How Important is 240hrz processing verus 120 Hrz?

Looking at new LCD's and think that LED is too pricey and Plasma makes sense on that point.But comparing latest releases from Samsung and Sony I notice some inpressive specs.Contrast ratios of mid level sets going from 50K to 1 to 100K to 1 in latest offers (also the new Blue Ray players to match have Wifi capable firmware updates from both companies though Samsung has Netflix connection).Anyway noticed for a bit more Sony has 240hrz processing.Not that I really understand the tech but can see a 120hrz improvement easily.Is doubling worth it?Other than these two LCD's maybe lower and Pioneer Plasma but that seems to be the tech to go for when your going big and deep and want best.But have really cheap $1300 set that was a good deal if you would go Plasma.But now a bit more for LCD which has gotten better seems way to go.Am I right?
IMHO, not that important. Manufacturers are now in a realm of technology that's imperceptible to most humans. examples include contrast ratio of 1 million, 120 vs 240 hz and alike.

However, if you plan to kee[ yout tv for long , might want to shell out for LED TV for they are clearly superior to normal LCD in blackness.
Well, would it be a surprise if people told you to have a look and see which you prefer? That seems too simple though so I'll tell you what I think, since you asked. And then the following posts will tell you that I'm totally full of beans and should be ignored. They will then proceed to tell you the opposite of what I've said and you'll end up having to make up your own mind anyway.

Anyway. Here are my thoughts on random things, some of which may be relevant to you.

The LCD versus plasma debate rages on unabated. All the while, plasma is slowly disappearing. Pioneer at the top end and Vizio at the low end have recently abandoned it. For this reason, you can find some good deals on plasma if that is what you prefer. I never advise buying cheap unless you have to though. You get what you pay for. It's not the screen that makes Pioneer TVs really good; it's the electronics in them. Cheap plasmas just don't have it and that shows up in picture quality.

I appreciate the richer colours and deeper blacks of plasma, but I can't stand those honking big pixel grids I see when the picture is white or near white. It's like looking at a picture through a screen door. LCDs have smaller pixels so it's not as bad on that point.

The advantages of plasma are eroded by LCD with each generation, but the advantages of LCD are not eroded by plasma. Hence the slow death of plasma. This leads to the point of your original post, i.e 240 hz versus 120 hz processing.

Two new features in the latest generation of LCDs are the LED backlighting and the 240 hz processing. But you have to pay for them. The corollary is that you can get the older generation sets for less money. So, is it worth the extra money?

Generally speaking, anything with speed is good. A lower response time and faster processing reduces artifacts in pictures that move fast, like action movies or sports. Do you see artifacts in 120 hz sets? If so, you will notice an improvement with 240 hz. If this is not a problem for you, the 240 hz probably isn't worth paying a premium for at this point. So you have to look for yourself to decide this.

The other new feature, the LED backlighting is, in my view, a much more significant improvement. The colour is more continuous than with fluoresecent backlighting, and richer. Dare I say it?'s more "plasma" like. That's what I mean when I say that each generation of LCD erodes the advantages of plasma. The improvement is so significant that I think LED backlighting will quickly become the norm for LCDs. But you will pay for it until all the old stock is sold and everybody adopts it and drives the prices down.

So what to do? If I were buying a TV right now, as opposed to six months from now. I wouldn't spend top dollar on an LCD just to get 240 hz. You can get good deals on the older generation. For what I watch, I don't find the jump from 120 hz to 240 hz worth the premium. LED backlighting is what would make me lean towards the more expensive LCD set. On the other hand, if you prefer plasma rather than LCD, you can get equally good deals on plasmas right now although for different marketing reasons than the LCD case. Look for discounted Pioneers, or if they're too much, you never mentioned Panasonic. They make excellent plasmas too, at a good price. And plasmas are not only nice to look at; you can heat your room with them too! And they won't increase your electricity bill by any more than $50 or $60 a month (Well, obviously this is an exageration, it could be more or less than that).

Wait till you see laser and OLED TVs.
Thanks Mark.You seemed to make th picture clear.But it's like computers get in at price point that is high or not wait for an end to development or not and it never ends.That really is nice about standard 2 channel no BS audio.You might get some new think like 24/192 or Class D (T) power but the basics are locked in for at least a few seasons and in some terms permanently.
Markphd, I think your assessment of the present and a possible future is very well thought out. I'm not disagreeing with some of your comments just less experienced.

I own a Pioneer Elite 9G plasma and a Sony XBR6 120Hz LCD, both have been calibrated. Reading your description of the screen door over the whites effect, I would be just as bothered by it as you but I simply don't see it on my plasma.

Without a good plasma in the house I could easily live with the picture quality that my Sony provides after its calibration. I purchased the LCD first and I did notice some motion artifacts but nothing that was distracting me while viewing. Watching a live football game on the plasma then watching the same game on the LCD the motion artifacts become simply glaring and they do distract me.

It's clear to me, or I should say IMO, the basic LCD architecture is flawed in regard to motion blur. Simply increasing the speed is a bandaid masking this flaw. Still it's no reason not to buy one, I did (only because of a placement and size issue). The consumer couldn't see the difference between VHS an Beta they defiantly won't bother with forty maxed brightness LCD's vs ten fairly close to calibration plasma's at a big box stores display.

Plasma's have had a long and expensive development period leading up to what Panasonic is producing today, an affordable plasma. The Pioneer 9G is a magnitude better than all other plasma's (not my words). Prior to Pioneer's announcement of their discontinuing manufacture of plasma displays they showed their next generation 10G display which was said to be another magnitude better (not my words) than their previous 9G. Clearly the high end videophile market is simply not enough to support the full production of a display that costs more than twice as much as a consumer LCD. Consider the only LCD sony manufactures in house is a 25" (I think) studio monitor that sells for $23,000.

The hope is that Panasonic will be able to manufacture the 10G technology but who knows. Since the plasma's screen is glass I'm amazed that the LCD's lighter weight hasn't yet been another reason not to by a plasma.

Some other plasma attributes are that a modern plasma has a longer service life than of an LCD. Double that if the LCD is running at the out of the box 8000 Kelvin. Speaking of brightness, my Pioneer is in a very bright sunlight room which has little effect on picture quality. Currently the best black's come from the Pioneer plasma's and with that come the best shadow detail which is very important when viewing those darker films. Lastly, this is a good time to find a good deal on a high end Elite.

So, yes, I'm a plasma fan. I've also enjoyed vacuum tubes, Betamax, LP's, and class D amplifiers. LCD's are getting better but they're going to have to get a lot better. With both, an LCD and a plasma in the house it's beyond a no brainer.