or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Calibration Myth Killer...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Calibration Myth Killer...  

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
I am a Best Buy employee (with a technical degree, mind you) and I have the facts that a lot of people don't seem to be able to find.

#1) Calibration DOES require the technician to make adjustments in the service menu, which is inaccessible from the remote control. I have seen it with my own eyes.

#2) Calibration will save you $$$ on your electric bill, but it will take about ten years before it will pay for itself... unless you're a couch potato.

#3) Visit Cnet.com and you CAN calibrate your TV to a certain point. You won't be able to adjust the individual color levels, but you can get it pretty damn close to what a professional technician can do.

With the two TV's that my store has on display for our calibration demo, I have been able to get the uncalibrated TV to look almost identical to the calibrated TV by following the steps that are posted on Cnet.com. If you are a real nut for color detail, then have a professional do it for you.
post #2 of 62
Untrue on 1 and 3, not all displays require entering the service menu to perform a full greyscale/gamma/color calibration. Furthermore, you can access many display's service menus from the remote - Samsungs are a perfect example. Of course, a display's gamut controls are often only accessible in some sort of service menu, if the display has them at all.

Point 2 is addressing marketing fluff at its worst - as someone else here has said, if you want to save electricity and money, turn off your TV and go ride a bike.

If you don't have a desire to learn how to perform a calibration, hire a professional. But there are plenty of people who visit this particular forum who do have the desire to learn, and with the right tools and knowledge they can calibrate a display's greyscale, gamma, and color. Even the pros had to start somewhere...
post #3 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

#1) Calibration DOES require the technician to make adjustments in the service menu, which is inaccessible from the remote control. I have seen it with my own eyes.

I can access my tv's service menu with the remote

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

#2) Calibration will save you $$$ on your electric bill, but it will take about ten years before it will pay for itself... unless you're a couch potato.

Calibration will NOT save me anything, my tv draws the same amount of power no matter what the settings, it does not have a power saving mode, when the bulb is on its on.
post #4 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

I am a Best Buy employee (with a technical degree, mind you) and I have the facts that a lot of people don't seem to be able to find.

#1) Calibration DOES require the technician to make adjustments in the service menu, which is inaccessible from the remote control. I have seen it with my own eyes.

#2) Calibration will save you $$$ on your electric bill, but it will take about ten years before it will pay for itself... unless you're a couch potato.

#3) Visit Cnet.com and you CAN calibrate your TV to a certain point. You won't be able to adjust the individual color levels, but you can get it pretty damn close to what a professional technician can do.

With the two TV's that my store has on display for our calibration demo, I have been able to get the uncalibrated TV to look almost identical to the calibrated TV by following the steps that are posted on Cnet.com. If you are a real nut for color detail, then have a professional do it for you.

I call BS on at least 90% of this post.
post #5 of 62
Who got this dude's panties in a wad? Thanks for the lesson, Geek Squad Jedi.
post #6 of 62
GCmusic22,

Welcome to the forum. Please consider before engaging in "drive-by posting," that making comments without appropriate homework on the subject usually results in personal embarrassment and diminished credibility.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
post #7 of 62
I swear its true guys, not all of the Best Buy guys are like this
post #8 of 62
Greetings

The same hit and run by the same guy changing his account name yet again.

regards
post #9 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
GCmusic22,

Please consider before engaging in "drive-by posting," that making comments without appropriate homework on the subject usually results in personal embarrassment and diminished credibility.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post
Point 2 is addressing marketing fluff at its worst - as someone else here has said, if you want to save electricity and money, turn off your TV and go ride a bike.

Complete "homework" attached.

