Just want to open a little debate. There are many people here myself included looking to get an LCD primarily for gaming - and in particular the upcoming hi-def consoles. Obviously we want a great picture - 720p, good colours, good blacks etc. But the biggest bugbear for LCD's has been motion blur. Games move quickly and any motion blur at all is distracting and not what we want to pay a grand plus for. There are two things we are routinely told cause motion blur. 1. Interlaced signals (i.e what you get through RGB scart with a DVD player, games console etc.). This is because LCD's are progressive by nature. They don't like interlaced inputs. I can buy this. 2. Response times. This is the one that bothers me. Time and time again we're told that the lower the response time the better for handing fast movement. But this does not appear to be the full story. The Panasonic LXD500 series has been much praised for it's effortless handling of fast movement (not a hint of blur or smear) - but it only has a 'mediocre' response time of 14ms. My conclusion therefore is that beyond a certain point (let's say 16ms) an LCD's ability to handle fast movement is determined by other technical factors. I'm not a technician, I don't know what these are. But clearly selling LCD's to us on the basis of ever lower resonse times ( 12, 10, 8 etc) is misleading. It does not guarantee a better ability to eliminate motion blur. The problem with magazine reviews is that they never test LCD's with consoles so don't comment on a model's suitabilty for that purpose. Our only recourse is a forum like this. I would be very interested to hear what anyone has to say about this response time/gaming business.