For Super 16, the resolution question (HD vs 2k) is less relevant than it is for a 4:3 image (where you get a lot more bang for your buck with a 2k scan). That is, you're not gaining a ton of resolution by doing 2k vs a 1080p transfer: it's only slightly higher res.
That said, If you transfer it on a telecine, by the very nature of the machine, you're "baking in" color correction decisions at the time of transfer. Telecines are designed with a video-centric workflow in mind: Film to Video. That process always involves some kind of color correction hardware in the pipeline, and the resulting video is permanently affected by that color correction. If the blacks are crushed or whites blown out during this stage, detail that might actually be present on the film in those extremes would be unrecoverable.
On the other hand, a true data scan is designed to capture the film without making aesthetic decisions about the color, with the expectation that you'll do the color correction later. This is a very different workflow. It's not as fast as telecine, since it adds that extra step, but it buys you a lot more flexibility. Additionally, many data scanners are not subject to the video-centric signal processing of older telecine systems. That is, you're essentially taking a photograph of each frame at full color bandwidth, without the signal being converted to a video color space somewhere in the middle. Thus, you have more flexibility to color correct as you see fit in a later pass.
If you're dealing with film that has splices, I'd avoid telecine entirely, since most of them have issues with frame warping at the splice points. Line scanners (like the Spirit and Shadow) fall into this category as well.
Even with a telecine, the frame rate will depend on the capabilities of the machine and the capture system they're using. You just need to ask what they can do - remember that most telecine setups are customized, so a Spirit in one studio might be able to output to different formats than the same machine in another studio. It's not at all unusual to capture a film on a telecine in HD at 24fps to a Quicktime file. It just requires some kind of digital disk recorder to replace the traditional tape deck (if you can capture to a 1080p/24 HDCAM SR tape, there's no reason you can't replace that tape deck with an appropriate DDR of some kind that does the same frame rate). That said, Telecines are meant to run in realtime, so they typically only write to files in standard video/HD frame rates: 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, etc.
Some data scanners only scan to image sequences, which are, as David Mullen says, whatever frame rate you play them back at. Others capture to formats like Quicktime or AVI at a frame rate specified by the operator. Our scanner, for example, can capture to DPX, TIFF, or to Quicktime/AVI files. (Simultaneously, even). We can scan an old 18fps film to an 18fps Quicktime file, or even to a 24fps file that pulls up the 18fps much like you'd do in a step-printing process in an optical printer. That said, as long as you're capturing to a progressive format, regardless of the frame rate, it's easy enough to change that frame rate later in software without affecting the image quality. This is harder (but still possible) when you bake pulldown/pullup into the scan.
My personal preference is for scanning, though obviously I'm biased. But if you think about it, it's a simpler process that gives you the most flexibility in post. The cost, these days, should be reasonable for a 2k scan. We only charge a few cents more per foot for 2k vs. HD, for example, because our scanner can scan both at faster than real time speeds. So the main difference is in the data management of the larger files with 2k.
Edited by Perry Paolantonio, 03 November 2014 - 10:43 AM.