Originally Posted by BeachComber
Complete "homework" attached.
Hmm, apparently you didn't understand the thrust of my point. But we'll get to that in a bit. Did you, by chance, actually look at the data published in the document attached? The average delta in power consumption between most display's factory and ISF settings are not only dependent upon the type of display technology (plasma, DLP, LCD, etc) but the display itself. In Figure 2, for every set with significant power savings (15%-25%), one can find another set with little or no savings (0%-5%) between the factory and ISF settings. Moreover, plasmas tended to yield the largest energy savings from being calibrated, and they comprise a significantly smaller portion of the market than LCD displays, which yielded the smallest savings. Even the document itself admits that some of the larger savings achieved are not expected to be common.
According to the data provided in your document, the US's estimated TV power consumption in 2007 was 54 Billion kWh - or 179 kWh per person based on 2007 Census data. Let's even multiply this number by 5, assuming that some people don't have displays, and others have multiple displays. Say we assume a very
idealistic 25% energy savings for every set calibrated - every person would save 223.79 kWh/year. Per the DOE, the average cost of electricity in 2007 in the US was $0.1065/kWh, yielding a whopping savings of - drumroll please - $23.83 per person per year!
I don't think I need to continue to point out the absurdity of attempting to justify the cost of a calibration based on those kinds numbers. As I said before, it's pure marketing fluff. If you want to save money on electricity, take up a sport or go wash your car. If you want to have a great looking picture, learn how to calibrate or hire a pro to do it.