I must, respectfully, disagree. Video is shot in frames per second (FPS). Time is the constant. A second of 60 FPS is still a second. If you render the 60 FPS down to 24, you still have a second of video. It does not play back any slower.
The benefits of shooting at higher frame rates is that it captures motion better (like a fast shutter rate on a camera) and that IF you wanted to apply a slow motion effect, you will have the frames necessary to make the slow mo fluid. For example, if you film a second at 60 and stretch it out to 2 seconds (slow motion), you still effectively have 30 frames per second. If you tried to stretch 30 fps to 2 seconds, you will end up with 15 fps which will look very choppy. That is why many will shot higher frame rates and render (as a last step) down to the magical 24 during final.
If you take video and render at smaller frame rates you do loose frames. From 30 to 24 you effectively lose 6 frames every second. You can render back up but you would be relying on the editing software to interpret and write the new frames.
So what's up with the magical 24 fps? Human conditioning. Back in the '20s and '30, 24 fps (and 25 fps Eur) was the standard. It was a good balance of fluid motion and film costs. It's what we all grew up with when watching movies. As such, most videos are either shot (if camera supports) at or rendered to 24 fps to give the video a more film like appearance.
Some filmmakers are experimenting with higher frames rates to give a more "life like" presentation. The Hobbit, for example, was projected at 48 fps, known as HFR. It was so sharp that the video was actually softened after audiences and critics complained. I saw it and my thoughts were mixed. It was gorgeous, different, and a little hard on the eyes. It didn't "feel" right.
The benefits of shooting at higher frame rates is that it captures motion better (like a fast shutter rate on a camera) and that IF you wanted to apply a slow motion effect, you will have the frames necessary to make the slow mo fluid. For example, if you film a second at 60 and stretch it out to 2 seconds (slow motion), you still effectively have 30 frames per second. If you tried to stretch 30 fps to 2 seconds, you will end up with 15 fps which will look very choppy. That is why many will shot higher frame rates and render (as a last step) down to the magical 24 during final.
If you take video and render at smaller frame rates you do loose frames. From 30 to 24 you effectively lose 6 frames every second. You can render back up but you would be relying on the editing software to interpret and write the new frames.
So what's up with the magical 24 fps? Human conditioning. Back in the '20s and '30, 24 fps (and 25 fps Eur) was the standard. It was a good balance of fluid motion and film costs. It's what we all grew up with when watching movies. As such, most videos are either shot (if camera supports) at or rendered to 24 fps to give the video a more film like appearance.
Some filmmakers are experimenting with higher frames rates to give a more "life like" presentation. The Hobbit, for example, was projected at 48 fps, known as HFR. It was so sharp that the video was actually softened after audiences and critics complained. I saw it and my thoughts were mixed. It was gorgeous, different, and a little hard on the eyes. It didn't "feel" right.