Television efficiency research conducted by Ecos on behalf of Natural Resources Defense
Council in 2004 and 2005 demonstrated that significant energy savings could be realized by
improving the efficiency of todays televisions. The data gathered for the report indicated
that one of the primary mechanisms for obtaining these savings was to encourage more
energy efficient TV screen settings. Consultation with Imaging Science Foundation further
revealed that the suggested improvements in TV screen settings could also significantly
improve the overall picture quality of the set. This memo expands on this theme by
examining the results of a study recently conducted for PIER that explores the relationship
between the picture settings for a given TV and its power consumption in the active mode of
operation.

 

ECOS_ISF_TV Power Consumption Sensitivity Analysis Memo_FINAL_27Sep07.pdf 97.3046875k . file
post #10 of 62
Cool, I wonder though, if most of the energy savings don't come from the very likely case that on plasma and CRT white level will be lowered during calibration, or backlight brightness turned down in the case of LCD. Only skimmed through the paper...
post #11 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

I am a Best Buy employee

That's all I need to know.
post #12 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

I am a Best Buy employee (with a technical degree, mind you) and I have the facts that a lot of people don't seem to be able to find.

#1) Calibration DOES require the technician to make adjustments in the service menu, which is inaccessible from the remote control. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Often true, but not always.

Quote:


#2) Calibration will save you $$$ on your electric bill, but it will take about ten years before it will pay for itself... unless you're a couch potato.

Depends on the technology.

Quote:


#3) Visit Cnet.com and you CAN calibrate your TV to a certain point. You won't be able to adjust the individual color levels, but you can get it pretty damn close to what a professional technician can do.

With the two TV's that my store has on display for our calibration demo, I have been able to get the uncalibrated TV to look almost identical to the calibrated TV by following the steps that are posted on Cnet.com. If you are a real nut for color detail, then have a professional do it for you.

You can't do proper greyscale or gamma alignment simply by eye with good precision.
post #13 of 62
Quote:


If you are a real nut for color detail, then have a professional do it for you.

So, in your world someone who values image fidelity and artistic integrity in their TV performance is a "real nut?" What are you doing in this section of the forum then?
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachComber View Post

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.
post #15 of 62
Greetings

They should also mention the time and energy wasted learning how to do your own calibration so everyone should just abandon that and hire a pro.

Regards
post #16 of 62
Tell me something i DIDN'T know..lol!
post #17 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

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.

You sound like the Democrats - you admit there is an energy crisis - but the solution is open up the strategic oil reserves.

That's no long term solution - its a 60 day emergency supply.

Using your logic, why pay $5k - $10k more for cars with 5 more miles per gallon?

As seen in the document, it does save energy. I guess even a 5% savings isn't important to you?

Every friend's place I have been into to adjust their set (I will not say calibrate as I don't consider myself a fulltime professional calibrator like others) has been on vivid mode - just like the showrooms. After I leave, they are shocked they are getting the picture they are without being on on scortched earth mode.

A journey begins with the first step.
post #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

I am a Best Buy employee (with a technical degree, mind you)

You have a "technical degree" and you are working at best buy?! AmaZaZing! I wanna know what school you went to, i need to make sure we stay out of it!
post #19 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachComber View Post

You sound like the Democrats - you admit there is an energy crisis - but the solution is open up the strategic oil reserves.

That's no long term solution - its a 60 day emergency supply.

Using your logic, why pay $5k - $10k more for cars with 5 more miles per gallon?

As seen in the document, it does save energy. I guess even a 5% savings isn't important to you?

Every friend's place I have been into to adjust their set (I will not say calibrate as I don't consider myself a fulltime professional calibrator like others) has been on vivid mode - just like the showrooms. After I leave, they are shocked they are getting the picture they are without being on on scortched earth mode.

A journey begins with the first step.

Are you reading anything I write?

Best Buy is marketing calibrations as a way to save money by using less electricity. I just illustrated that, using even VERY generous estimates, the price of a BB calibration will pay for itself in approximately 15 years. It's ridiculous and it is a pure marketing ploy.

