# A defense of 24 frames per second and why it's here to stay for cinema



## qubit (Nov 5, 2018)

I'm not defending it, this guy is. The motion interpolation/smoothing/framerate doubling feature on my plasma TV is a godsend for compensating for that low 24/25Hz framerate that most programs are shot in.

He's probably right though on 24fps staying for the foreseable future and definitely right that it's cheaper to work with. I think cost is the main reason why filmmakers stick with 24fps rather than increase it, not this guff about a "cinematic look". That's just an excuse. A higher framerate simply means that a movie has to be made to a higher quality since a higher framerate shows imperfections more, which makes the movie look more fake, ie a truer representation of what it really is: fake. 24fps fudges everything with stutter and motion blur. Yuck. And this guy calls that an improvement, lol.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2018)

100% for higher framerates, i run a chromecast ultra on my 4K TV and the non-gamers in the family are obsessed with how my stuff looks so good (4k/8k 60FPS clips from youtube are a great example) compared to their blurry af 24FPS judderfests

"When i wave my hand in front of my face i see a blur, why cant cinema?"
... says the guy wearing glasses with obviously bad eyesight...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

ATSC 3.0 is rolling out which is finally going to put television and film on the same infrastructure: up to 2160p120 with HDR. 


He does have a point about Star Trek and a plywood set.  The better picture gets, the more obvious it is fake.  24 fps can mask some of the fakeness...preserving the illusion.  I can't watch TV dramas anymore because they are so obviously fake it breaks immersion.


"Objective Fact #1" is false because he fails to consider economics of scale.  Virtually every camera (including cinematic) and TV sold today is designed for a minimum of p60.  In fact, the prohibitive component of cinematic cameras is not shutter speed, frame rate, nor pixels, it's the performance of the storage medium to save it (this is why high speed cameras require cutting back on something to get higher frame rates).  Storage tech is improving by leaps and bounds and becoming cheap as well.  The push is for more and more, not retreating to 24 fps.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that ATSC 3.0 won't even support 24 fps unless you throw it back into legacy mode (what is being broadcast now as per ATSC 1.0).  In other words, it won't support anymore than 1080p30.  To get the benefit of HEVC and 4K, it has to be higher frame rate.

Data is only stored raw on internal servers.  Once production is done, it gets transcoded to MPEG2 for DVD publishing or MPEG4 (soon HEVC) for internet publishing.  I'm not sure what they send to movie theaters for premiers.  I have a 25 fps, 90 minute 4K video on my server that I transcoded to HEVC.  It uses 3.6 GiB...it fits on a DVD5 yet it looks soooooooo much better.  Encoding matters. A lot.

It's also theoretically possible to transcode to HEVC on the fly using GPU transcoding.  More power but less data.

"Hollywood is cheap" which is why they need to get on the Netflix/Amazon/ATSC bandwagon.



Random TV drama on right now: Video: MPEG2 Video 1920x1080 *29.97 fps* [V: mpeg2 main, yuv420p, 1920x1080]  How does one convert 24 fps into 29.97 without inducing severe stutter?  There's a reason why films have that bit about being "formatted for TV."  They have to take their 24 fps source, play it into memory, then capture 29.97 fps out of it for ATSC broadcast.  TVs would explode if they had to figure out how to run at 24 Hz.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2018)

qubit said:


> 24fps fudges everything with stutter and motion blur. Yuck


Wait? What stutter and motion blur? You guys with your bionic eyes, I don’t see any of that.


----------



## hat (Nov 5, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Wait? What stutter and motion blur? You guys with your bionic eyes, I don’t see any of that.


Neither do I. The only stutter I ever noticed was when I used bad settings when encoding... like VFR. Yuck.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

I checked a recording of a film (Frozen) via ATSC and it was transcoded to (from MPEG2 of the same resolution/frame rate): MPEG4 Video (H264) 1280x720 *59.94fps* [V: h264 high L4.1, yuv420p, 1280x720]

I went frame by frame in MPC-HC and yeah, there's only 24 frames there because between every actual frame, there's a little gitter of a frame...  It's difficult to explain...let me see if I can record a video...

Edit: It's uploading and 24 fps on 60 fps looks like ass.  As internet streaming grows in popularity, 24 fps for cinemas will dwindle in popularity.  120 fps is the happy medium for stock footage (24 fps is a factor or 5, 30 fps is a factor of 4, 60 fps is a factor of 2).









Beginning shows some of the video playing normally.  Half way through, I hold control and smash the right arrow at a relatively constant pace which makes MPC-HC advance one frame at a time per press.  As you can clearly see, it's not smooth at all because for every 2 frames with new data, there's ~3 frames (because  59.94 fps) that just repeat the previous.

If all you do is consume 24 fps films at theaters, I can see why you could fall in love with it.  Everywhere else, 24 fps is a (technical) problem.


Edit: I have to apply the brakes for a second.  Who honestly cares if it is jittery?  Unless people look for it, they won't necessarily see it.  Even if they see it, is it enough to make them stop watching?  I'd argue no.  He could be right that movies will stick to 24 fps just because they can.  Should they?  No.


----------



## hat (Nov 5, 2018)

Well, making a video 60FPS just because 60FPS is a terribad idea, when you're just filling up the additional frames with duplicates...


