Well I have been into HD DVD since the wal mart sale in Nov. Anyway I was stunned by the "clarity" of POTC on the Samsung TV and blu ray displays I have seen. Looked so clear and almost 3-D like and I wondered why the HD-DVD's that I have do not have that 3-D look.

Today I am in CC and saw a real nice Samsung 1080p TV paired with a A-30. I was hoping they would have the 149 dollar price but no luck nor stock. But as I was looking at the player I noticed they had transformers in the machine playing on the Sammy display. Every other time I have seen a HD DVD player it has been hooked to a toshiba display usually playing the demo disc.

With this set up in CC I started watching Transformers and thought I was watching a behind the scenes or blooper real or some extra footage at first because it had that same 3D look the POTC has on these displays. It looked real weird but I continued watching and realized that it was the regular movie and then that is actually when I noticed the TV was a Sammy 50 inch LCD!

The Sammy must have a VIVID or MOVIE mode or something because that movie looked like the super saturated 3D effect that POTC has in most Blu displays.

Conclusion it is not the movie, digital mastering, or the media it is the TV!

Has anyone else seen this effect? Honestly It looked really kinda cool and WOW at first but then I realized it did not look "normal." I have never seen POTC on a properly calibrated TV only those display models.

Glad My projector has been calibrated I think it would get tiring seeing it in this mode for too long. Comments?

Yes, my friends Sammy 4671 lcd has the same effect. At first I thought it was awesome, but now, I'm not so sure. Kinda looks weird now. Guess I'm too used to my older Sammy Plasma. The more I think about a new TV, the more I think I don't want that kind of imaging, or I just need to get used to it. Are all newer LCD's this way?

Are all newer LCD's this way?

I believe the effect is from 120 Hz refresh rate. I find it quite jarring on film content. It can be disabled.

I believe the effect is from 120 Hz refresh rate. I find it quite jarring on film content. It can be disabled.

Is that what it is? I wondered what it could be as well. Looks really different and strange after seeing it on a movie I am very familiar with I must confess.

it's actually the automotion feature on the tv, which can be disabled

I believe the effect is from 120 Hz refresh rate. I find it quite jarring on film content. It can be disabled.

It's not the 120 Hz per se, it is the Smoothvision or whatever they call it that gets rid of motion blur. 120 Hz is good, these motion blur erasing algorithms are not. Thankfully, I think it can be turned off in most of these sets. Sony has a similar thing on their 120 Hz displays.

It is also the fact the BB had the contrast and intensity maxed out on the TV for display purposes. They are trying to get J6P's attention and make him say "WOW, look how bright that is. I need one of those things."

Conclusion it is not the movie, digital mastering, or the media it is the TV!

That is correct. This is an optional motion interpolation feature that can be used on 120 Hz LCDs. On Sony LCDs it's called Motion Enhance and on Samsung LCDs it's called AMP. It can also be disabled on these LCDs (which is what I prefer, I don't like my films looking like David Letterman). It has nothing to do with the movie, disk, format, or player.

Yes, my friends Sammy 4671 lcd has the same effect. At first I thought it was awesome, but now, I'm not so sure. Kinda looks weird now. Guess I'm too used to my older Sammy Plasma. The more I think about a new TV, the more I think I don't want that kind of imaging, or I just need to get used to it. Are all newer LCD's this way?

The motion interpolation features can be disabled.

Saw one of these tv's on saturday and it's an abomination. They were showing the fantastic four and it looked like it was shot with a video camera. Ugh, no thanks...

Can someone elaborate on this effect?

You mean it makes film look like a daytime soap opera?

Why do UK versions of these TVs only have a 100hz mode that interpolates motion - don't they interpolate motion up to 120hz for even smoother motion?

I saw corpse bride on one of those t.vs at 120hz. I thought it looked terrible. Like someone else has said. It looked like it was shot with a video camera. I thought it did have a neat effect and might be cool to watch maybe some hand drawn animation on it just to see what it would look like. But I would never watch a movie like that. It was annoying and to me ruined the film "feel". I figured there was more going on with the picture than just upping the frame rate. Upping the rate would just reduce flicker but there was more going on. I guess it was the motion interpolation feature. Stupid.

