having trouble finding reviews and info comparing the smooth motion enhancers.

We all know some love and some hate them, but beyond that, where does one go to find accuracy and quality reviews of these various systems?
Sony's motionflow
pioneers smooth
Vizios smooth motion
LG's Trumotion
etc

Are there any measurements for this or are all the companies winging it?

You come to AVS Forum and you spend months of your life reading reviews. I did so and I decided that the most popular 120Hz flat panel models, by a considerable margin, were the Samsungs.

you come to avs forum and you spend months of your life reading reviews. I did so and i decided that the most popular 120hz flat panel models, by a considerable margin, were the samsungs.

+1

You come to AVS Forum and you spend months of your life reading reviews. I did so and I decided that the most popular 120Hz flat panel models, by a considerable margin, were the Samsungs.

They are the most popular, but IMO the sonys have a smoother/more natural motion. I have a 52a650 and a 2 year old d3000, and the motion of both is awesome, but the 650 looks slightly sped up, whereas the sony looks smooth and more 3d. It all comes down to personal taste, but i find that the sonys have the best interpolation. Read the reviews of the xbr6/7 or z series or W-series and you will find many sites (cnet) find sonys have the best motion with interpolation on.

here is a link to a thread doing a poll on 120 hz motion.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1079896

From CNET's XBR7 review, FWIW:

As with other Sony 120Hz displays, we preferred the look of Standard, not High, among the XBR7's two dejudder processing modes. It preserved more of the judder of film and introduced fewer artifacts.

Compared to the Low setting of the Samsung models and Smooth on the Toshiba, the Sony's Standard looked a bit more natural and smoothed motion in a subtler way. If you must have the smoothing effect of dejudder, Sony's Standard is still the class of the pack--although we didn't see much, if any, difference between Standard on the XBR7 and the W4100.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/sony-bravia-kdl-52xbr7/4505-6482_7-33240836-2.html?tag=txt;page
.

You come to AVS Forum and you spend months of your life reading reviews. I did so and I decided that the most popular 120Hz flat panel models, by a considerable margin, were the Samsungs.

You don't associate popular with best do you? :eek:

Yeah I been reading here a while and have heard positive of both Samsung and Sony.

I have witnessed the latest Samsung and it is impressive. Gotta checkout Sony when I can.

Which type of material is best to provoke artifacts, and do these enchaners ALWAYS have artifacts? Will they be even cleaner at 240hz?

Yeah I been reading here a while and have heard positive of both Samsung and Sony.

I have witnessed the latest Samsung and it is impressive. Gotta checkout Sony when I can.

Which type of material is best to provoke artifacts, and do these enchaners ALWAYS have artifacts? Will they be even cleaner at 240hz?

From what i've read, its only a little better, but it is worth it for me because i'm a whore for motion enhancement

Which type of material is best to provoke artifacts, and do these enchaners ALWAYS have artifacts? Will they be even cleaner at 240hz?

a couple aerial chases in planet earth showed good artifacts on my first gen set - most memorable being the wild dogs.

do these enchaners ALWAYS have artifacts? Will they be even cleaner at 240hz?

presently its with fast motion, low frame rates and source anomalies (and whatever else). will it ever be perfect....no but maybe good enough you'd never notice it. its a two-edge sword though......if amp replaces truly responsive panels, gamers will be forced to put up with its lag - or suffer panel blur.

they can delay it all they want with video syned to audio but for gaming, they better have an OFF mode for the video enhancers that add all that extra processing

in other news: I went to watch a MOVIE at a THEATER (yeah! I know!) last night and saw gobs of "Judder" it was very annoying. Can't wait until someone blazes the path to newer framerates. Are those kiddie 3D movies faster framerates to accomodate the #d process? I've not seen one yet

In fact the first generation digital projectors were limited to 24fps frame rates. Those were the older DLP's with 1280x1024 resolution, which have since been reduced in most theaters to showing advertising from satellite networks before the film or digital previews begin.

