"The motion is unrealistic". Which is the same complaint you see about the 48p movies. You said people complain it looks "too realistic". Problem is this is also the same complaint you see about motion smoothing, it just depends who is describing it.
Some people consider the higher framrates to be unreal looking. Others call it too real, either way they are describing the exact same thing - they are USED TO 24p, and anything else seems wierd to them, and the reason behind it has already been explained... there is a distinct lack of motion blurring, and your brain flat out has to have this.
This technology simply takes those leftover refreshes and uses that as an opportunity to simulate extra frames of motion that make the whole picture appear smoother. It does this by analyzing the difference between one frame and the next, and then interpolating the frames in between those two actual frames, which works remarkably well. It's almost like magic, but even better.
This results in much more smoother motion on screen, especially with scenes with a lot of action and high-paced movement. Some people really enjoy this increase in motion and clarity, and it is particularly good when it comes to sports. But this, too, relies on the viewer's preferences, because some people don't appreciate this effect at all.
Others believe this effect to result in fake looking motion that is captured from a home video camera. In other words, it takes away from the cinema feel that a movie provides. This is something I have noticed personally when viewing movies with a television that has anti-judder technology enabled.
What this guy is saying is that smoother video is not an authentic cinema experience. Your argument about film projectors is moot too, since film is flat out no longer used in cinemas. People are comparing their experience at home NOW to the experience at the theater, also NOW.
This cinema feel is the low frame rate, low refresh rate, juddery mess that you see now. Even film still showed significant judder, contrary to your argument about it being on or off for 1/48th of a second, because 1/24th of a second later, the point has still moved the same distance across the screen. I would prefer slightly more judder (because it was still there) to the flickering experience of film. And yes, no matter how many times people swore film projection doesn't flicker, to many people it does. Not when directly viewing, no, but when you pan your vision across the screen or turn your head away for a moment, and that flicker, to me, is obnoxious.
I can't seem to find the article, I think I read it in a magazine at one point... At any rate, the problem is and always has been motion blurring not being present in the smoothed video. That is entirely it, that is the sole reason why people don't like it. It argues with your brain's natural idea of the world around it.
This is why sports look great in smooth motion, absolutely fantastic. Because you view them from a distance, where your brain isn't expecting to see motion blurring. Your brain thinks things are correct, and tells you everything is fine.
As you said, people don't like 48p. So what is the point of arguing for a higher refresh rate when you yourself said people don't like it?
If what you are claiming is true, then the simplest solution is to flicker the light source in sync with the video at 48hz. This is certainly possible, and easily so, so why isn't it being done?
Oh, wait, it already is. 2d cinema projectors display at 48hz and alternate between lit frames and dark ones. And yet we have tons and tons of judder, an experience which has not changed whatsoever from the days of film, which by the way, was only a few years back when the switch was made.Edited by Masta Squidge - 6/17/13 at 8:39am