"The battle is still raging" is sort of a bit inflated, wouldn't you say? Too much hyperbole for anyone to take newatlas seriously...

Silly. The only reason "purists" complain about motion smoothing is that we have all become accustomed to the lousy 24-frames-per-second rate that became the motion picture standard a hundred years ago. Because we're used to it, higher frame rates appear "unnaturally" smooth, which many call the "soap opera" effect because live TV shows like soap operas were shot on TV cameras operating at 60 (interlaced) frames per second. In fact, higher frame rates simulate motion more accurately and smoothly. Higher is better, except to so-called "artists" who think that slow, crappy 24 fps is the only true, holy and blessed frame rate. In fact it is 24 fps video that creates numerous problems; for example when the camera pans too fast, the image stutters and directors of photography have to plan carefully to minimize the stutter. With higher frame rates that is no longer a problem. It's silly to be stuck using a hundred-year-old standard that was chosen simply for economy. Back at the dawn of the motion picture era, the fewer the frames used to achieve the illusion of motion, the less expensive it would be to shoot the film. On modern digital displays, refresh rates below 60 Hz (60 "frames" per second) produce noticeable flicker, which is hard on your eyes and tiring to watch. That's why video games are displayed at much higher frame rates. Movies at 24 fps are well below this threshold and if watched at a matched refresh rate of 24 Hz, would be unbearable, like watching a strobe light. Digital displays double or triple the length of time each frame displays (24 x 3 = 72) or even display some frames for twice as long and some for three times as long to fit 24 frames into a 60 Hz refresh rate, which adds its own stutter because of the uneven frame rates. If Hollywood would get busy and shoot movies at 60 or 72 frames per second, we'd all be a lot happier. So make it happen, Tom, instead of telling us we're all wrong.

I never liked 4K home TVs and I still find them annoyingly "crisp". I think that's the soap-opera effect (?). Anyhow, standard HD (1080p) is still my favorite.

SONY happens to be an extremely arrogant company. Shown here again.

I agree with aksdad, I shoot all my home movies at 4k60p and it looks so good, especially when things move fast. So why the old 24fps? Do they not have enough money/data bandwidth/hard drive space to shoot faster?

I get it. The visual artist spends a lot of money, works hard to make a creation and product, only to have it cheapened, they feel. The soap opera effect is a fair description as that's the look it gives to a movie shot in 24p. And I don't think anyone I grew up with ever said, I sure wish they'd make movies look more like soap operas, cheap video or that 24p was ugly. They use that frame rate because it has a certain look. Remember how many folks complained when they released a hobbit movie in high frame-rate, 48p I think? Folks said much of the same - it looked cheap. So, there's a small bit of controversy here for some - if you're interested in the visual arts and want the presentation to be seen as intended. If not,...then you don't care about the altered look just as the article states many folks don't. It's your tele, you have a right. And the artists have a right to ask you to turn it off. In that - no controversy.

If Curise says to turn it off , then turn it off. End of story

I wonder if I have that setting on my 18 year old Panasonic flat square CRT television... <giggle>

My Sony projector defaults to OFF, and I admit I turned it ON, after noticing very shaky scrolling effects with it OFF.
Maybe I will try it OFF again, and experiment with different frame rates instead.

The soap opera effect, is not due to frames. Its because of LCDs poor clearing time-frames, and processor LAG.