The newer so-called "2K" DLPs have 2048X1080 resolution and can operate at 24/48/60fps. The 3D films can use any of those frame rates but tend to be 30fps video source for live action, and 24fps for animated features. 3D video camcorders (essentually two seperate video cameras to record R and L images) use 30fps and capture two streams for 60fps total. 3D video camcorders are much easier and cheaper to use than 3D film cameras, especially the huge IMAX 3D setups for recording dual 70mm images. When it comes to animation, even with modern computer graphics, 24fps is considered fast enough and is cheaper than 60fps or 30fps.

Just on the horizon are the new "4K" digital projectors which are the latest and greatest implementation of the Digital Cinema "DCI" standard. These are 4096X2160 in resolution and run at up to 48fps, although 24fps is also used. The resolution is 4X greater than the more common "2K" projectors. The raw data rate for DCI is constrained by the standard to be 250Mbit/sec, and the uncompressed "4K" data rate is actually around 425Mbit/sec when 48fps capture is used, but the various compression techniques used by the Dolby Cinema Servers actually fit that data rate within the 250Mbit/sec standard nicely.

There are only a handfull of these "4K" projectors installed, mostly around Hollywood. There are over 5000 of the older "2K" projectors in use.

what?? I thought all digital cinemas were 4k now. Crappers! So my BLURAYs really ARE equal to current cinema.
At $9 a ticket, it ought to be 4k projector AND a back rub during the movie :)

what?? I thought all digital cinemas were 4k now. Crappers! So my BLURAYs really ARE equal to current cinema.
At $9 a ticket, it ought to be 4k projector AND a back rub during the movie :)
But Blu-Ray has more compression than the data formats used in commercial cinemas. So home viewing has more mosquito noise (temporal dithering), and other compression artifacts.

For the least artifacts, get Pioneer if you are buying a plasma, and for LCD's get a Sony XBR. With other brands, you are likely to get more artifacts. In general, avoid cheaper models and brands; you have to pay extra for good processing!

Of 125 of the 2008 model HDTVs tested, Gary Merson found only one set that scored 100% on the motion resolution tests. That was the Samsung LN-46A950 120Hz 1080p which resolved all 1080 lines in the test pattern, with the AMP set to "Low". Second best were the two Pioneer plasmas, the PDP-6020FD and the PDP-5020FD, which resolved 900 out of 1080 lines. Next were several plasmas from LG and Pioneer which scored in the 800's. The test results can be found here:

http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-all-the-hdtv-resolution-you-expected-125-2008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287/

It appears that 2008 was the year that LCDs first surpassed plasmas, hopefully 2009 will see such high performance HDTVs at lower price points than the $2500-$3300 of the LN-46A950.

Of 125 of the 2008 model HDTVs tested, Gary Merson found only one set that scored 100% on the motion resolution tests. That was the Samsung LN-46A950 120Hz 1080p which resolved all 1080 lines in the test pattern, with the AMP set to "Low". Second best were the two Pioneer plasmas, the PDP-6020FD and the PDP-5020FD, which resolved 900 out of 1080 lines. Next were several plasmas from LG and Pioneer which scored in the 800's. The test results can be found here:

http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-all-the-hdtv-resolution-you-expected-125-2008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287/

It appears that 2008 was the year that LCDs first surpassed plasmas, hopefully 2009 will see such high performance HDTVs at lower price points than the $2500-$3300 of the LN-46A950.

Curious if you know where the human eye is able to distinguish a difference? Numbers are great, but if it's beyond the capability of the human eye does it really matter then? Also noticed an absence of the Elites. Wonder how they would test out?

ere:
It appears that 2008 was the year that LCDs first surpassed plasmas, hopefully 2009 will see such high performance HDTVs at lower price points than the $2500-$3300 of the LN-46A950.

Your claim is a gross oversimplification and wishful thinking. There are many other factors to consider other than motion resolution or even the dark blacks measured in large areas of the picture. It is still widely agreed that the Pioneer KURO's are still the best flat panels, bar none. It is true, however that LCD's have improved enormously in two areas of weakness, namely motion resolution/motion blur, and achieving blacker blacks.

Thank you for the link though. Gary Merson is the only source I know of that periodically does a comprehensive industry survey, and we are all indebted to him for this.

The A950 is clearly superior to the Kuro in motion resolution, color accuracy, brightness, color saturation, and contrast ratios.

