60fps should be standard for everything from Games to TV to Movies and Videostreams. I dont see why 24fps would be better at all.

Its completely diferent, this is not video games we are talking about but films the switch from SD to HD was an upgrade in picture quality and yes some props had to be adapted and such but 24fps is an artistic choice for making movies, 24fps is what gives movies its dreamy illusion feeling.

48fps on the other hand is a gimmick like 3D movies, now 3D is "fine" here and there on some movies made from the ground up to take advantage of it but again is just a gimmick not all movies have to be filmed on 3D, comedies or dramas will not be enhanced by the third dimension for example.

48fps will be used here and there but the majority of movies will be staying at 24fps.

No, it's not completely different. Both are increases in the visual fidelity of the image. 24fps is not an artistic choice, it's just the standard that almost all films are forced to be shot in. Heck even James Cameron was forced to shoot Avatar in 24fps even though he really fought for 48fps and deeply believes in its importance. http://variety.com/2008/digital/news/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864/

(it's a very bad joke, I know)

24 fps was never an artistic choice. It was a choice of the film studios to keep the costs low and of the cinemas to have a standard.

I actually sat down and reencoded those videos both in 24 and 48 fps  (actually in 25 and 50 fps in my source) just to check what kind of a file size difference it would make. I found that, doubling the frame rate adds a maximum of 10% to the file size. So if the source is 48 or 50 fps, and if you have the slightest use for it, I'd say, go for it!

24 fps was a compromise to have a standard for all movies. It's enough to keep up the illusion of movement but has a few problems with fast movements.

The human eye is better suited to track fast horizontal movements, running animals, scanning the horizon etc. Using 48fps for that will work better. For static scenes and close ups it tends to break immersion and you have to be very careful that it won't look like a 'making of' video.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/04/28/the-hobbit-at-48fps-too-much-information-and-the-science-of-eye-movement/

Maybe a combination will work best to keep the dream like quality of film while improving tracking shots and far away panning shots with hfr. A bit like how hand drawn animation combines character animation at 12fps with backgrounds panning at 24fps.

We're already getting used to sections of movies shot with IMAX cameras and switching aspect ratios on the fly, so why not use variable frame rates as well. Use the most suitable frame rate depending on the subject.

Btw that comparison is impossible to do correctly on most hardware. Unless you have a 240hz monitor it's not possible to view a 24fps and 48fps video correctly on current monitors. And I doubt that that You tube video actually runs at 24fps, it's probably encoded with 3:2 pulldown to 30fps. That 48fps MP4 file reports to be 59fps on inspection. Not sure what kind of conversion went into that.

Anyway uneven 30fps vs 60fps then: Both look pretty fake because of the lighting but the higher frame rate suffers a bit more when it comes to the CGI. Especially the water splashing and the barrel and people flying through the air look extremely fake. The panning shots do look better.

I know its the standard but there's never been a need to change that standard (there are systems using 30 to 60fps in common usage today)  except that Jackson wanted to do 48fps to resolve the light loss in 3D. Cameron also want higher frame rate to help produce clearer 3D.

Showscan which films at 60 fps has been around for decades yet nobody uses it and never became the standard for the same problems Jackson's technology face: Is too real, is sped up, it looks like behind the scenes, it looks like a soap opera.

I know the standard in cinemas is not 48 fps but they could easily adjust like they did for the 3D fad that Avatar brought but again there is not need for that since filmakers are just fine with 24fps.

I totally understand what you mean when saying it looks fake. I remember my first time experiencing BluRay at a Best Buy and I felt the same way. It looked too good. Then my Aunt and Uncle bought an HD TV and I got more than just a few minutes experiencing it. My brain adapted and now just like everyone else I look at super clean HD videos and think they look awesome!

The uncanny issues people have with 48fps and used to have with HD are all psychological. I'm betting if you/any non believer could spend a few days only watching movies in 48fps, you'd lose that feeling of fakeness.

But why bother? 24fps are just fine for films. 48fps looks too real even the enviroments look like sets.

I just hope Cameron doesn't take movie making in the wrong direction again like he did with 3D and in the worst case I hope there's always a 24fps version of the movie.

Don't worry. Just like with color, HD, and 3D, the formats still contain all the information of primitive cinema. It would be a piece of cake for you to set up your TV to play everything at 24fps.

I guess I should mention though that I love 3D and Avatar is one of my favorite films. My views on this are practically invalid lol.