I just joined to say it's Nice to see people like Jace sharing sharing their opinion and backing it up with valid clear evidence for the benefit of others. You have no idea how many people look on these sites and have no idea if it's good or not but they think they're getting a better deal. World needs more people like Jace.
Nice tests, I also tried out the RTINGS test: In all tests, my old LG 42LB630V performs admirably, noticeably better than my mid 2015 MacBook Pro... but then again, maybe my 39 year old eyes have lost the twitch response and tracking of my 24 year old UT2k4 European league gamer eyes!! (excited) I dunno, motion compensation to me looks doctored and artificial, not because it's too smooth or too realistic, but because the motion speed and direction seems to wander all over the place. To each their own though I guess, bit of a Marmite situation :D
Ah, here is the graph i mentioned, we must have posted at the time time. Regarding your comment on your expert settings, and synchronizing the frames to the source doesn't help at all with LCD or OLED that use 'Sample and Hold'. You will always get motion blur, doubling the frames can help a lot with that. Also, panel response times are important. Tests like these are a good indication on how well your TV can handle motion. If you have Youtube on your TV, give it a try, otherwise you should be able to find something you can burn to a dvd or copy to USB to try it out :) Hereis one for 60fps
Where on earth did I say there was no difference? and there was no point? All i was suggesting was that you benefit more from 4k sources in proportion to your TV size, and your viewing distance. There are some published viewing distances that appear on here frequently, and they apply to people with 20/20 vision, so if your vision isn't 20/20 then you will get even less benefit. You then need to work out how much 4k material you will actually be watching, because a HD TV will always be better at displaying HD than a 4k TV.
To see the difference of 4K, you need to be sat close to a small/medium TV, or have a massive TV: In a typical/average lounge, one would only just be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p with a 42" display. In the graph above you'll see you'd have to be sat 6' or closer to a 42" display to see the difference between 1080p and 4k. That's what's Jace is on about. I disagree with the need for motion processing though. I tend to put my displays in Expert mode and disable all processing, and sync the refresh rate to the source, but I don't use the TV tuner and leave all the video processing to my HTPC (even for TV), so it might just be source-device-dependent. All the motion processing I have seen looks artificial and not like frame-synced playback, and I used to do hardware reviews and go to CES (where all the latest and future TVs, monitors, and other display technology are showcased). All said, I'd be pretty dubious of a minor brand, cheap 4k display and definitely check out customer and professional reviews/tests first.