Why do UK versions of these TVs only have a 100hz mode that interpolates motion - don't they interpolate motion up to 120hz for even smoother motion?

That is because UK runs video at 50 hz and doubling that to 100 has the same effect as doubling 60 to 120.

I've been wondering about this as well ever since I saw POTC playing at a BB on one of the Sammy sets. I was standing there, holding a PS3 in my hands (going purple) and thinking to myself..."is THAT what it's going to look like on my projector?? Ewwww".

Thankfully no.

A daytime soap is exactly what it looked like to me. Like it had been shot on hi def video. Great for sports...horrible for movies.

Thanks to the OP for piping up and asking the question. Otherwise I would never have known either. :D

Though I agree that if you're watching a full movie, this feature should be turned off or at least to min, it still really is a cool feature to have. For Transformers, the ending looked like a HD live newscast... really cool looking actually.

Cloverfield and movies like it should look fantastic with the feature turned on.

I agree, the frame interpolation on some of these LCDs just looks horrible. We have a Blu-ray player hooked up to a Sammy 71F at work, and I always turn off the "Automotion Plus." As someone said earlier, it actually looks pretty good when watching sports, but it destroys the way a film is supposed to look. There are some guys at work who love the feature, but I can't stand it personally. It also makes the player's ability to play movies at 24 fps pointless.

I have an XBR4 and love it, except for the artifacts and haloing. If not for that, I'd have it on all the time.

As for hand-drawn animation, forget it. It looks terrible. The algorithms simply can't handle it, especially something like the Simpsons where there is no blur in movement from frame to frame.

I've been wondering about this as well ever since I saw POTC playing at a BB on one of the Sammy sets. I was standing there, holding a PS3 in my hands (going purple) and thinking to myself..."is THAT what it's going to look like on my projector?? Ewwww".

Thankfully no.

A daytime soap is exactly what it looked like to me. Like it had been shot on hi def video. Great for sports...horrible for movies.

Thanks to the OP for piping up and asking the question. Otherwise I would never have known either. :D

Hey your welcome! LOL I just did not know why the difference the POTC is stunning in the store I bet a TON of Blu has been sold with that over the top look.

Well, I am aware of what Automotion Plus causes. I was more referring to the 3D of the set I saw, which was a Sammy 71 series. It really looked like I could stick my arm inside the screen, from normal viewing distance. At first, I thought it was awesome and was so jealous. The more I see it, the more I don't like it. Not use to that much 3D I guess, seems unnatural or something. I thought thats what the OP was referring to also, maybe I misunderstood.

The Motion Plus is something else. The smoothness is just nasty and wierd.

the 3D effect is what I was referring to as well.

120Hz is the next big useless thing that HDTV makers are starting to promote. At least 1080p gave some minor improvement; 120Hz seems to actually be a drop in quality.

120Hz is the next big useless thing that HDTV makers are starting to promote. At least 1080p gave some minor improvement; 120Hz seems to actually be a drop in quality.

No, 120 Hz is a great thing because it gets rid of judder, because there is no need for the 2:3 pulldown anymore. That increases the quality by playing the movie in complete, equal frames. Its the motion blur erasing things included with it that is the useless part.

I thought 24fps got rid of judder?

I hope that these comments are being posted in the BD forums as well for BD playback and the suscipious displays, or some will blame HD DVD for these complaints...and you know they will.

Thanks for shedding some light on just what the heck this was. I saw this in Circuit City a few weeks back and had no idea what was going on. I must say it looked pretty cool at first, but I figured if I watched an entire movie that way it would make me sick. I had assumed it was a demo disc with some weird camera-work, but now I know. Thanks for the heads up, I would love to see this for a bit on Transformers.....

I thought 24fps got rid of judder?
true, but no TV that i know of shows 1080p24 at 24Hz. they display at a multiple of 24Hz (one of which is 120Hz) showing each frame the appropriate number of times (5 in the case of 120Hz).

I've been wondering about this as well ever since I saw POTC playing at a BB on one of the Sammy sets. I was standing there, holding a PS3 in my hands (going purple) and thinking to myself..."is THAT what it's going to look like on my projector?? Ewwww".

Thankfully no.

A daytime soap is exactly what it looked like to me. Like it had been shot on hi def video. Great for sports...horrible for movies.

