>It's ok to increase resolution >It's ok to switch

Nostalgia

>>87250380
>Why is 24p sacred when even film was thrown out for digital

Because it's an imprint.
60 fps is usually a marker of a trash movie.
For me, for example, it reminds of V remake and some cheesy B-action movies.

Actual answer not a meme answer:
Lower frame rate = longer exposure = better picture (sharpness, color, contrast, dynamic range...)
t. Someone who has taken pictures before.

24fps looks filmic. It just does. Smarter people than me can explain why. 60fps looks fake. Don't fix what ain't broke, only autistic pc gamers care about high fps

It also gives lots of people motion sickness

Also the other answers in this thread

>>87250380
60 fps causes a lot of production issues that aren't really worth the results. Need ridiculously bright lighting and unless the quality of CG spikes like crazy in the next few years, current special effects look like total shit in 60fps.

>>87250380
The human eye can see extremely high 'framerates'.
60 fps is still low - I forget the higher end, but it is perhaps higher than a thousand fps.

24 fps is either comfortable, or better because our brains fill in the rest with our imagination.
Same with some old games feeling more realistic - because they were so pixellated that our imaginations made up most of the visuals.
At a certain point, games started looking like plastic - and eventually are nearing the uncanny valley.
Or they just aren't doing it right.

>>87250692
>>87251843
you're describing the soap opera effect, it's a problem with TVs turning 24-30fps files into false 60fps monstrosities by creating simulated framed. real 60fps movies look great unless there is a lot of cheap CGI.

any reason to hang onto 24fps is just nostalgia at this point.

>>87250380
>it's ok to be autist

>>87252471
Checked - the upper limits are around 500fps, or 2ms.
Varies from person to person.

Can be that some levels of fps are uncomfortable.

Costs more to do cgi at higher framerates

>>87252654
Another source says 1000+.
As for what amount of information each person can draw from high frame rates or very fast events, is down to biology and practice/exposure.

Because going from 24p to 60p changes more than just the number of frames displayed in a second. Because of the way a camera works it also affects the shutter angle and phase. This means that a 60p film is actually incapable of rendering motion the same way a 24p film can. At 24p you can change the shutter to give the same sharply defined motion, or slow it down to give a blur. So not only does 60p video look weird, it also offers artists less flexibility.

>>87250380
>Why do people hate high framerate films?

Like the rest of the things you listed, it is both new and changes things in such a manner that the directors and cinematographers have not quite yet grasped how to use it in a properly artful manner to match what they want to portray. Thus, you end up with some slightly unsettling scenes. Basically, they can't hide their sloppy work with it, but they don't really realize that. In another 25 years, after 60fps is standard, we may start seeing some movies that are properly filmed for this type of format.

The move to color had a similar problem. This is very evident when you watch an originally black and white movie that has been retro colored. The scenes no longer look quite proper because they were originally lighted, staged, and designed to be shot exclusively in black and white.

>>87252891
Its a complicated question because it depends on the stimulus, its exact properties, where its falling in the visual field and what you are looking for in it (flashing? motion?). Its nothing like 1000 fps though. For a movie or something I'd put it fairly low to be honest, say 180fps tops, probably a lot lower in practice.

>>87252563
No, they look like shit because reality looks like shit.

I haven't watched Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk yet. Is it worth it?