The Kuro is clearly superior in black levels. That WOULD make a difference if one were viewing the sets in total darkness in a room with dark furnishings while draped in black cloth except for your eyes. But in any room with any amount of ambient light, the Kuro's sole advantage dissappears as the room light reflects off the screen. (Anti-reflective coatings simply diffuse the reflected light and suppress reflected images, they do not absorb the light itself, which degrades the black levels.)

With the new LCDs like the LN-46A950, LN-55A950, and the Sony XBR8's, it is no longer clear to me that the Kuro is still king. I live in a room full of windows, not a cave. I have never had a Plasma that I found the least bit acceptable in this bright room, and I've rejected a lot of LCDs with shiny screens as well.

This is a purely academic discussion for me. I would never spend $3000+ for a TV, unless I just won the lottery. None of the sets I mentioned is anything I would consider buying, when one can get a nice front projector upgrade for less. I HAVE a cave room in my house but I'm not gonna accept anything smaller than the 96" screen I presently have in there.

The A950 is clearly superior to the Kuro in motion resolution, color accuracy, brightness, color saturation, and contrast ratios.



And yet many experts and aficionado's agree that the Elite Kuro is the best display to this date. Like I asked before above do you know what level the human eye can distinguish the difference in motion resolution? Just like in ear and speakers ability to play a wide frequency range cleanly, the eye also has limitations and anything beyond what the eye can distinguish is really worthless isn't it ? To me the only level that counts is what a display can process that's distinguishable by the human eye, not test equipment. It's great that we have equipment that can test the extreme limits, but it comes to a point of diminishing returns.

The A950 is clearly superior to the Kuro in motion resolution, color accuracy, brightness, color saturation, and contrast ratios.

And yet many experts and aficionado's agree that the Elite Kuro is the best display to this date. Like I asked before above do you know what level the human eye can distinguish the difference in motion resolution? Just like in ear and speakers ability to play a wide frequency range cleanly, the eye also has limitations and anything beyond what the eye can distinguish is really worthless isn't it ? To me the only level that counts is what a display can process that's distinguishable by the human eye, not test equipment.

It's great that we have equipment that can test the extreme limits, but it comes to a point of diminishing returns.

Wow, what does all this do to Chad's "data is everything" argument?

Seems the shoe is a bit on the other foot now, for those who believe that. As in, "Oh noes, an LCD measures better?!". :eek:

Of course, if you're like me, and believe that there's a place for both the objective and the subjective, then there's no inconsistency- you can see that, while not all measurements support it, the Pioneer Elites are still the benchmark.
.

The A950 is clearly superior to the Kuro in motion resolution, color accuracy, brightness, color saturation, and contrast ratios.

It's only superior in motion resolution with frame interpolation turned on. It's far behind otherwise.

Color accuracy? No. Show me a calibrated 950 that measures better than a calibrated Elite.

Color saturation? No. Show me a calibrated 950 that measures better than a calibrated Elite.

Peak brightness? Agreed.

Contrast ratios? Only when the black measurement is taken on a completely blank screen, otherwise (you know, when actually watching something), the 950 will get crushed.

This is a purely academic discussion for me. I would never spend $3000+ for a TV, unless I just won the lottery.

There is hope yet... I once sold my car to a guy that just won the lottery. It started out creepy, with him following me because he had decided he liked my car and was going to own it... and he did!

It's only superior in motion resolution with frame interpolation turned on. It's far behind otherwise.

Color accuracy? No. Show me a calibrated 950 that measures better than a calibrated Elite.

Color saturation? No. Show me a calibrated 950 that measures better than a calibrated Elite.

Peak brightness? Agreed.

Contrast ratios? Only when the black measurement is taken on a completely blank screen, otherwise (you know, when actually watching something), the 950 will get crushed.

This is where gary and systemshock are so confused its pitiful.

The only way the 950 gets good motion resolution is by altering the source content and adding fake frames to artificially smooth out the motion.
ANY TV can implement this gimmick. What really matters is how it performs when displaying content without altering it.

As far as the contrast ratio claim, That really made me laugh. Reminds me of those first time buyers at BB that read these 2,000,000:1 contrast ratio claims and think it really means something. anyone that has done a little research would realize there is no standard for measuring it. so those numbers are pointless.

And as far as color saturation and color accuracy go, I would suggest taking a look at some of the post calibration reports of the signatures and elites instead of listening to the geek squad in the future.