Why are you so stuck on this as some massive energy savings technique? I won't even begin to enumerate the number of less expensive ways that people can save more energy. You're thumping your chest about the savings of less than 1 kWH/day, which is peanuts and can be found elsewhere for less money on the part of the consumer.

I'm not sure why you're having so hard a time grasping this simple point?
post #20 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Are you reading anything I write?

Best Buy is marketing calibrations as a way to save money by using less electricity. I just illustrated that, using even VERY generous estimates, the price of a BB calibration will pay for itself in approximately 15 years. It's ridiculous and it is a pure marketing ploy.

Why are you so stuck on this as some massive energy savings technique? I won't even begin to enumerate the number of less expensive ways that people can save more energy. You're thumping your chest about the savings of less than 1 kWH/day, which is peanuts and can be found elsewhere for less money on the part of the consumer.

I'm not sure why you're having so hard a time grasping this simple point?

I'm not having the problem - you are.

They never say it will pay for the cost of the calibration - just that it conserves power - which it does.

Just like when you spend $10k more for a Prius that takes 6+ years to pay for itself compared to a lower priced car with slightly less mpg.

I am not stuck on the Energy Savings - people seem to think its marketing hype (including your from your post) which it clearly is not.

The OP had it correct

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCmusic22 View Post

#2) Calibration will save you $$$ on your electric bill, but it will take about ten years before it will pay for itself... unless you're a couch potato.

You have it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Point 2 is addressing marketing fluff at its worst - as someone else here has said, if you want to save electricity and money, turn off your TV and go ride a bike.

Never said it will pay for itself. It saves on electricity. period. end of story.
post #21 of 62
Quote:


Never said it will pay for itself. It saves on electricity. period. end of story.

No, again it depends on the display. On many displays it will have no impact whatsoever.
post #22 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Are you reading anything I write?

Best Buy is marketing calibrations as a way to save money by using less electricity. I just illustrated that, using even VERY generous estimates, the price of a BB calibration will pay for itself in approximately 15 years. It's ridiculous and it is a pure marketing ploy.

Why are you so stuck on this as some massive energy savings technique? I won't even begin to enumerate the number of less expensive ways that people can save more energy. You're thumping your chest about the savings of less than 1 kWH/day, which is peanuts and can be found elsewhere for less money on the part of the consumer.

I'm not sure why you're having so hard a time grasping this simple point?

We could probably save more energy by getting Daylight Saving Time OUT of March & November where it doesn't belong being observed! During those months the sun rises so late anyway. Adding DST means that any evening energy savings are more than cancelled out by increased usage of lights & running the heat longer in the mornings in those months. All because a few wusses want it to be light out after five when they leave work in the Winter!

Calibrating your TV, heck, just turning down the backlight on LCDs, would probably save one pennies a week, but I'll take anything.
post #23 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachComber View Post

I'm not having the problem - you are.

They never say it will pay for the cost of the calibration - just that it conserves power - which it does.

Just like when you spend $10k more for a Prius that takes 6+ years to pay for itself compared to a lower priced car with slightly less mpg.

I am not stuck on the Energy Savings - people seem to think its marketing hype (including your from your post) which it clearly is not.

The OP had it correct



You have it wrong.



Never said it will pay for itself. It saves on electricity. period. end of story.

Wow. So BB is advertising that calibration will save you money on your electrical bill - the only catch is, it won't pay for itself until you've owned your display for at least 15 years, more likely 20-30. In other words, you won't save money.

IN ADDITION, even for the largest reduction in energy usage, the energy savings are so small that you could make them up by watching TV for 15 fewer minutes each day. On the list of things you can do to make a difference in saving energy OR money, calibrating a display is down at the bottom. Thus, the fact that it's being marketed makes it absurd - BB is making more of it than it is. I think that's also called hype.

