what does everybody think about 120hz and lcd's

I just bought a new samsung 52" lcd with 120hz processing and impressed with the picture. I was wondering what other people thought of them?
I bought the new 37" LG Scarlet for the bedroom, it's 1080i and 120 Hz. After I readjusted the color it's stunning.
I bought a Sony 52XBR about 8 months ago. It's personal preference, but I do not like glossy reflective screens. Seems like plasma was especially glossy. I also have a Samsung BD player. I am very impressed by it's ability to upconvert regular DVDs. I have learned the hard way, though, to look for the magic words anamorphic and/or enhanced for widescreen on those DVDs. The only Blu-ray I own is Fools Gold (great movie!). There is a point in the movie, on the yacht, where the camera pans from the bar to the other side of the room. That pan was choppy at 60hz, but almost perfect at 120hz. I'm impressed.
120 Hz is old hat. Now it's 240!
01-28-09: Danmyers
120 Hz is old hat. Now it's 240!

Maybe so, but I only found a couple of TV's that were 120 Hz in 37" when I bought a month ago.
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
240hz, really? What manufacturers are currently making those? That must really look cool!
120hz is terrific. I have an XBR4 and it utilizes 120hz and I really prefer it to my XBR2 which was only 60hz. I guess the XBR7 has 240Hz available. I don't know what kind of improvement over 120hz 240hz is. Maybe just a gimmick. It's so hard to keep up with new technology these days. I could go broke trying to keep up. Now, I'm looking at getting a universal Blu Ray player (DVD-A1UDCI) when Denon releases it. There goes another 4k. What's next?
I put a 52" Samsung 750 in our bedroom. Our cable goes to a HD Tivo for watching TV and an Oppo DVD player for movies. We sit 9' away and the picture on HD is stunning. Even SD on cable looks good.
LCD is poor compared to a a great Plasma. (I have both and there is absolutely no contest - despite all the marketing BS about contrast ratios)
Shadorne, you put that plasma in a brightly lighted room(natural daylight)and you're right there's no contest, the LCD wins every time.
I am with Shadorn on this one, I was looking at both plasma's and LCD's for a few months. 120Hz or not LCD's have a motion blur to them.

Sure a LCD might be a bit more bright, but they will not have the deep blacks and the depth to the picture a great plasma has. The colors are more rich as well on a plasma.

I ended up getting the Pioneer Kuro.. just amazing! I looked at everything.

If you watch a lot of movies defiantly go with the plasma.
I have a Sony with no noticeable blur. Plasmas have a glare that may not be appropriate in many situations.
"Shadorne, you put that plasma in a brightly lighted room(natural daylight)and you're right there's no contest, the LCD wins every time."

Agree with that which is why I got two (lowly 60 Hz refresh rate) TVs. The plasma goes in our darkish master bedroom and the LCD goes in the almost floor to ceiling/wall to wall windows living room. Love 'em both for different reasons - kind of like tube vs SS or LPs vs vinyl.

I will add that I am so happy not to be a videophile: noise, jaggies, motion blur, rainbows, low contrast, under/over color saturation, none of it bothers me in the least. Thank you Lord, oh, thank you!
Funnily enough my experience is the reverse - LCD works terrible in dim light
(no contrast in blacks and dark scenes) whilst the plasma works great - even in
bright room. I am comparing Sharp Aquos to Panasonic Plasma Viera but frankly
it is no contest - the plasma is so much better. Of course the LCD may last
longer - so my comments only apply to the picture quality. It also works well as
a computer monitor - so LCD is not without its advantages.

Sports on plasma is so much better.
Agree w Shadorne. No contest btwn my 5 y.o Fujitsu plasma (720p) and my friends 6 m.o. sony LCD, esp on sports.
Post removed