Brightness, of course the LCD is brighter. But that means very little if you plan on calibrating your set properly.
ISF-Day mode on the Kuros is brighter than I will ever need.

Curious if you know where the human eye is able to distinguish a difference? Numbers are great, but if it's beyond the capability of the human eye does it really matter then?

the test is a visual convergence test so obviously they could distiguish a difference.

in this case your attempt to discredit the results (for what ever reason you feel the need to) holds no water. quick summary below.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080130/qtec.jpg

"a Monoscope Test, consisting of four groupings of four non-parallel black lines arrayed to form a wedge-shaped patterns (see photo below) that appear at the top, sides and bottom of a center square. To test resolution, you look at the bottom wedge. There are both stationary and moving versions of the test. fpd-monoscope-pattern-400.jpg The stationary test is for static resolution, determined by the point where the lines are no longer seen as separate, and begin to blur together. Numbers adjacent to the wedges help make what is a subjective test, somewhat easier to determine and more reliable".

btw, i once saw a torrent, so anyone could probably down load and use the test if they wanted to.

the test is a visual convergence test so obviously they could distiguish a difference.

in this case your attempt to discredit the results (for what ever reason you feel the need to) holds no water. quick summary below.I've already mentioned numerous reasons why it is a poor test IMO. At the very least the visual test needs standardized viewing distance versus screen size with standardized environment and 7 or more averaged readings (7 sets of eyes). Or ideally, an automated system to take out the variability of human vision.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/camera.jpg

.Or ideally, an automated system to take out the variability of human vision.



+1.

Human vision can differ substantially. For accurate results, the human eye must be removed as a measurement device.

Cnet did a little article about this a while back.

Counting Blurry lines: Should CNEt add a Motion Resolution test to Reviews?? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10020262-1.html?tag=hwt_main;hwt_mcol)

They were thinking about adding motion resolution to the geek box for thier reviews.
I think its a good idea, but I think the human element needs to be removed for it to be in any way accurate.

I don't know bout any of that, but I popped in the DVE disc and launched the 1080p expanding circles thing sharpenss test pattern - using whatever default setting the display was on - and it just freaked the heck out. there were two main vertical lines jarting up and down about 1/5th in from the left and the right sides, there were also these angles kinda shooting out from the center - it was like showing how the unit was sectioning off the screen to deal with it. I'm guessing the TV was set to STANDARD AMP mode

definitely a pursuit camera would be best (i think this is what they use with the mprt system (http://www.eldim.fr/library/eldim-products-datasheets/mprt-2000_english.pdf) of measurement). i don't know how the exact test procedure was carried out xrox but i would think they were smart enough to factor in distance and panel size. a few sets of eyes were used i believe though i don't think it was seven, and i don't know the number of samples taken. they all varied a certain amount.

i certainly don't see any reason for dismissing the test. assuming there were errors, how do you know they were not evened out among the panels (they test a lot of panels so i would guess some standard was devised). unless we know exactly how the test was carried out, i have to go with.. "if it walks and quacks like a duck, its a duck" :)

the test is a visual convergence test so obviously they could distiguish a difference.

in this case your attempt to discredit the results (for what ever reason you feel the need to) holds no water. quick summary below.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080130/qtec.jpg

"a Monoscope Test, consisting of four groupings of four non-parallel black lines arrayed to form a wedge-shaped patterns (see photo below) that appear at the top, sides and bottom of a center square. To test resolution, you look at the bottom wedge. There are both stationary and moving versions of the test. fpd-monoscope-pattern-400.jpg The stationary test is for static resolution, determined by the point where the lines are no longer seen as separate, and begin to blur together. Numbers adjacent to the wedges help make what is a subjective test, somewhat easier to determine and more reliable".


