Isn't everything about film and film-watching "exclusively a habit, a purely conventional thing, imposed by culture"? Or are there aspects that are objective? (Would I even watch a James Cameron film if it weren't for cultural norms encouraging me to?)
I don't see how it's any different, I suppose. The aesthetics of the 24-fps film are aesthetics, just like basically any other aspect of film, ranging from acting styles to types of cuts. I happen to like the aesthetics of 24-fps film for certain kinds of scenes, and actually prefer 14-fps and 18-fps even more, again for certain kinds of scenes. You seem to be arguing that I don't "really" like the aesthetics, but am being misled by my associations. But I think I do really like the aesthetics!
Mostly, I don't see why my film fps preference is more culturally constructed, or constructed in some more objectionable way, than basically every single other thing having to do with film, which is nothing but an aesthetic and cultural phenomenon to begin with.
I mean, we might inquire into the habits and conventions that lead you to prefer 60-fps film, just as much as we look into those that lead me to prefer 24-fps film! Perhaps you have an aesthetic preference that films "should" be more realistic, and less stylized? Or a technological-aesthetic ideology that films should use "better" technology because it must necessarily be better aesthetically?
There are objective differences. 24 fps contains less information than 60 fps. Its temporal resolution is 2.5x worse.
Believe me, I can clearly see my own cultural bias. It keeps telling me 24 fps somehow does look okay. But we are not complete automata, we can distinguish between instinctive reactions (acquired tastes) and reality.
And the reality is, the higher the frame rate, the more information is recorded. An intentionally crippled low-framerate movie may serve certain esthetic norms, but that's pretty much all it does.
As far as 24 fps cinema is concerned, thanks to a century of conditioning, we're all pavlovian dogs.
I guess I'm missing how information recorded is even relevant. If recording footage of a scientific phenomenon for later study, sure. But art? What principle says that more temporal resolution equals better aesthetics? This seems like some sort of cultural bias, assuming higher fidelity = better aesthetics, which I don't think is true.
I tend to prefer more stylized films overall, not just in temporal resolution either. If you prefer more realistic ones that seem like you're really watching a scene that's happening, that's a legitimate preference, but it's not mine. I'm not sure the 24-fps (or better, 18-fps) effect is the most important or best anti-realism aesthetic effect in a film-maker's toolbox, but it's one of them. It's probably, as you say, an accident of history that it's as widely used as it is, but it's in my view a positive accident of history. Modern Hollywood is far too realistic in its shooting style imo, and this is one of the few fortunate areas where it hasn't gone all the way off that cliff.
I think you're missing GP's point. The look of black-and-white film creates a different feel than color film. Clearly, there's a lot of "information" missing from a black-and-white film. But filmmakers still use it when they want that feel. Same with the way CSI colors everything blue. Sure, it loses a lot of color info and distorts the gamut etc. but it has a particular feel because of that. So, sometimes (maybe even most of the time) you want a smoother picture with more motion information. But sometimes you want something that feels choppier. Example: http://revision3.com/filmriot/warfilm There's a short film at the beginning that demonstrates the techniques they're talking about, with commentary starting about 5:00 in. Specifically, in this film, they used a high shutter speed at 24 fps to create a choppier look. If they used 60 fps, motion would be smoothed out, so even with a high shutter speed the violent feel created by missing information wouldn't be the same.
