> You're railing against other people's preferences, but presenting your personal preferences as fact.
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).
> It is a fact that motion is smoother at 120 fps than 24
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.
The cost of recording/storing 120fps video, and editing/rendering effects at this fps is costly and incredibly meaningful to take into account when creating movies.
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).