Originally Posted by jayhawk11
When we first got the in-store advertising stating that calibrations reduce your energy costs, we called our district manager and told him we were pulling that signage. It's not true. As previously stated in this thread...any energy savings are a nice side effect, but not a main benefit.
You are absolutely incorrect stating that a calibrated TV will NOT reduce your energy consumption.
As an ISF instructor and participant in the research grant we conducted for the California Energy Commission regarding energy usage with Plasma and LCD Flat Panel TVs, it was very common for displays that came out of the box, connected to signal, and viewed in the OOB default preset to use 20% more enegry during operation than a set that was in a mode that manufacturers designate as a reduced Contrast mode (Movie, or Cinema, for example).
The methodology was to adjust Contrast and Black Level in the default mode for correct viewing (even that was perhaps an unfair advantage as it likely lowered the consumption slightly, compared to the manufacturer's defaulted settings) and then measure wattage consumed using a Brand Electronics E127 OneMeter Digital Power Meter.
The meter was connected to the wall outlet the display would be connected to, and the display was connected to the meter.
Power consumption was monitored and recorded starting with the default settings (adjusted as described above) and then post-calibration to ISF reference standards.
Plasma displays on average offered a 20% reduction in energy comsumption, in the 42"-50" sizes, and LCD's varied (especially with Backlight adjustment) depending on screen sizes with 15% to as much as 30% energy reductions.
The State of California was supremely keen to learn of the potential reduction to drain of the "grid" with these results. So much so, that you shouldn't be surprised if in the near future, out-of-of the box default will be the polar opposite of the current (no pun intended) norm: Reduced Contrast will be the default, as most people conclude that is the most logical setting for them, if that is how the manufacturer has shipped the unit. For ramping up the Contrast, the consumer will be forced to make adjustments (as a fourm person, you couldn't perhaps put your head around the notion that most consumers are timidly afraid to adjust things that make absolutely no sense to them). Speaking of opinion with this next statement and no basis in fact, I would estimate that of the 27 million TVs sold in the past 12 calendar months, 80% or greater are as they came out of the box.
To not believe that a state like California would legislate to earn a reduction in grid consumption by 5-10% (most households have multiple sets in use simulaneously) is naive. Look at the CAFE standard they legislatively imposed on Ca. destined autos and emissions requirements of non-Ca. cars moved into the state.
Let me make it clear that the ISF was commissioned to conduct the research grant, and in no manner made conclusive suggestions to influence decision- making. We merely supplied the contracted data with the arrived at results.
And to speak to the second point made by jayhawk, we would not advocate calibrating a display merely for the derived energy savings. As was said, it is a pleasant by-product as an after-affect of improved image fidelity that energy savings can be reaped, however, that is not the raison d'etre to do so.
Jayhawk, if you are connected to Best Buy, please cease to denounce that energy savings can not be netted. In a short period of time, you will be proven to suffer a demerit to your credulity. It needn't be mentioned or stressed whatsoever, though going out of your way to appear more brilliant than the folks in Mn. may have a deleterious affect on your career.
If anyone would care to discuss this in person and would be occasioning to visit CEDIA, I can be found at the ISF seminar location on Sunday, September 7th preparing the room for the seminar the 8th and 9th.