Thanks to the OP for piping up and asking the question. Otherwise I would never have known either. :D

Actually, this is old news on this board. I have not actually seen this with the new 71 series but there have been several posts about it.

I have the 65 series Sammy and I think Transformers looks stunning as is on my A20 and no 120hz or Automotion.

Thanks for shedding some light on just what the heck this was. I saw this in Circuit City a few weeks back and had no idea what was going on. I must say it looked pretty cool at first, but I figured if I watched an entire movie that way it would make me sick. I had assumed it was a demo disc with some weird camera-work, but now I know. Thanks for the heads up, I would love to see this for a bit on Transformers.....

It's really amazing how much detail you miss with LCDs in motion. Going from off to high reveals so much more of the picture as to be nearly unbelievable.

I actually saw this on BD at a CC store (still haven't seen a proper HD DVD setup at CC or BB). They had both POTC and Spiderman-3 BDs running on Sony TVs. Yes, it definitely had that video/soap opera feel to it. It was too lifelike, very 3D. I personally would prefer a more film-like experience.

Chucky mentioned Cloverfield would look fantastic with the feature turned on, but I saw that movie and I got a little motion sickness. I would hurl for sure if I saw it with this effect on an HD display at home.

ne one else who cant stand the motion blur on 120 hZ... thought i was the only one...

Is this special feature new for the 71 Samsung LCD series or is this also on the 61 series?

Is this special feature new for the 71 Samsung LCD series or is this also on the 61 series?

the 61 / 65 series does not have that feature or the 120mhz...

Yeah, it's the 120HZ feature, and as one person noted, it can be shut off or turned down on most tv's. When I worked at circuit city for the holidays I hated the demos that they had of POTC running, cause it looked so fake to me.

I actually saw this on BD at a CC store (still haven't seen a proper HD DVD setup at CC or BB). They had both POTC and Spiderman-3 BDs running on Sony TVs. Yes, it definitely had that video/soap opera feel to it. It was too lifelike, very 3D. I personally would prefer a more film-like experience.

Chucky mentioned Cloverfield would look fantastic with the feature turned on, but I saw that movie and I got a little motion sickness. I would hurl for sure if I saw it with this effect on an HD display at home.

Actually, my sister-in-law did get up about half way through Cloverfield to throw up.:D She has sworn never to watch another movie that is shot like that again on a big screen.

Sorry to get off topic.

I expected to see a framing issue. :D

No, 120 Hz is a great thing because it gets rid of judder, because there is no need for the 2:3 pulldown anymore. That increases the quality by playing the movie in complete, equal frames. Its the motion blur erasing things included with it that is the useless part.

That's what I meant; 120Hz in its present form is a step down.
Now if it was just reverse pulldown it would be great.

The 3D pop is discussed often in the projector forums and, per Jason of AVS, the most significant contributing factor is ANSI contrast ratio. So, if he is correct, you guys are right and wrong. It is the display causing the effect, but has nothing to do with the refresh rate or picture processing.

Glad I stumbled onto this thread. I couldn't figure out why the Pirates 3 demo I saw at Costco a few days ago looked *exactly* like video instead of film (or even 24P video). I actually watched it for about 30 seconds to confirm to myself that it was indeed the film rather than a game or special feature. It literally looked like an HD video broadcast of "Pirates 3: The Stage Play".

That's what I meant; 120Hz in its present form is a step down.
Now if it was just reverse pulldown it would be great.

I don't think 120 HZ is any step down at all. How is being able to display 24 HZ material in its original format a step down? You don't have to add the processing if you don't like it. I personnally do like it, but that's not the point really.

The XBR4 displays 24HZ material in 5:5 perfectly. It's not film, so it still suffers all the problems associated with LCD blur, but it is displaying each frame for 1/24s.

I saw this effect at best buy, they were showing Batman Begins. Don't recall what set they had it on, but it was before I had ever seen an HD movie. I was surprised (and actually very glad) it didn't look like that when I finally brought an HD DVD player home. I thought it looked really weird, batman's suit and his car just looked so plasticky and fake! I mean, the detail was definitely impressive but I don't want to feel like i'm staring at a shiny plastic suit when i watch batman.

