Sorry, but I'm in the camp that would far prefer 24 frames a second as opposed to double that for my movies: 24 fps retains the magic of celluloid, whereas 48 fps or above (god forbid) makes it look like some guy is wandering around shooting the set on his HD cam. More isn't always better: it's too clinical.
Completely agree with Nameless about games. Console players won't get this because their games are developed for a target console therefore they're basically optimised for it.. With PC games however, there is no fixed constant due to varied hardware setups. Also, when you hear some drub saying the human eye can only see at 24 fps, then give him a swift kick in his chuff - he knows nothing (see above).
You can have 500 fps staring at the floor in a game, but when chickens explode and **** happens on screen, then the frames drop big time. It's the average and minimum frames that count, not the max.
Edited by SaLX - 3/7/14 at 7:12pm