First off Borf, it was a question and not meant to discredit the test at all.
Is this not a place to ask these kind of questions?:rolleyes:

definitely a pursuit camera would be best (i think this is what they use with the mprt system (http://www.eldim.fr/library/eldim-products-datasheets/mprt-2000_english.pdf) of measurement). i don't know how the exact test procedure was carried out xrox but i would think they were smart enough to factor in distance and panel size. a few sets of eyes were used i believe though i don't think it was seven, and i don't know the number of samples taken. they all varied a certain amount.

i certainly don't see any reason for dismissing the test. assuming there were errors, how do you know they were not evened out among the panels (they test a lot of panels so i would guess some standard was devised). unless we know exactly how the test was carried out, i have to go with.. "if it walks and quacks like a duck, its a duck" :)Firstly, I have read data from actual researchers that plotted motion resolution versus test pattern speed for various display techs and found that not all displays have the same slope on the plot and that the plots actually intersect at certain speeds. That tells me right there that even a standardized test cannot tell you how well a display can perform overal with regards to motion and if parameters are changed the results can even show a complete reversal. For instance PDP > LCD at slow speeds and LCD > PDP at high speeds....etc

Secondly, when I criticize "reviewers" motion resolution results it is because I realize how important standardized parameters are to the static accuracy of this test and the overall repeatability of the test. I suspect that the majority of reviewers don't even understand what SAH blur is and why distance from screen can drastically change the results (even with a camera).

First off Borf, it was a question and not meant to discredit the test at all.
Is this not a place to ask these kind of questions?:rolleyes:

don't mean to be rude.

Firstly, I have read data from actual researchers that plotted motion resolution versus test pattern speed for various display techs and found that not all displays have the same slope on the plot and that the plots actually intersect at certain speeds. That tells me right there that even a standardized test cannot tell you how well a display can perform overal with regards to motion and if parameters are changed the results can even show a complete reversal. For instance PDP > LCD at slow speeds and LCD > PDP at high speeds....etc

yep, i have said it myself. but in any case we can only guess that at the particular speed they tested the results speak for themselves. i happen to think that higher speeds would favor plasma since mcfi breaks down after a certain speed then all hell breaks loose.

yep, i have said it myself. but in any case we can only guess that at the particular speed they tested the results speak for themselves. i happen to think that higher speeds would favor plasma since mcfi breaks down after a certain speed then all hell breaks loose. Some reviewer actually tried to compare the motion resolution of the 11" Sony XEL-1 to large LCD or PDP displays without stating they took into account distance from screen. Don't you find that suspect? Of course the 11" screen will kick ass in that test because the pattern will have a very low linear velocity compared to a huge screen. Reviewers don't understand the blur in on the moving retina not the screen. How fast is your retina moving watching an 11" screen? :)

i agree, that would be wrong.

don't mean to be rude.



No problem, lol.

Even though there are some issues I take with certain posters I wasn't offended by your post at all and have found you helpful along the way and I truly like to learn from some of the more experienced posters on here. Some goes way over my head and well past my interest but there's usually something still there to be learned. :)

The A950 is clearly superior to the Kuro in motion resolution, color accuracy, brightness, color saturation, and contrast ratios.

The Kuro is clearly superior in black levels. That WOULD make a difference if one were viewing the sets in total darkness in a room with dark furnishings while draped in black cloth except for your eyes. But in any room with any amount of ambient light, the Kuro's sole advantage dissappears as the room light reflects off the screen. (Anti-reflective coatings simply diffuse the reflected light and suppress reflected images, they do not absorb the light itself, which degrades the black levels.)

With the new LCDs like the LN-46A950, LN-55A950, and the Sony XBR8's, it is no longer clear to me that the Kuro is still king. I live in a room full of windows, not a cave. I have never had a Plasma that I found the least bit acceptable in this bright room, and I've rejected a lot of LCDs with shiny screens as well.

This is a purely academic discussion for me. I would never spend $3000+ for a TV, unless I just won the lottery. None of the sets I mentioned is anything I would consider buying, when one can get a nice front projector upgrade for less. I HAVE a cave room in my house but I'm not gonna accept anything smaller than the 96" screen I presently have in there.

Your comparison is at odds with every review I have ever seen! Check out the reviews in magazines like Home Theater, Sound & Vision and others, and you will find that the reviewers are unanimous in saying that the Pioneer's are the best you can buy at any price.

First of all, read what Merson says about motion resolution on the A950:


Please note: this performance level resulted from activating the display’s Motion Plus control and setting the interpolation (called Auto Motion by Samsung) to “low.” Any other combination of the motion control settings resulted in motion blur, dropping the perfect 1080 line score down to as low as 330 lines!


