3 ms·

You could potentially have that as another dimension. But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Which

You could potentially have that as another dimension. But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Which is more efficient? You have two TVs, one only supports stereo sound that uses 800W and one that supports Dolby Surround, Atmos etc. that uses 801W. (for the sake of argument, we're talking about passthrough to an external audio device with its own power rating) Which is more efficient? It's hard to create non-subjective measurements/comparisons between TV outputs that can be compared as they are potentially multi-dimensional comparisons.

tshaddox 4y ago
> But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Assuming the same amount of visible light output, the 900W one is more efficient. What’s controversial about that? It’s no different than how a car might have a more appealing appearance but that causes it to be less fuel efficient. The efficiency calculation is not complicated by the fact that sometimes people value things other than efficiency.
- joncrocks 4y ago
  The controversial aspect is that this is a TV, not a simple light source. A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. The 'useful' part of a TV is the moving pictures, and one could argue that a 'quantitatively' better picture should have some bearing on an efficiency metric. I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. The comparison with a car is an interesting one. From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. This might then be similar to the way we measure fuel efficiency for given speed + driving conditions, AC off etc.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. Well, no, it’s not a TV. I never defined the term “TV,” I merely defined “efficiency” for a TV. We could quibble on some edge cases (is a digital photo frame a TV?) and I’m sure any environment regulations would need to go into excruciating detail, but that doesn’t mean we can’t immediately dismiss the notion that a light bulb is a TV. > I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. You seem to be stuck in the mindset that efficiency is the only thing that matters, as if “efficient” simply means “good.” But no, efficiency is just one attribute. A hypothetical TV that clearly can’t function as a TV for the vast majority of people doesn’t illustrate a problem with my straightforward notion of efficiency. If there were strict environmental regulations for this stuff, of course they would need to define some classes of devices and define some reasonable efficiency requirements based on the capabilities of each class of device. > From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. That could be useful information to have, for consumers and perhaps for regulators. I mentioned that benchmarks would probably need to use some large corpus of content. But efficiency would still be defined as I proposed, and it’s very possible and not at all problematic for a less capable TV to be more efficient (just like it’s possible and not problematic for a faster car to be less fuel efficient).

tshaddox 4y ago

> But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Assuming the same amount of visible light output, the 900W one is more efficient. What’s controversial about that? It’s no different than how a car might have a more appealing appearance but that causes it to be less fuel efficient. The efficiency calculation is not complicated by the fact that sometimes people value things other than efficiency.

joncrocks 4y ago
The controversial aspect is that this is a TV, not a simple light source. A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. The 'useful' part of a TV is the moving pictures, and one could argue that a 'quantitatively' better picture should have some bearing on an efficiency metric. I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. The comparison with a car is an interesting one. From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. This might then be similar to the way we measure fuel efficiency for given speed + driving conditions, AC off etc.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. Well, no, it’s not a TV. I never defined the term “TV,” I merely defined “efficiency” for a TV. We could quibble on some edge cases (is a digital photo frame a TV?) and I’m sure any environment regulations would need to go into excruciating detail, but that doesn’t mean we can’t immediately dismiss the notion that a light bulb is a TV. > I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. You seem to be stuck in the mindset that efficiency is the only thing that matters, as if “efficient” simply means “good.” But no, efficiency is just one attribute. A hypothetical TV that clearly can’t function as a TV for the vast majority of people doesn’t illustrate a problem with my straightforward notion of efficiency. If there were strict environmental regulations for this stuff, of course they would need to define some classes of devices and define some reasonable efficiency requirements based on the capabilities of each class of device. > From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. That could be useful information to have, for consumers and perhaps for regulators. I mentioned that benchmarks would probably need to use some large corpus of content. But efficiency would still be defined as I proposed, and it’s very possible and not at all problematic for a less capable TV to be more efficient (just like it’s possible and not problematic for a faster car to be less fuel efficient).