Story: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-ente...ter-231872.php

72 Hz has been a standard refresh rate for both CRT and LCD computer monitors for years, seems strange they did not addopt that as the standard - the page above does not explain the advantage of 120 Hz over 72 Hz.

Effectively the refresh rate of an LCD TV is dependent on the response of the pixels anyway so any technology that reduces the smearing effect should be worthwhile.

From what I remember hearing on a UK consumer watchdog programme, there were questions sent in asking why films tend to be a couple of minutes shorter on DVD than when they were at the cinema, wondering what has been cut out. Apparently, while NTSC uses a 3:2 pull down to cater for the frame rate difference, what typically happens in a PAL region is that the Film is sped up to 25 frames per second, which results in the PAL version being almost 2.5 minutes shorter per hour than the original cinema showing.

As a result, movies that have been sped up to the PAL frame rate do not suffer from the 3:2 pull-down issue, however some people do notice the pitch difference of a movie shown on TV or DVD than when they recall seeing it at the cinema.

Wikipedia has a little more info on this here.

My preference for the moment is still CRT HDTVs... I have yet to see an LCD that really impresses me. The true 1080 ones might be allright, but even that resolution seems a bit low for panels as large as the ones they're sold in. 1920x1200 works great on a 24" LCD for a computer, but I don't see the appeal of 36" and up. Not to mention the fact you can get a CRT HDTV (assuming you can find a store that sells them) for a fraction of the price of a flat-panel with drastically inferior picture quality. And I prefer the CRT's feature of being able to switch between various resolutions, while flat-panels have to make use of quality-degrading scaling techniques.