Your point - that calibration saves on electricity - is akin to making the point that by telecommuting and doing all our daily work from the couch, we could decrease our metabolism and cut our CO2 emissions. Sure, it would cut emissions, but the delta is so ridiculously small, it's simply obnoxious to bring it up.
post #24 of 62
Reducing metabolic rates is actually a false savings, as it will also make us more prone to cardiovascular disease which will lead to death and decay, which produces more methane, by far a larger concern than CO2. Not to mention the flatulence from eating junk food...
post #25 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

Reducing metabolic rates is actually a false savings, as it will also make us more prone to cardiovascular disease which will lead to death and decay, which produces more methane, by far a larger concern than CO2. Not to mention the flatulence from eating junk food...

This is completely off topic, but it's very easy to decrease metabolic rate if you match your diet accordingly. There are people that purposely short themelves calories on a daily basis to slow down their metabolism in the hopes of extending their lives based on similar results with lab rats. Whether this will have the intended effect or not - or whether it is even safe in the long term - hasn't been established in humans. I'd find it very hard to believe that the CO2 and CH4 released from a decaying body would outweigh the effects of even marginally lowering one's metabolism over just 30 or 40 years.

And I think you're confusing low metabolism due to a sedentary lifestyle with people who are lazy and overeat, causing numerous ill health effects, some of which you mentioned.

Either way, my original assertion stands - the best case monetary and energy savings attained by calibrating a display are so minuscule that mentioning them as a positive benefit of calibrating your display is absurd. But then again, that's very American - I'll take the Diet Coke with my double cheeseburger value meal instead of a Coke so I can expend no effort while feeling like I am eating healthy. Give me a break...
post #26 of 62
The point, hog, was to be silly, just like this entire thread.
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

The point, hog, was to be silly, just like this entire thread.

Ah, well never mind then Obviously you achieved the desired effect
post #28 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Either way, my original assertion stands - the best case monetary and energy savings attained by calibrating a display are so minuscule that mentioning them as a positive benefit of calibrating your display is absurd. But then again, that's very American - I'll take the Diet Coke with my double cheeseburger value meal instead of a Coke so I can expend no effort while feeling like I am eating healthy. Give me a break...

I understand what you mean but it is not absurd in any means. People want justification of why to spend money on a calibration and ENERGY saving is a one valid reason why.

On most 46 and above tvs you will save 20 to 50 dollars a year on your energy bill. People plan on owning tvs for about 5 years so it is a valid justification and to say people can just ride a bike instead of watching of tv is the ABSURD statement
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCityEmployee View Post

I understand what you mean but it is not absurd in any means. People want justification of why to spend money on a calibration and ENERGY saving is a one valid reason why.

On most 46 and above tvs you will save 20 to 50 dollars a year on your energy bill. People plan on owning tvs for about 5 years so it is a valid justification and to say people can just ride a bike instead of watching of tv is the ABSURD statement

Please show me where the $20 and $50 figures came from (aside from BB marketing drivel) - I showed several posts above that $20/year savings is a very liberal figure, derived from plasma numbers. LCDs are far more dominant in the market, and the change in energy consumption after calibration was almost nil as composed to the massive 25% saved on certain plasmas.

Simply throwing numbers around doesn't make them so.
post #30 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Please show me where the $20 and $50 figures came from (aside from BB marketing drivel) - I showed several posts above that $20/year savings is a very liberal figure, derived from plasma numbers. LCDs are far more dominant in the market, and the change in energy consumption after calibration was almost nil as composed to the massive 25% saved on certain plasmas.

Simply throwing numbers around doesn't make them so.

CANT POST WEBSITE YET BUT GO TO CNET AND SCROLL DWN TO CHECK THIS AND EDUCATE URESELF

Sony KDL-46Z4100 Picture settings
Default Calibrated Power Save
Picture on (watts) 268.57 124.71 100.97
Picture on (watts/sq. inch) 0.3 0.14 0.11
Standby (watts) 0.37 0.37 0.37
Cost per year $83.36 $38.83 $31.48

and I work for CC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Calibration Myth Killer...