It is a fact that motion is smoother at 120 fps than 24, and therefore easier to follow on screen. There are no preferences involved.
> Also, there are technical limitations in cameras that aren't present in video games.
Cameras capable of recording high quality footage at this refresh rate already exist and their cost is not meaningful compared to the full budget of a movie (and you can use it more than one time of course).
Yes, but that's not what you wrote. "unwatchable judder that I can't even interpret as motion sometimes" is false, unless you have some super-rare motion processing disorder in area MT of your brain.
> Cameras capable of recording high quality footage at this refresh rate already exist and their cost is not meaningful compared to the full budget of a movie
Yes, but that's not what I wrote. The cost to handle it is not concentrated in the camera itself. Reread my comment.
Obviously not, because generations of people saw "movement" at 24 fps. You're railing against other people's preferences, but presenting your personal preferences as fact.
Also, there are technical limitations in cameras that aren't present in video games. The higher the frame rate, the less light that hits it. To compensate, not only do you need better sensors, but you probably need to change the entire way that sets, costumes, and lighting are handled.
The shift to higher frame rates will happen, but it's gonna require massive investment to shift an entire industry and time to learn what looks good. Cinematographers have higher standards than random Youtubers.