Thursday, November 28, 2013

What you need to know about TV power consumption

How much does it cost to run your TV? The answer may surprise you.

David Katzmaier

by David Katzmaier

This 65-inch plasma is the most power-hungry TV we've ever tested. It uses $6.77 per month in electricity.

(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET)

Since 2011 the FTC has required that every TV display a yellow and black Energy Guide label estimating how much it costs to run for a year. The label assumes a price for electricity (11 cents/kWh) and a baseline usage (5 hours per day).

The cost is tiny. A typical label can read anywhere from $6 for 32-inch LEDs to $38 for 65-inch plasmas (PDF). Per year. That's from 50 cents to $3.18 per month. If that's the definition of chump change to you, you're probably not alone.

That's the primary reason I stopped widely testing TV power consumption a couple of years ago (plasmas are the exception; I still test consumption by those). Simply put, TV manufacturers have done a good-enough job of managing TV power that the operating cost became negligible. And once people realize how cheap even the biggest TVs are to run, energy use largely stops being a factor in the purchasing decision.

Here's the official Energy Guide label for a 65-inch 2013 plasma TV. Your mileage may vary.


Of course, there's a bit more to it than that. I like to think of the Energy Guide number as the minimum it'll cost to run the TV. It's determined using the default picture settings, which are often (especially on plasma TVs) dimmer than what people end up using at home. Since most TVs' default picture settings incorporate a room lighting sensor, watching in a bright room may in turn automatically make the image brighter and thus use more power.

You may also watch for longer than 5 hours per day or live in an area where electricity is more expensive. Residential energy prices vary widely according to season and state. Connecticut residents, who pay the most in the U.S., should probably tack an extra couple of bucks on to the sticker figure.

But even if you double the figures on the Energy Guide label, even the largest, least efficient TVs still cost less per month than a decent lunch. The most power-hungry TV I've recently tested,Panasonic's 65-inch TC-P65VT50, costs about $81 per year, or $6.77 per month. And that'safter calibrating the picture so it's suitable for viewing in moderate lighting.

Here's a list of various recent TVs we measured for power use after calibration. They appear in order of how much they cost in electricity, assuming the same per-kWh cost and usage as the Energy Guide labels.


Eco-minded TV shopping tips

Are you still concerned about how much juice your next TV will use? Here are a few tips on how to keep the power bills very slightly lower, and do something to help the environment, while you watch TV.
  • Buy an LED TV. They use one-half to one-quarter the power of a comparably sized plasma. Some LEDs are more efficient than others; local-dimming models, for example, can use less power. Look for Energy Star's Most Efficient designation for the most miserly.
  • Buy a smaller TV. A 32-inch LED TV uses about half the energy of a 60-incher.
  • Watch with a dimmer picture. Light output is the largest factor in how much power a given TV uses. Try turning down the backlight control or engaging the power-saver setting.
  • Watch less TV. In case you're wondering, TV "standby" power use amounts to pennies per year.

How big a TV should I buy?

Wondering what size TV to get? Wonder no longer.

Geoffrey Morrison

by Geoffrey Morrison

Most people sit about 9 feet from their TV. THX recommends a display that fills 40 degrees of your field of vision.

(Credit: Geoffrey Morrison)

How big a TV should you buy? 37? 42? 50? 65? 90? There's a TV in nearly every size you can want, and at nearly every budget.

As long as you're not limited by a cabinet or entertainment center, you can probably get a bigger TV than you're figuring. Possibly, a lot bigger.

Here's how to figure out how big you can go.

The short answer: as big as you can afford. The longer answer depends on your room, your seating distance, your eyes, and the acceptance of any cohabitating co-deciders.

There is a direct correlation between recommended screen size and seating distance. The farther away you sit, obviously, the smaller your TV appears. The ideal is to have a screen that fills a certain amount of your field of view, though how much is "ideal" is up for debate.

THX recommends, for example, a viewing angle of 40 degrees, to create "an immersive cinematic experience." What does 40 degrees mean to those of us who love math in theory but not in practice? Skip the protractor, and multiply your seating distance (in inches or centimeters) by 0.84. This gets you the recommended screen diagonal.

For example, most people sit about 9 feet (108 inches) from their TV, so THX recommends a screen size of around 90 inches diagonal for that distance. That means the 55-inch you're looking at is not "too big," at least as far as THX is concerned. They realize, though, that not everyone has the space (or desire) for a TV that big, so they also recommend something in the 60-inch range for seating distances up to 9 feet.

SMPTE recommends 30 degrees, obviously quite a bit smaller. To match their recommendation, multiply your seating distance by 0.625. So given our 9-foot example, that means a TV around 68 inches (so a 65- or 70-inch model would work).

SMPTE recommends a display that fills 30 degrees of your field of vision.

(Credit: Geoffrey Morrison)

CNET, when this topic was covered last, recommended no closer than 1.5 times the screen diagonal, or 0.667 times your seating distance. This allows for a slightly larger TV than the SMPTE recommendation, with a "maximum" screen size of 72 inches (again, 70-inch models are the closest) for a 9-foot viewing distance.

