Yep, Winrock is right. Cineframe 24 is just not that great. I've shot a couple of things with it and it just looks weird - it has a judder to it that at a quick glance looks sort of like 24p but it is not as smooth and even as real 24p. The other problem is that it softens your footage a bit and any motion can get to looking strange. Plus you still have all the problems with jagged interlaced edges, etc.

I think the consensus these days is to shoot 60i and then convert to 24p with Vegas or DVfilm, etc. Not knocking the Z1 though, it is a great looking camera.

A better path (if you're using the Z1) is to shoot 50i giving you 25fps. If you use Cineframe you get smooth motion but less resolution (because it discards one field). I've shot quite a lot of appraisal tests (fast motion etc) and gave it a "thumbs up". Nevertheless I shoot 50i and do all conversions in post production (retaining some extra vertical resolution but more work). Have looked only briefly at the new facilities offered by Cineform 3.03 but others here have reported favourably on its quality.

It all comes down to motion. If you render 24 from 60i, then go through your footage frame by frame, you'll see alternating ghosting patterns of two then three images. With DVFilm you'll see alternating patterns of a clean frame then a double image. With a Cineform convert on capture you'll see 24 frames per second of all clean frames.

Just a couple of days ago I was gushing about how good the Cineform 24p and 30p captures looked, but now I am not so sure. Here's why. In real 24p footage, you get a motion blur of the gate being held open a 24th of a second. In 60i it maxes out at a sixtieth of a second. The ghost images of Vegas and DVFilm 24p conversions don't look as good when you go over the footage frame by frame, and you never seem to settle on quite as clear an image, but the positive thing about the ghosting is it smooths out the motion: not as well as a proper 24th second motion blur, but it smooths it out none the less. At this point I feel like the smoothness you get from a Vegas 24p conversion is more important than the clarity and lessor ghosting you get from the Cineform 24p conversion. DVFilm is somewhere in between. It still is nice to have the options though.

At this point I feel that it is best to keep whatever temporal and dot density resolution you have and only convert if you actually are outputting to film or matching the format of a larger project that was for the most part shot in 24p.

Another thing: 24p projects are shot with dollys and steadicams for a reason. I shoot for the most part with a Spiderbrace. It looks fine at 60i, but I am just kidding myself if I think I can get a smooth 24p or 30p that way. Well 30p maybe, but 24p, not without some better camera stabilization gear.

Now I understand why you said DVFilmMaker generates artifacts: you shoot 60i. I shoot 50i and convert to 25fps (I have no reason to go to 24fps, even if I was outputting to film). DVF does leave some traces of interlace in low light areas (at least in my tests) but I saw these only on stop frame. The difference between shooting cineframe 25 and shooting 50i and processing through DVF is worth it in my appraisals, but I suspect few viewers would appreciate the difference.
Incidentally, film isn't exposed for 1/24 second, it is 1/48 for a 180 degree shutter and 1/52 for the 165deg shutter on the Bolex I used for years prior to my Arri. In the projector the image is projected twice per frame and pulled down during one of the periods the shutter is closed; the simplest system has a shutter with two 90 deg open sectors.
Now you can hand hold at 24fps but even a skilled operator (ie one who has practised a lot) can't hold like a tripod. But a little movement on the edge of the frame (where it is seen) isn't a problem when there is action in frame. Gets noticable if the scene is static. Same if you're shooting at 60i. The rule for panning is pan slowly and the longer the focal length the slower you pan. Think of it a seconds for a fixed object (tree) to cross the frame (about 6). ACM gives a figure of 23 seconds for a 90 deg sweep for 35mm using a 50mm lens at 24fps 180 deg shutter, or 6 seconds for an object to traverse the FOV. Faster pans OK for higher framing rate; at 60fps the recommended rate is about 3 seconds. This is for panning a static scene -- following action is quite a different matter.
I find a Spider Brace type of design doesn't give adequate support. You need a support going down to your belt (which you could add easily to your Spider). Actually I've been developing my own around a Arri 16BL shoulder brace (that is a heavy camera) and that's working well with my FX. I really couldn't handhold the Arri.