A daytime soap is exactly what it looked like to me. Like it had been shot on hi def video. Great for sports...
Or for pr0n...not that I'd welcome it w/ open arms, but I can definitely see how it'd make that particular genre a bit more visually appealing. ;)

Or for pr0n...not that I'd welcome it w/ open arms, but I can definitely see how it'd make that particular genre a bit more visually appealing. ;)
The only thing I can say to your comment is be careful what you wish for.

This interpolation has been done in WinDVD for many years. It's called TrimensionDNM in the latest WinDVD. I fould the algorithm used in WinDVD looks much better in terms of artifacts relative to the results seen on these new TVs.

OK, let me try to clear up the whole "120 hz, motion processing, blah blah" stuff. I'll avoid being technical where possible.

1) Faster refresh rates (or "frame rates" if you will) are good... you get more frames into each second which reduces motion blur and increases motion detail. This is an inarguable fact.

2) Film is (primarily) shot at 24fps. This is largely a traditional thing... it was deemed the lowest acceptable frame rate to not appear "jerky". Using less films saves on film cost, plus early cameras were limited, etc. Newer cameras and digital production make it easy to shoot at higher frame rates, but the whole world has been set up to run at 24 fps or 30 fps, so even if you did it would be difficult for your increased frame rate movie to be appreciated by anybody.

3) TVs usually run at some multiple of 30hz (usually 60hz). This is because television broadcasts are sent at 30 fps. This creates a problem with film since it is running at 24 fps... what do you do with the extra 6 frames your television is expecting? So 3:2 pulldown is used, repeating frames at different rates to get to a multiple of 30. Since certain frames are displayed longer than others (some are "3" and some are "2") this creates jerkiness in motion in film, which is bad.

4) New TVs/HD players have a 24p mode which allows them to run exactly at 24 fps, just like film. This eliminates "jerkiness" due to 3:2 pulldown. This is good.

5) However, 24 fps is still a pretty low figure... it's not exactly smooth and well below the capability of the human eye. So even if there's no 3:2 "jerk" something moving very fast at 24 fps will still look "blurry". This is also considered bad.

6) 120Hz TVs work to resolve this a bit by using an incredibly high frame rate, allowing them to display the 24 fps source at a faster rate. The number 120 is specifically arrived at because it is a multiple of 24 (24*5 = 120). This is considered superior to pure 24p processing as it "refreshes" each frame 5 times, thereby making your eye less able to pick up on the "slowness" of a 24 hz refresh rate. This is good.

7) Motion Enhancement on 120 hz displays (it goes by various names) takes things a step further. If we have 120 frames to work with, why waste them on repeats? Instead of simply repeating the same frame 5 times it asks "what if we had more frames to work with? What if the film was shot at 120 fps rather than 24 fps?". So instead of taking frame 1, repeating it 5 times, then moving to frame 2 it will figure out the average between frame 1 and frame 2, and insert this average as new frames between frame 1 and 2. So instead of having a frame "jump" from frame 1 to 2, you will instead get all the "in between" information. This in between information allows all the detail in the frame to remain sharp even in motion as it eliminates the blur inherent to 24fps material.

8) Motion enhancement thus ends up looking more "real" which is also coincidentally a bit more like live sports or soap operas look. Why? Well live sports are filmed at a rapid frame rate (60hz) so you can keep up with all the fast motion without jerking or jitter. Soap opera's are shot on video, usually at 60hz, but simply because it's cheaper than film.

9) So is 120hz processing "bad"? NO. It's superior in every way to 3:2 processing or even 24p processing.

10) So is "motion enhancement" bad? This gets more subjective. It certainly looks and feels different than traditional 24p processing. People usually get upset at change, so no surprise some people are freaking out over it. But on a technical level one could argue that motion enhancement is technically superior to all other forms of display. More frames = more information = more detail, plain and simple. You are getting a superior picture in a strict sense.

One could argue that this processing makes the film look "different" than the filmmakers intended. This is true, but you also have to remember that the filmakers have no other option: they can't shoot things at 120 hz even if they wanted to (well they can, but good luck getting it seen in theaters). The fact of the matter is that motion looks better at a higher framerate, period.

One could also argue that motion processing is adding things that were never there, which is bad. This is technically true, but technically false. The motion processing is simply trying to recreate the frames that WERE originally there (in real life) but were simply not captured by the camera.