IMO 330 lines is terrible! The Pioneer models, on the other hand, performed at 900 lines regardless of settings.

With regard to color accuracy and saturation, your assertion is very unlikely. The Pioneers, as shipped, are very accurate in the color settings, unlike many other brands which come cranked up to be overly saturated and too blue, i.e., to high a color temperature so that they look "good" in a brightly lit store showroom. If, by "superior color saturation" you mean more saturated colors I would tend to agree; LCD's are notorious for over-saturated colors resulting in an unnatural "post card" look, and the color hues tend to be off, being "pretty" but very unnatural. The Pioneers, on the other hand, are very accurate in both hue and saturation as shipped, and can be further tweaked to near perfection by ISF professionals, etc.

Of course the LCD's will be brighter, but plasmas are plenty bright enough, and do not present problems in brightly lit rooms. Your assertion about contrast is again very doubtful. If you are referring to blackness of the blacks, I think we have already covered that ground. If you are referring to gamma (gray scale), I think you again will find the KURO's superior as well, and, again, they can be tweaked even further.

All this being said, I am not trying to put the Samsung LCD's down in general, they are one of the best LCD's, and they do make the best computer monitors; I am using one here. As for TV/video applications, however, I think the Sony's are better, especially the XBR models. Again look at Gary Merson's test results. For one thing all Samsung models fail the 3:2 pulldown test, except for the A950, and it only passes with the right setting. Compare that with Sony and Pioneer.

I have an 08 Kuro. I SAW the latest AMP on the SAMSUNG. the motion correction is BETTER on the Samsung than the Pioneer Kuro. Yes the Pio probably measures better numbers picture quality wise, but these new Samsungs LOOK great. You will see when you see one live.

No problem, lol.

Some goes way over my head and well past my interest but there's usually something still there to be learned. :)

glad you're not offended. - im in the same boat as you except i happen to be fond of this particular subject.
if i seem pissy, its only temporary :p
but i do like to give lcd engineers credit when due as i've been waiting a long time for them to admit, much less fix these issues.

glad you're not offended. - im in the same boat as you except i happen to be fond of this particular subject.
if i seem pissy, its only temporary :p
but i do like to give lcd engineers credit when due as i've been waiting a long time for them to admit, much less fix these issues.

LCD's as well as plasmas have made great strides in their short life span and produce pictures as good as anything we have had especially on the bigger sizes so it always amazes me how so many posters in here concentrate so heavily on the flaws and nitpick rather than enjoy a quality viewing experience.

I have an 08 Kuro. I SAW the latest AMP on the SAMSUNG. the motion correction is BETTER on the Samsung than the Pioneer Kuro. Yes the Pio probably measures better numbers picture quality wise, but these new Samsungs LOOK great. You will see when you see one live.

I've seen plenty live, and I don't care for AMP. I don't care for how it looks, the artifacts that it can introduce, and the fact that it makes a movie look not like a movie.

everyone's opinion's valid of course.

but how can one NOT LIKE crystal clear pans? the blurry movie pan is caused by limitations in the film medium REQUIRING DIRECTORS TO PAN THEIR CAMERAS EVEN SLOWER THAN DESIRED or else it would be a huge mess

My KURO SMOOTH mode produces artifacts also

Judder-free panning is one thing. I have no issue there.

I do have an issue with AMP erradicating the overall look of a film through the process of interpolation. That visual style simply does not appeal to me when watching a movie.

I don't like judder, but to me, it comes down to two choices:

1) Smooth panning, but movies look like they were shot with a camcorder.

2) Panning judder, but movies still look like movies.

I'll still take choice 2, every time.

I do have an issue with AMP erradicating the overall look of a film through the process of interpolation. That visual style simply does not appeal to me when watching a movie.

When I see AMP on film I am always reminded of the old silent movies and early recordings that look like they are playing too fast when you watch them.

Check out the new Samsung LED sets. I just picked one up yesterday, 6000 series, pricey, bu no motion blur. I watched an HD hockey game out of Canada on my sat system. Never lost sight of the puck, no ghosting, no screen door, nothing, just pure fluid unadulterated motion. I thought I was at the game.

1) Smooth panning, but movies look like they were shot with a camcorder.

