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

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

[QUOTE]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), [B][U]neither I--nor my compatriots--saw anything that made us feel 120Hz was making a real difference[/U][/B]. 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.[/QUOTE]

But at the same time, they go on to say

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

[CENTER] [IMG]http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/sc/32468193-2-300-ANGL-2.gif[/IMG] [/CENTER]

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.

Re: Interesting facts about 120 Hz Motion blur

Video games move faster then football.

Cnet has gone horribly downhill since their great TV days.

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)