I just pulled out the text file of the media info for video section, it is obviously not but when you check the details, it is 60 indeed,

Video
ID                                            : 1
Format                                   : AVC
Format/Info                           : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                       : Main@L4.2
Format settings, CABAC       : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames  : 3 frames
Format settings, GOP            : M=4, N=59
Codec ID                                  : avc1
Codec ID/Info                         : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                                  : 2mn 1s
Source duration                      : 2mn 1s
Bit rate                                     : 5 956 Kbps
Width                                       : 1 920 pixels
Height                                      : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio               : 16:9
Frame rate mode                   : Variable
Frame rate                               : 59.940 fps
Minimum frame rate              : 59.940 fps
Maximum frame rate             : 60.000 fps
Standard                                 : NTSC
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                 : 0.048
Stream size                              : 86.6 MiB (97%)
Source stream size                 : 86.6 MiB (97%)
Language                                 : English
Encoded date                           : UTC 2013-06-21 20:02:23
Tagged date                              : UTC 2013-06-21 20:02:23
mdhd_Duration                        : 121905


EDIT: but your message was indeed well conveyed.

You were serious, I thought you were sarcastic. Well 12 of those frames are duplicated frames to match the refresh rate of screens. So its technically 60 frames but actually just 48. This is why I think 60 frames should become the standard and not just 48, no duplicated frames which can lead to a slight stutter on a 60hz screen.    

Most tvs nowadays have the logic to display 24 fps correctly, no need to make everything 60 fps. It's just a matter of timing logic. 240hz screens can display 48fps correctly by showing each frame 5 times, but it's simpler to add the timing logic to work at 48hz, just like a 60hz tv can work at 24hz.

It would be even better if the tv simply displays the frame when it's available, driven by delivery instead of on a fixed frequency. Never any screen tearing anymore and a lot more flexibility for making effects. The only limit is the response time of the lcd array.

I hate 48 fps, it seems like it takes away the effects somehow. It makes it look more like when you see the behind the scenes stuff filming before they add the effects.

Exactly.  Imagine a movie like Avatar shot in 48fps (not to mention how much more it would cost being that you'd essentially be rendering DOUBLE the frames of what was originally rendered at 24fps)... it would look like one of those intentionally low budget and cheap flicks on Syfy channel.

you mena it would look like wrestling? cause I swear I haven't seen any syfy related on that channel in years lol.

The point here is just that these videos are clearly not representative of that HFR at theatres. And plus the challenge to be faced is more.  Especially visual effects heavy ones cannot just adopt it yet, without having to make the objects look more real. The technicality here is deeper. Digital effects houses will have to make way for props instead. 

Did not now that.

To bolded why is that not standard already ? Is this even possible to do ? Are there screens like that ?

My guess is that it's too big of a change. For historic reasons everything operates on a fixed cycle which was once synchronized with the frequency of AC power (50hz or 60hz). It's not a limitation of the monitor but of the analog transmission to the monitor. Plenty of CRT monitors could aready switch to any refresh rate, just not on the fly. There are also LCD monitors that accept any frequency between a minimum and a maximum and can be overclocked. You can play at 75fps on an LCD monitor if you know how, but it's still a fixed refresh rate.

HDMI cables operate on the basis of a fixed transfer rate that both parties agree on. It would make more sense if it operates the way data is read from an optical disk, download the data and display it at the preferred time. You don't need anything more then images with a time code. Most LCD tv's don't dislay the frame directly anyway. Unlike CRT's that have zero lag, LCD tv's do their own internal processing and scaling before outputting each image.

It's the standardized transmission link in the middle that holds things back. Yet GPU's have to change too. They create the screen tearing by reading the framebuffer at a fixed frequency to feed the signal transmission. Too much of a fundamental change in signal transmission :(
It's already taking years for the HDMI organization to provide 3D at 60 fps....

I don't know if you've seen it yet, but 4 days later and it's here lol

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=170455
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-nvidia-g-sync-the-end-of-screen-tear-in-pc-gaming

Hopefully it will not become niche tech with NVidia sitting on the proprietary tech and patents.