It's a bit more nuanced than that. Resolution is meaningless unless you know the size of the image and the distance to the viewer - so keeping a "lossless" copy makes sense for people professionally buying very expensive hardware. It's no different than keeping the original reels of a movie so you can scan them at higher and higher resolution as technology improves. In other word, the final product will always at best be limited by the format the source is kept in. That is not to say that even amateur videophiles have a use for it, they just want the best and mimic the professionals.
As for frame rate I'm pretty sure we know from experiments that the average human eye can see the difference in frame rate all the way up to 150-160 fps, and that the trained eye can detect images shown for less than 1/200 second.
So however marginal the gain is, it makes sense for professionals that take pride in having the absolutely best quality. It's the same people that will finetune encoder settings for the individual scenes in a movie just to get that tiny improvement.
As for frame rate I'm pretty sure we know from experiments that the average human eye can see the difference in frame rate all the way up to 150-160 fps, and that the trained eye can detect images shown for less than 1/200 second.
So however marginal the gain is, it makes sense for professionals that take pride in having the absolutely best quality. It's the same people that will finetune encoder settings for the individual scenes in a movie just to get that tiny improvement.