkah gifts to my brother and me on Christmas morning. We had no tree--there were no Chritsmas trees in a six block radius of our upscale Jewish ghetto in Rego Park--but the gift boxes would be piled up on a throwaway couch in the foyer. 1959 would have been particularly special for that reason, as we could celebrate congruently with all the Christians we saw on TV.

1959 was also the year that my father brought into our home an RCA color TV, at the time a sensational novelty. If we were not the first family on our block to own one, we were certainly nos. 2 or 3. I recall that no other fellow pupils were so blessed. So we became a meeting ground for friends and neighbors who'd converge night after night to ogle at the smattering of colorized programming available. My brother and I called them "The Moochers," and would joke every evening at the dinner table about which moochers would be ringing our bells to see "Kraft Music Hall," "Racing at Hialeah", "The Arthur Murray Dance Hour" or "Bonanza". But in fact this hi-tech pioneering spirit was a family tradition, as my Dad had also purchased an early post-War black and white TV in 1948 and was similarly barraged by friends and relatives fascinated by the new toy.

It's taken me nearly half a century and a good chunk of my current budget to revive the tradition, but I now believe that I am the first person on my condo floor to own an HDTV, an imposing Sony WEGA purchased, along with a warranty, at the relative bargain rate of $3000.
It now gobbles up an large chunk of my living room floor space as did its progenitor, a 50-inch Mitsubishi widescreeen ourchased for about the same price in 1990. The question is, does the improved quality of the picture justify the expense and the general hoopla?

Well, my initial impressions is that it does. Boosters of the technology said its effect would be roughly that of putting on spectacles after a lifetime of nearsightedness. The crystalline clarity of the high-def signal does startle and engage me, though I certainly had my previews in the TV showrooms I visited. I'm also reminded of the testimony of persons whose cataracts were replaced and for whom spectacular color suddenly returned. I was particularly enamored of the Discovery Hi-Def channel, with the shimmering natural scenery, and the clearly delineated leaves and flowers. In fact the effect was totally mesmerizing, almost as though I were on LSD (which for the record, I've never done). It took a while for me to realize that the Sony people had preset the color range to vivid levels that produced a saturated, intensified color effect like on scenic postcards and the digital photos I upgrade on Photoshop. I've been able to dial these levels back to realistic (and very fine quality) color, but I'm tempted to return to the Vivid settings when I'm looking for a cheap non-drug hallucinogetic kick.

Football games are also impressive, with an immediacy and acuity that revs up the experience; however I was most impressed that I could see the expressions on every fan in attendance and could read the writing on the Gatorade thermoses. As for standard programming, it all looks excellent, with the added feature that the picture is oblong rather than the squarish analog form, so the impression is more cinematic. It made "Desperate Housewives" look fresher (which is a good thing, as that series is getting stale faster than a Kaiser roll left out on a shelf). "The Simpsons" was fascinating in its garish colors--and I really grokked the yellowness of all its characters' skin tones. Even awful commercials I'd automatically gloss or tape over seemed vivid in their enhanced detail.

An extra benefit is that "non" hi-def programming that is broadcast digitally is, while not as detailed as the hi-def programming, very vivid and decidedly superior to how it appears on a standard television. This is because the increased numbers of lines provided on the Sonyscreen help bring out the enhancements of the digital signal. The same effect applies to standard DVDs. They look good enough on an older model, but are very impressive on the hi-def. It makes my old chestnut DVDs worth a repeat look or two, before they all have to be replaced by officially hi-definition DVDs. Currently there is a nasty battle going on between hi-def DVD formats so I'll sit that out until a winner arises from the cockfight, lest I be victimized as I was in the famous Beta-VHS war, choosing the finer but less popular alternative.

I am also trying to bring in friends and neighbors to gape admiringly at the set, but the fascination so far is not as overwhelming as it was in 1959. Most have nodded cooperatively, uttering a few admiring comments and then politely excusing themselves. Yeah, well just wait until the Super Bowl, people. And the Winter Olympics. And the Oscars. And "The Sopranos." It will be a very finely-tuned Feburary. But by then, I'm afraid, my own delight may have faded as my eyes become inured to the enhanced picture and spoiled in regard to any other kind of transmission. Sono I won't be able to watch anyone else's puny retrograde TVs without blinking and wiping my glasses in a vain attempt to recapture the acuity to which I am accustomed.

And of course there is the issue of great style eventually being eclipsed by inferior content, so however striking the image, nothing will be able to make me sit thorough an episode of "Ghost Whisperer." Then again, I can always lay back, turn on the vivid color setting and luxuriate in the Discovery Network's purple mountain majesties and amber waves of grain.