swedeneeds2buyaT is my co-worker. I think he's trying to say I've been spending too much time researching TVs. Funny guy, huh?
Even though every time I look, he's on some snowmobile forum, and I don't say nothing.
I called Samsung again. This time I asked for an expert. (not sure that's what I got) But, I was able to confirm that the 71 series does NOT do 5:5 pulldown. He said that the AMP 120hz was meant to solve motion blur problems. Maybe so. However, I really didn't see those problems when I viewed mostly 60hz sets. So, I've given up on getting a TV with true 24fps judder-free playback. I'll settle for current standards.
So, I went to another store that had the 5265. Again, the blacks looked great. But, this was on an SD feed, which I didn't see before. I was not impressed with the quality. I know, I know... most won't look that good in SD. But, the Sony's were better. Looking at specs, the Samsungs don't have a comb filter like Sony's do. Maybe this is why there's a big difference in SD.
I was looking at another post here, which compares the XBR4 to the 71: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ght=xbr4+vs+71
I scanned through a lot (and there's A LOT!) of posts about these TVs. Unfortunately, not much about the auto motion or 120hz (So, if you're looking for more about those features, don't bother looking at that thread). But, what's nice is that they included pictures of the tvs, which let you really examine the quality. When I first starting looking at HDTVs, my eyes were impressed mostly by a 46" Sony v2500. It had excellent sharpness/detail and brightness. Then, I saw the 46" Samsung 65 series. I was awed by the deep black. When I looked at these pics, I believe the Sony had clearly better detail. Not only that, it was nearly as deep of a black. With a little more research, I found that the KDL-xxW3000's were nearly identical to the XBR4s, minus the 120hz. Also, the W3000s don't have the glass bezel and it is 16000:1 contrast vs XBR4's 18000:1. (but they both have 2000:1 true contrast.). And it's much cheaper. Basically the W3000 is to the XBR4 as the 65 is to the 71.
I sort of changed my mind at this point and was leaning towards the W3000. The dynamic contrast was higher than that of the 65 on paper after all. However, I'm not sure if this holds true just by the numbers. So, after checking prices, I decided to go to CC and check them out. They were far apart, but I think the Sony's black level was very good and just slightly less than the Samsung's. But, the detail still looks more accurate and sharp to me. Plus, the Sony's cheaper (there).
By the way, I was watching the 120hz on the 5271 a little more closely. This time, without some obnoxious salesman pushing how 120hz is a MUST HAVE. I noticed that the AMP seemed very inconsistent. Sometimes, you'd notice it, then it'd look like it slowed down and turned off. It wasn't a jerky transition from "on" to "off", but like someone was slowly turning a knob that controlled the effect's affectiveness up and down smoothly. Very strange. I decided then that I preferred the regular motion of the original frames. I think more FPS is nice, but not when they're simulated.
It's sitting in my living room in a giant box just waiting for me to set it up tomorrow. My co-worker is right that most newer TVs are pretty good. And the Sony W3000's/XBR4s and the Samsungs 65/71s are all awesome. But, for me this is a huge purchase. Plus he doesn't like movies, so who cares what he thinks about TVs. And my point here is that you'll prolly be happy with any TV you put a little time into researching. The research helps make me not wonder about that other TV. I feel really confident that I'll love this TV for years. Happy TV hunting to all.