Comment by saltcured

Yeah, but soap opera effect also isn't only framerate either.

Earlier video cameras exposed the pixels differently, sampling the image field in the same linear fashion that it was scanned on a CRT during broadcast. In the US this was also an interlaced scanning format. This changes the way motion is reproduced. The film will tend to have a global motion blur for everything moving rapidly in the frame, where the video could have sharper borders on moving objects, but other distortions depending on the direction of motion, as different parts of the object were sampled at different times.

Modern digital sensors are somewhere in between, with enough dynamic range to allow more film-like or video-like response via post-processing. Some are still rolling shutters that are a bit like traditional video scanning, while others are full-field sensors and use a global shutter more like film.

As I understand it, modern digital sensors also allow more freedom to play with aperture and exposure compared to film. You can get surprising combinations of lighting, motion blur, and depth of field that were just never feasible with film due to the limited sensitivity and dynamic range.

There are also culturally associated production differences. E.g. different script, set, costume, makeup, and lighting standards for the typical high-throughput TV productions versus the more elaborate movie production. Whether using video or film, a production could exhibit more "cinematic" vs "sitcom" vs "soapy" values.

For some, the 24 fps rate of cinema provides a kind of dreamy abstraction. I think of it almost like a vague transition area between real motion and a visual storyboard. The mind is able to interpolate a richer world in the imagination. But the mature techniques also rely on this. I wonder whether future artists will figure out how to get the same range of expression out of high frame rate video or whether it really depends on the viewer getting this decimated input to their eyes...