As much as I would normally argue that there is absolutely no point for this, our display technology has adapted greatly and more importantly, so has our recording methodology. 24FPS was fine because on film we were capturing blur to make the scene look appropriate, and we did that because making longer lengths of film that then had to run faster was an expensive proposition in every way with no true visual benefit.
However, now, most of us watch TV on something with a fixed 60FPS refresh rate - and 24FPS is actually a bit "unfit" for these devices. It needs to get upsampled to 30 in order to display properly on these devices, which can create a host of viewing problems. At this point 48 wouldn't be a fix either - it's not the technology we tend to use anymore, when most every device displays a flat 60FPS or 120FPS. The NTSC and PAL specs are simply outdated since they never planned on the 60hz LCD TV becoming so ubiquitous.
We now capture, process and playback via digital media almost exclusively, and it's time that the material catch up. Instead of 24FPS, it SHOULD be a firm 60 per lens. It's going to be a lot of 'wasted space' but that space is simply going on digital media of some form - a technology that is constantly evolving in capacity. So I can't imagine it will forever be prohibitive to do that.
Of course, like everything else, we know what will need to be the first industry to do it if we want it to take hold: So start petitioning your local porn producer for 60FPS video today!
