Stu Maschwitz makes a powerful case for 24p in a really interesting interview posted the other day. I’m, of course, going to remain skeptical, but I’ll admit he is very persuasive. I will, however, continue to stand firm in my assertion that 24p is the 17th most important characteristic (arbitrary number) in getting “the Film Look” and there are many aspects of professional filmmaking (starting with light and camera support) that are far more important for novices, amateurs, serious hobbyists and most indie filmmakers to pay attention to first, before worrying about 24p.

Stu Maschwitz on shooting 24P

“Film is not about reality. Narrative filmmaking is storytelling” Mr. Maschwitz notes. “…we can use all the help we can get to enhance that sense of things being larger than life.”

His primary argument is that, yes, 60Hz looks better and more realistic and smoother, but that’s not what everyone wants: some filmmakers want the slightly stylized, artificial, stuttery look of 24p. In fact, given the long history of the medium, the "artifical" look 24p may give reality might actually be more "natural" in terms of how we expect film to look. Maybe. I still stay it’s trivial to go 60 to 24, but you can’t go the other way. And, ultimately, my REAL opinion in this debate is that it is FANTASTIC to have the choice, and if you chose 24p because you like the look, well, a support your decision 100%. We definitely are living in the Golden Age of cinematic production!

Rebuttal:
* The 24p Conspiracy