2) Panning judder, but movies still look like movies.

I'll still take choice 2, every time.

I know we agree to disagree on personal choices, but do you understand that the smoothness is really just like how the image looks when it is a stopped camera shot? So, it looks great and HD-ish when there is no panning and that is ok, but when it pans and is still exactly as great looking, HD-ish, and detailed as the still shot, that's not good? I still struggle with how something not as good looking, is better to people. As far as growing into a new thing, it took me all of 10 seconds to think, "Holy Cripes! I never knew HDTV could look THIS clear all the time.. not just on stopped camera shots." -- the New SAMSUNG impressed my so much more than my Pioneer KURO.

I know we agree to disagree on personal choices, but do you understand that the smoothness is really just like how the image looks when it is a stopped camera shot? So, it looks great and HD-ish when there is no panning and that is ok, but when it pans and is still exactly as great looking, HD-ish, and detailed as the still shot, that's not good? I still struggle with how something not as good looking, is better to people. As far as growing into a new thing, it took me all of 10 seconds to think, "Holy Cripes! I never knew HDTV could look THIS clear all the time.. not just on stopped camera shots." -- the New SAMSUNG impressed my so much more than my Pioneer KURO.

You saw the new Luxia? Incredible to say the least.

I know we agree to disagree on personal choices, but do you understand that the smoothness is really just like how the image looks when it is a stopped camera shot? So, it looks great and HD-ish when there is no panning and that is ok, but when it pans and is still exactly as great looking, HD-ish, and detailed as the still shot, that's not good? I still struggle with how something not as good looking, is better to people. As far as growing into a new thing, it took me all of 10 seconds to think, "Holy Cripes! I never knew HDTV could look THIS clear all the time.. not just on stopped camera shots." -- the New SAMSUNG impressed my so much more than my Pioneer KURO.

It's not that AMP simply smooths panning, it affects how the entire image looks. Even subtle movements with AMP turned on look sped-up, like you're ever-so-slightly fast-forwarding the material. I do not care for that look when watching a film. I like 24fps DESPITE blurred panning, not because of it.

And yeah, it took me 10 seconds for my jaw to drop and for me to be wowed by the effect, too. But it took another minute for me to realize that I hated it.

. I never knew HDTV could look THIS clear all the time.. not just on stopped camera shots." -- the New SAMSUNG impressed my so much more than my Pioneer KURO.

The return your reference display and get the gimmick display.:D

LCD's as well as plasmas have made great strides in their short life span and produce pictures as good as anything we have had especially on the bigger sizes so it always amazes me how so many posters in here concentrate so heavily on the flaws and nitpick rather than enjoy a quality viewing experience.


At the end of the day, when all is said and done, I agree that among the top offerings from the best brands, today's sets, both plasms and LCD's are excellent. Engineers have made tremendous strides in all areas. For example, both plasmas and LCD's were known for having especially lousy blacks just a few years ago. Also, big strides have been made in eliminating artifacts. Remember, for example, how scrolling credits always used to shimmer and flicker on TV screens?

lcd's as well as plasmas have made great strides in their short life span and produce pictures as good as anything we have had especially on the bigger sizes...

...so it always amazes me how so many posters in here concentrate so heavily on the flaws and nitpick rather than enjoy a quality viewing experience.

+1.
.

Samsung makes amazing LCD s they have the most accurate motion depiction, however plasmas will still prevail on the motion aspect of the game. Luxia model is definitely one of the best i have seen in a while but the Pioneer Elite is still topping it and its a year prior in technology. I own LCDs and I own one plasma the Pioneer Elite 60" still is by far the best on black levels as well as motion blur.

Samsung makes amazing LCD s they have the most accurate motion depiction, however plasmas will still prevail on the motion aspect of the game. Luxia model is definitely one of the best i have seen in a while but the Pioneer Elite is still topping it and its a year prior in technology. I own LCDs and I own one plasma the Pioneer Elite 60" still is by far the best on black levels as well as motion blur.

I always find that the sonys have the smoothest most natural motion, but that's just me:cool:

I always find that the sonys have the smoothest most natural motion, but that's just me:cool:

With good reason: on the basis of test data, the Sony's, as a group, have the best signal processing.