At the end of the day, the simple fact is that there is nothing "special" about 24 fps... it's plainly inferior to higher frame rates. And while frame rate can be raised and lowered to give things a certain "feel" or "mood", filmmakers haven't been choosing 24 fps because it's the best, but simply because it's the only choice and it's traditional. As such, I see motion processing as an interesting step in the right direction. My eyes feel more "happy" to be seeing things at a more life-like rate. Unfortunately, whether this increase in information "fits" a film or not is going to depend on the film. I feel that MOST of them work fine with motion enhancing, but there are a few that don't (2D animation, for example).

I can imagine in the future that films will dictate the frame rates they run at themselves, even varying the frame rate within the film. So each film will be filmed at 120 fps, but the final encode "flags" the frame rate that the film should be running at. I imagine most films in this future would be flagged at a higher framerate (action, sports, documentary. etc.), with a few still opting for the "traditional" 24p look (drama, historical).

I don't think 120 HZ is any step down at all. How is being able to display 24 HZ material in its original format a step down? You don't have to add the processing if you don't like it. I personnally do like it, but that's not the point really.

The XBR4 displays 24HZ material in 5:5 perfectly. It's not film, so it still suffers all the problems associated with LCD blur, but it is displaying each frame for 1/24s.

It's not just 24fps material that's displayed perfectly, 30 and 60Hz material is too. 120 is the lowest common multiple of all three. If the processing can be disabled, I don't have a problem. It looked good the first few seconds I saw it, but then quickly got "weird". Personally, I like 60Hz video, but 120 is a bit much.

One could argue that this processing makes the film look "different" than the filmmakers intended. This is true, but you also have to remember that the filmakers have no other option: they can't shoot things at 120 hz even if they wanted to (well they can, but good luck getting it seen in theaters). The fact of the matter is that motion looks better at a higher framerate, period.

One could also argue that motion processing is adding things that were never there, which is bad. This is technically true, but technically false. The motion processing is simply trying to recreate the frames that WERE originally there (in real life) but were simply not captured by the camera.
really fantastic post! well-stated and easy-to-understand technical details all around. i just wanted to comment on these two paragraphs in particular (which, of course, deviate into your personal opinions, which are well-stated, though i don't entirely agree).

the idea that motion looks "better" at a higher framerate is, i believe, somewhat subjective. motion certainly looks smoother at a higher framerate - that is unquestionable - but smoother motion is not necessarily "better" in all cases. 24fps film has a certain aesthetic quality that i believe should not be altered just to provide smoother motion. i would like films in my home theater to look as close as possible to how they're presented in the movie theater, not how they "existed" in real life. for that reason, i'm not a big fan of motion processing to interpolate frames. 1080p24 displayed at 48Hz (2:2) is my ideal for home theater, as that is the closest approximation to the way films are projected in most theaters.

I believe the effect is from 120 Hz refresh rate. I find it quite jarring on film content. It can be disabled.

Speaking of 120Hz, I thought this was going to be something really cool until I saw the demo on a few sets. IMO, not good. It makes the movie look like a documentary.

Yeah, it's the 120HZ feature, and as one person noted, it can be shut off or turned down on most tv's. When I worked at circuit city for the holidays I hated the demos that they had of POTC running, cause it looked so fake to me.

No, this effect is not caused by 120 Hz, it's caused by motion interpolation. These 2 features are not the same thing. The motion interpolation features can be disabled on 120 Hz sets. This does NOT disable 120 Hz, which is the native frame rate of these displays. On Sony XBR4/5 displays, when the Motion Enhance interpolation is turned off, the display takes 24p content and properly does a 5:5 conversion on it to bring it up to its native frame rate, 120 Hz, as it should. The result is the smoothest reproduction of film on video I have ever seen, NOT the soap opera look that the interpolation causes.

That's what I meant; 120Hz in its present form is a step down.
Now if it was just reverse pulldown it would be great.

No, it's not a step down at all. Have you watched HD DVD or Blu-ray on a Sony XBR4/5 set, with the Motion Enhance interpolation feature turned off? Film displayed this way looks phenomenal.

So let me get this straight... expensive new HDTVs have groundbreaking technology that can turn 200 Million Dollar budgeted blockbuster films and make them look like... As The World Turns. Oh boy.

the 61 / 65 series does not have that feature or the 120mhz...

