dan said:I have big doubts the "aesthetics" were in question (back then) when the decision was taken for 24fps. Now,... (as we have learned a lot more watching other than 24... including TV with 25, 30, 60i, back to 24P from interlaced and slow mo at any rates) yes!
JohnN said:The answer is very simple my friends, Hybrid C had the right idea, 24 FPS is the lowest #
of frames that produce an image that appears not to FLICKER.
That is why PAL Television is 50 Hz Interlaced (2 fields per Frame of 25)
Your TV NTSC is 60 Hz which gives you 2x 30 Fields.
Hear endeth the Lesson!!
Before we endeth the lesson we should look at the original question:
FatBird19 said:Why is film still shot at 24fps? Why haven't they changed it to 48 or something? The only problem I can think of is bigger film rolls.
...and I believe that it has STAYED at 24fps because that is the look people want. Sure projectors may only play 24fps but that is about to change, but I doubt the frame rate will (unless we start to see 25p PAL HD features). If the industry wanted to change, it could be using faster frame rates, but it looks "wrong" for fictional drama. 24fps is now what people expect to see at the cinema.
I also stand by my idea that 24 was choosen instead of 23 or 25 because it has more interger factors. 100 years ago, this was pretty important to people. However to say 24 fps is the lowest framerate to produce smooth motion is not really true (a 24Hz refresh rate does also flicker). 24 fps is not "smooth," it was a compromise of smoothness and practicality. The juddery look has now become the norm for a certain type of storytelling.
When television standards were being developed, they wanted smoother motion rendering. They were unable to broadcast 50/60fps, so interlacing was used as another compromise.