While these are good guidelines, I think they need to be taken as the recommendations they are, not any sort of steadfast rules. It's far too easy to get caught up in a numbers game when the reality is far more complex. There are additional factors in play than this-times-that-means-this would seem.

Beyond the "rules"
Two factors come into play when you're talking about maximum screen size: resolution and room domination. Most TVs now are 1080p, and that's a lot of pixels. Even at the largest flat panel screen sizes available today, you're not going to see pixels sitting at 9 feet. If the TV (orprojector) isn't very good, you might see other artifacts like video noise or dithering, but you're not likely to see pixels. If you're sitting closer to such a large TV, pixels may start getting visible, but you'd have to be sitting awfully close. This is one of the reasons I said Ultra HD 4K TVs are stupid, and why there are at least three TV improvements more worthwhile than Ultra HD 4K, and there's more math in that both articles about what resolution the human eye can actually see.

The short version is: extremely large TVs may not look quite as good when you're sitting really close to them, as you're seeing more than they were designed for you to see. That isn't to say they'll be "unwatchable" close-up, they just may not look as good as if you were sitting farther away. This is especially true if you're not always watching a pristine source like Blu-ray. Check out When HD isn't HD for more on the lesser sources that will look really bad on a huge TV.

The other factor, room domination, is completely subjective. How big does a TV have to get in your room before it becomes the only thing in the room (either figuratively, or literally).

If you have any doubts, I'd recommend taping off or cutting out cardboard in the size of the TV you're thinking about, and seeing how it fares in your room. Know that once it's actually in there, it will be way more awesome than cardboard, and likely seem way, way bigger. It certainly depends on your room, decor, and overall spousal tolerance/enthusiasm.

If you think you might be sitting close enough to see pixels (or are curious if you are), check out this 4K Calculator and put in your viewing distance, screen size, and your vision (20/20, etc).

Beyond the beyond: What's possible
I'll be honest, I don't subscribe to any of the established "rules" for viewing distance and screen size. I think the SMPTE and the lesser THX numbers are too TV-biased. I think they vastly underestimate what's easily possible with modern technology, for those that want more.

I sit 9 feet from a 102-inch screen. That's just the 16x9 portion. The full screen is 2.35:1, and 128 inches diagonal. With a 1080p projector, I can just barely make out pixels when I expand a 1080p projector to the full width of the screen. Watching TV this size is addictive, and I love it.

I mention this as proof you can go much larger than most people figure is possible.

Do you want to? Well, that's an entirely different question. I find the larger screen sizes easier on the eyes, as more of your field of view is taken up with the roughly uniform brightness of the screen. In an otherwise dark room, your pupils are more naturally closed to the amount of light thanks to the big screen.

Conversely, I find watching a small screen in a dark room more fatiguing, as your pupils are more open (because of the dark room) with this one annoying pinprick of bright light (the TV).Many people complain about headaches when they watch TV in a dark room. One possible cause is the 50+ footlamberts from a TV (or more with LCDs) taking up a tiny fraction of your field of view. Think about when someone shines a flashlight in your eyes when you've been in the dark for an hour. With a projector, you've got 25 ftL or so over a huge swath of your vision.

True, bias lights, leaving room lights on, and turning down an LCD's backlight can minimize fatigue as well or better than a big screen, but I like watching TV in a dark room. To each their own.

Bottom line
Of course, the ultimate decision is one of personal preference. My goal here was to point out a rough idea of what is possible and/or recommended. For me, I would always err on the side of "too big." My opinion is that a 42-inch TV is too small for most rooms. That's not to say I think everyone should get a 102-inch screen, but the reality is a 42-inch flat panel is not really appreciably larger than the 36-inch CRTs of the old days (different aspect ratios notwithstanding). With great 50-inch TVs available for $500, that's where I'd look at first if I were shopping for a TV.

If you want to go really big, like an 85-inch TV or projection, only then should you think about 4K (unless you're sitting really close, like under 6 feet). Since there's still a lot of potential issues with HDMI 2.0 adoption, I'd be wary of 4K at all right now.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

How to use the PS4 Controller in Windows with XBOX Controller XInput Games

ps4 controller windows

Unlike using the PS3 controller in Windows, the PS4 controller is supported by the OS easily with basic DirectInput drivers.

Unfortunately, not a lot of modern games use DirectInput for controller support anymore. Instead, they use XInput, the API that is easily ported from XBOX games. Furthermore, the button and control axis are reversed or incorrect using the standard API.

Luckily there is an easy way to get your PS4 controller to work in Windows games that use XInput.

  1. Download this file and extract it to a permanent location
  2. Run ScpDriver.exe from the “Virtual Bus Driver” folder and click install
  3. It should show that Bus Device and Bus Driver are installed
  4. Connect your PS4 controller through bluetooth or USB
    1. To pair on Bluetooth, hold the Connect + Share button on the controller. You will be able to pair the device using your standard Bluetooth control
  5. Start ScpServer.exe
  6. If you see the message Controller : UPP_Worker_Thread Starting, it is confirmed to be working
  7. To make sure it is working, check Devices and Printers. It should show up as an XBOX 360 controller

This software supports up to 4 controllers connected at one time.


  • Microsoft .NET 4.0
  • Visual C 2010 Runtime
  • Latest DirectX Runtime