Yeah, it's only on the 69 and 71 series (which I think are identical with the 69 having a matte vs the 71's glossy screen.)

So let me get this straight... expensive new HDTVs have groundbreaking technology that can turn 200 Million Dollar budgeted blockbuster films and make them look like... As The World Turns. Oh boy.

Some people like the effect. Some don't. All depends on whether you like the HD camcorder effect or are more of a purist and want everything at reference levels. To each his own.

On the Samsungs there are four levels: off, low, medium and high. So you can tune the effect to a degree.

The 3D pop is discussed often in the projector forums and, per Jason of AVS, the most significant contributing factor is ANSI contrast ratio. So, if he is correct, you guys are right and wrong. It is the display causing the effect, but has nothing to do with the refresh rate or picture processing.



ANSI is not the primary reason for the effect that is being talked about which is the motion enhancer setting on the sets that have this feature. I was in BB and experienced the same thing with POTC and every other movie on the demo. It looked real and very 3D, but not like film and the way movies usualy look. Went into the menu, turned off the motion enhancer which was on HIGH (had a off, low, medium, and high setting) and then it looked identical to my 1080p projector at home. 120hz has nothing to do with it, and it is all in the motion enhancer feature. With the motion enhancer off the 120hz looked identical in motion to my RS1 at 96hz which it should as both are displaying at a multiple of 24. 120hz is good, the motion enhancer is debatable.

ANSI is not the primary reason for the effect that is being talked about which is the motion enhancer setting on the sets that have this feature. I was in BB and experienced the same thing with POTC and every other movie on the demo. It looked real and very 3D, but not like film and the way movies usualy look. Went into the menu, turned off the motion enhancer which was on HIGH (had a off, low, medium, and high setting) and then it looked identical to my 1080p projector at home. 120hz has nothing to do with it, and it is all in the motion enhancer feature. With the motion enhancer off the 120hz looked identical in motion to my RS1 at 96hz which it should as both are displaying at a multiple of 24. 120hz is good, the motion enhancer is debatable.

Except the original post talks about 3D and motion processing. All the replies are what brought 120hz into this.

IMO it is a combination of newer TV's being much better at 3D then past models. Add 120hz capable screens and Motion Plus features and you get a completely different picture. My 2 y/o Sammy Plasma doesn't have anything close to the 3D effect the new 71 series lcd has, yet I prefer the picture from my old plasma.

I really think it is a bit of false advertising by Blu or Sammy or who ever. I think that most people that see that WOW factor (it is breathtaking to look at in the beginning) get home with a new Blu player and POTC in hand hook it up to the plasma or LCD with this function either not on or non existant and it looks totally different from expectations. I have to admit once again (and I am AV HD and Tech Savvy) I was blown away by it at first.

I would have been EXTREMELY upset if I had paid 499 for the sammy blu player 30 bucks for the movie hooked it up to the projector and thud. NO 3D to wow the family (since I most likely would have been telling them to just wait til I get this set up and they would be wowed) since I tend to build things up to justify the purchase! LOL

OK, let me try to clear up the whole "120 hz, motion processing, blah blah" stuff. I'll avoid being technical where possible.
).

Thanks for the explanation, interesting. One benefit of motion enhancement is that you create all those extra frames in-between without increasing the transmission bandwidth. All the calculation and processing is done in the TV. :D Good for cable and sat transmissions.

I would have been EXTREMELY upset if I had paid 499 for the sammy blu player 30 bucks for the movie hooked it up to the projector and thud. NO 3D to wow the family

Not a problem. The samsung will probably lock up at the menu screen, avoiding the entire "no 3D" fiasco ;)

OK, let me try to clear up the whole "120 hz, motion processing, blah blah" stuff. I'll avoid being technical where possible.

Padriac, thank you for this very informative explaination of these related technologies. I found this post to be QUITE informative, and easy to read.

Thanks for the explanation, interesting. One benefit of motion enhancement is that you create all those extra frames in-between without increasing the transmission bandwidth. All the calculation and processing is done in the TV. :D Good for cable and sat transmissions.

