Interesting facts about 120 Hz Motion blur

[Kamal]

Iif you consider CNet's Opinion, a valid one, here's an interesting read

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html?tag=ms

Watching the same HD source material on every TV (it included recorded footage of a Saints-Colts football game and a U.S. Open quarterfinal tennis match), neither I--nor my compatriots--saw anything that made us feel 120Hz was making a real difference. Yes, when you run a fast-moving score ticker on the bottom of the screen, the letters and numbers appear slightly sharper (no blurring around the edges), but it's just not a big deal. The fact is, we haven't had a motion-blur problem with any of the newer 60Hz LCD TVs we've reviewed in recent times. Don't get me wrong--we did see a lot of what you might call blurring in faster-motion scenes, but it was always inherent in the source, so it looked basically the same on all of the TVs, including the plasmas.

But at the same time, they go on to say

The Sony KDL-46XBR's Motion Flow anti-judder feature is one of the best we've seen to date.

[beanzncheez]

Re: Interesting facts about 120 Hz Motion blur

I never trust CNet. They've said some really stupid shit on that site and are known for contradicting themselves.

[|Thrax|]

Re: Interesting facts about 120 Hz Motion blur

Video games move faster then football.

Cnet has gone horribly downhill since their great TV days.

[rbuffetta]

Re: Interesting facts about 120 Hz Motion blur

I used to believe in cnet, still do but not as much, then they would recommend some software that everyone hated and I started questioning them a little. So now instead of taking their word I do more research (like I should of been doing in the first place)