Hmm. An article that completely disregards artistic choice or preference, and claims it is always about limitations.  Then goes on to address things I barely see anyone say, creating a strawman.  No one is debating that people can see the difference.  The point some prefer one over the other depending on the goal of realism.  But, PC Master Race argument it is then.  I'm just going to stop this "debate" here then.  We will just agree to disagree.

FPS (first person shooters) sure, response time is important, same as in VR. Animation would be fine at 30 fps though, as long as camera movement is at high frame rate. Didn't Halo 4 reduce the frame rate for things further away?

Here's a link trying to expain why HFR is less immersive
https://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

PSVR is on the right track with reprojection. It keeps the camera movement (your head movements) smooth at 120fps, while the game runs at 60fps. Even watching 24fps movies on it is fine as your head movements (and projected screen) are still updated at 120fp. The lost bear, a psvr platformer that plays out on stage while you sit in a theater, has animation that runs at much lower frame rate. Looks perfectly fine.

Perhaps in the future we'll get object based movement like Dolby Atmos for sound. The only way to achieve true smooth motion is to limit the steps objects take to 1 pixel at a time. When you follow an object with your eyes, you collect its light on your retina. If it skips across the screen you can't focus on it. Sometimes that's intentional.

I'm not sure what impact variable frame rate will have. I do a lot of racing, so much I notice the difference in display lag when switching to my other tv. I have to adjust my brake and turn in points slightly in the faster cars not to be too early or too late. However when the game runs between 40 to 80fps, won't that throw me off all the time? The difference is minor, until devs take variable frame rate as a pass to put anything out from 20 to 60fps as acceptable.At least for racing, fps and display lag don't matter all that much as long as they are constant. Any slowdown or judder immediately throws me off.

Anyway I agree, for interactive media, especially first person based, higher frame rate is preferable.

I legit thought that sentence, complete with the use of the word "fools" and then misspelling of Vinyl was the start of this threads lean into actually being a joke... but then I read on... and it wasn't. Missed potential imo.

Ok, english is not my native language, but I was under the impression that "nostalgia" was the act of yearning for something long past.  

So.. how could I feel nostalgia for something that I use everyday in the present? Like, I'm at home watching my regular 24fps movie, then I set up my newly bought 4K TV and then BOOM! 10 minutes later my "nostalgia" goes thru the window.  Am I missing something here?

As for the smoothness of it, well, idk but when I was watching The Hobbit it felt odd to me during the whole movie, and in some parts I even felt a little dizzy.  And I had no idea what was going on at that time. It wasn´t until much later that I learned that it was filmed in a higher framerate.

And Idk, but it seems to me like you are trying to push your preferences into everybody else.  And sorry, but that's not how it works.

24FPS is visibly low - too low. But people are so used to it that switching to 48FPS was off-turning for most of them.

My compromise would be to increase in babysteps, so it woudn't be too off-putting for those used to 24 frames but also noticely better for those who can see all the flaws of that low framerate. Hence, an increase to 30FPS would do for now - and also wouldn't cost too much additional bandwith and is even easier to work on 60FPS panels. Later on down the line, increases to 36, 48 and finally 60FPS over the course of many years should eliminate the problems with the low framerate peu à pau.

its more like 12fps at very minimum. 

20fps was the minimum audio would sync with video correctly. They went with 24fps, because its even and divisible, by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12

Your TV would be the cause of the jitters when panning.

It is like the old says when you converted NTSC to PAL, PAL video would jitter if the TV screen wasn't capable of running progressive video.

What i found with modern TV, they are designed for sports and gaming, so they try to automatically add more smoothing to it at higher HZ. So when you put in a movie it looks fake like a tv show or a home handy cam recording. You need to turn all that interpolation shit off and it will look mint. like it would in a cinema.

Thankfully TVs have movie mode and game mode etc for you to change settings in each one.

Yeah, judder in panning in 24fps on TVs usually comes either from 3:2 pulldown conversion to NTSC (on SDTVs), HDTV set not being able to run at multiple of 24fps or not being able to recognise and reverse 3:2 pull down.

Seems to me people are just getting used to higher FPS and then of course start noticing the stutter of lower FPS. Welcome to the world of a PC player trying to play on consoles where people say that they cannot see the stutter but you still do.

Funnily enough I have never cared about low fps in movies. The only thing I notice is when they use 12fps animation on CG in anime.

The #masterrace is playing on a minimum of 4k120, you're not quite there yet.