It's great with live broadcasts, such as football. I don't know about the Samsungs, but on the Sonys you can set it so that the Motion Enhance only happens when viewing video based content. Set this way, when it detects 24p flags, it turns the Motion Enhance off.

ne one else who cant stand the motion blur on 120 hZ... thought i was the only one...

count me in as someone else who also hates it!

I had a samsung 4071 lcd with amp for about 2 weeks before returning it. I hated amp from the start for live action movies, but wanted to like it for cg and animation. But amp on anything but low created artifacts and even gave me motion sickness. In the end with the flaws and the way it's implemented was way too distracting for me and took away from the movie experience. 120hz amp ftl.

Conclusion it is not the movie, digital mastering, or the media it is the TV!The display blew you away because it was calibrated wrong - but for the ENVIRONMENT you were in (fluorescent lights from all directions) one could argue it was calibrated correctly.

If you bought that set you may not like those settings - too bright, too much color, etc.

You are correct in your conclusion about the TV being so important, but I would continue to say every component is equally important - one bad piece of the puzzle ruins the picture.

It's funny. I just got an e-mail from my friend saying he was in Best Buy watching Batman Begins and that it was one of the most incredible pictures he ever saw. I asked him if it was playing on the new 120hz Samsung and it was (4071). Apparently the auto motion feature initilal reaction is that it gives an incredible picture.

UGGGHH, saw one of those 120hz samsungs the other day at CC. They were playing the fantastic four and it looked like it was shot on a camcorder and no longer resembled film in any way. I'll pass on any of that kind of technology...

Yep, I've sat there transfixed by the motion-adaptation feature of these new panels, playing Blu Ray films (e.g. Spiderman 3, Fantastic 4 etc). And it really helped solidify an issue I've been interested in for a long time (not unlike many here): "Realism."

When good quality plasmas hit the scene and I bought one I was transfixed by the image quality in terms of the realism effect: the window-on-the-world vibe I could get from really tweaking the image. For quite a while I figured this is what I wanted and that it did (or would) enhance viewing movies. But after several years of tweaking my display, and watching display image become ever more clear and realistic, I began to doubt my "quest."

For real-life events, typically shot on HD-cameras, the "Wow I'm looking through a window at a real person" effect was very cool. But in terms of watching movies I started to find it a detriment. The romanticism, that artistic quality I've always associated with film was being left behind. And with it my suspension of disbelief (as ironic as it may sound). That is, when the image looks "too real"....unmediated by film, it's harder for me to slip into the fantasy aspect and it's more like watching actors on a set instead of watching a film.

That's exactly what I get when I'm watching the new LCD flat panels with their motion algorithms. As people here keep pointing out, it just doesn't look like film anymore...more like a soap opera shot on HD. And you get that same curious "cheap" feel as you do watching a soap opera vs a filmed story.

I shot lots of film growing up, as well as in film school and then afterward once entering the film business (although I've since moved into post sound). When you are lighting on set and looking at the image from behind the camera, you are simultaneously imaging how it will look on film. Because the stark reality of the lighting/actor/set in front of you doesn't have any "fantasy" quality...it just looks like what it is: make believe. But once it enters the "film world" the visuals become a convincing part of the world created on film.

I was watching a night scene of Spiderman 3 Blu Ray on the Sony LCD and this issue was really brought home. In the scene of Peter and Mary Jane sitting in the web looking into the night sky, there were various shots that followed the action around Central Park at night. But on this display, the clarity of the image (motion processing) combined with the super vividness (ANSI contrast/vivid picture settings) simply made things look as they would on the set. Instead of various trees in the background looking like they had been highlighted by the moon, they looked like a bright movie light was simply shining on them from outside the camera frame. Exactly as a set looks when you are on set, vs what it's supposed to look like once captured on film.

So ironically while the image looked more realistic than film, it actually ruined the "realism" of the scene for me.

So I look at these new displays realising they are doing what I was really trying to get in all my tweaking of my plasma when I wanted movies to look real. But now that I see a display actually getting closer to that goal, it only confirms that isn't the direction that appeals to me.

Which is a major reason why I'm setting up a projection-based home theater, as it tends to reproduce the projected-film effect best for me.

All that said, I'm sure the new technology in these displays will only serve to "wow" most customers looking for a new TV (and I've seen that effect happening as customers pass these LCDs..."Holy cow...will you look how clear that is...?)