OK, so I went over to Best Buy (because it's right across from where I'm working at the moment) during lunch to see if my eye could pick out some feature differences. As I'm walking along looking at LCDs up close and from a normal viewing distance, I'm thinking "wow, disappointing... that stuff looks all lossy." Then I look in the back of the displays that aren't wall-mounted and see... they are feeding video in via a coax cable.
Idiotic, IMO. Why demo your high def TVs with a non-HD video source?
Well, they DID have some big-ass models on endcaps running demos straight from Blu-Ray discs that showed 240Hz split screen with 60hz (yeah, big difference on action sequences) and split against 120Hz (couldn't see the difference), but that was just one single monitor by itself at a time, and I couldn't compare monitors or brands that way, since they were a good 10 feet apart from one another.
So... for those who have done eyeball shopping, did you find that you COULD tell a difference in:
1. Refresh rates on LCDs
2. 720 vs 1080
3. Plasma vs LCD
I think I could see that 120Hz does show clearer pictures in high-motion sequences, than 60hz. Couldn't tell the difference when the scenes were fairly still. The demo I saw was showing the King Kong vs. T-Rex scenes from that Jack Black King Kong movie that came out a few years back. All the 720s were hooked up to coax sources, so I couldn't compare 720 to 1080 side by side in any meaningful way.
Cursory views I couldn't see a difference between the image quality of a plasma or LCD, though the reflective screen glare did show up some, so that's a factor.
As a side note: the 50-something" LED Samsung on display sure was a pretty picture, and the screen looked to have a matte finish, which is nice. Those things are waaaay too pricey for the same screen size, though.
Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.