----------



## Liquid Cool (Nov 5, 2018)

I voted yes.

Anything over 30fps in videos on Youtube will send me straight to the floor...and I do mean straight to the floor.  I was watching an Oxhorn video on Fallout lore...and took a good 3 hour nap on the carpet before waking up and couldn't remember how I got there.  That's how I discovered my little issue with 60fps videos...the hard way.

If you have a problem with 60fps may you dizzy or nauseous...the H264ify addon will block them in your browser.  Highly recommended.

,

Liquid Cool


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

hat said:


> Well, making a video 60FPS just because 60FPS is a terribad idea, when you're just filling up the additional frames with duplicates...


I'm not. The ABC affiliate changed it from 24 fps to 720p59.94 for ATSC broadcasting.  They add the duplicates so ATSC tuners in TVs can decode it, which in turn, have to be able to output at 60 Hz to TV panels.

Someone has to add those extra frames somewhere because TVs are incapable of running at 24 Hz.  Projectors at movie theaters do run at 24 Hz.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2018)

Liquid Cool said:


> I voted yes.
> 
> Anything over 30fps in videos on Youtube will send me straight to the floor...and I do mean straight to the floor.  I was watching an Oxhorn video on Fallout lore...and took a good 3 hour nap on the carpet before waking up and couldn't remember how I got there.  That's how I discovered my little issue with 60fps videos...the hard way.
> 
> ...



i think you may be a unique case


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Nov 5, 2018)

I recall something years ago about theater projectors, might of been made up, idk,  not being able to handle 29fps of TV, and it had to do with picture quality on 70? 80? foot screens and maybe even the distance from projector to the screen. I am not sure really, just that headaches and nausea were involved. This was before 3D, like before Jaws 3D.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 5, 2018)

Clearer and more fluid picture, 60 fps is a must these days. I hope they can keep pushing it so that 120 fps becomes stanadrd for movies and 240hz will be common in gaming in 5 to 10 years.


----------



## kastriot (Nov 5, 2018)

I guess to be used on 50/60 fps movies you must watch them from young age and all of us who used to watch old 24fps movies will never get over that except for documetaries/news etc etc.


----------



## Devon68 (Nov 5, 2018)

The eye cant see more anyway. And if you say you can, then you dont get tired enough at your job. Movie are fine but some people are not satisfied even with 4k.


----------



## hat (Nov 5, 2018)

Devon68 said:


> The eye cant see more anyway. And if you say you can, then you dont get tired enough at your job. Movie are fine but some people are not satisfied even with 4k.


I don't understand the movement for ever increasing resolutions. Even on a 55 inch TV, crappy 1080p rips from... sources... look fine. If I do my own blu ray rips, I resize to 720p. I've done my own damn DVDrips that looked stunning, even given their crappy 720x480 resolution (displays as roughly 853x480, but there's not really 853 pixels horizontal resolution stored in the source image... it gets stretched via hax).

A thought occurs... honestly I believe the improvement in image quality that comes with 4k isn't even so much from the resolution as it is everything else that comes with it. As time goes on, Internet connections (and physical media, like DVD vs Blu-Ray) have evolved for many people to be able to support higher and higher bitrates, as well as the hardware on the receiving end moving on from MPEG-2 (DVD video, broadcast TV), to h.264, and now h.265 is becoming standard, with roughly double the compression as even h.264 for the same quality. You're not just getting more resolution, you're simply getting a better quality picture (regardless of resolution) thanks to increasing bitrates and more efficient codecs. Now, Blu-Ray bitrate is all over the place, but roughly 20Mbps seems to be the average. This is roughly 4x higher than the average DVD bitrate. Combine that with h.264's greater efficiency than MPEG-2 and you're looking at roughly 8x the effective bitrate for a resolution that's only 6x higher than DVD. This figure, of course, can go higher or lower depending on which discs specifically you're comparing, but that's just a rough ballpark on bitrate/resolution vs bitrate/resolution.


----------



## SniperHF (Nov 5, 2018)

Can't say I've watched much content actually shot in 60 fps, but the smoothing features on TVs that take non-higherFPS content and smooth it out look like ass.
Higher FPS also makes the shaky cam style look even worse than normal.

I think it's a matter of adjusting direction.


----------



## IceScreamer (Nov 5, 2018)

For youtube stuff, gaming and whatever sure, but for movies, hell no, to me at least it looks just so wrong. I remember watching a short movie in 60 FPS and good god was it awful, seemed so fake for some reason.


----------



## Bones (Nov 5, 2018)

If things get too smooth, it does change the way it looks and kinda loses that movie-like feel we're used to seeing but 50/60 is still better than 24 FPS.

I guess in certain situations it may help with covering up things that would appear fake with a higher framerate but that also goes to being cheap with sets - And I do realize one can only do so much there anyway be it due to budget limitations or just what's possible to do anyway for the sake of making things look as realistic as possible.

Even a happy medium of 45 FPS as an example, which is right between 30 and 60 would be better but not too smooth - Helping to preserve the movie-like feel we're used to yet still improving things beyond what 30 FPS can show. However since 50/60 is already being used I doubt they would change it that way and instead just keep upping the framerates as time goes by and TV's/Monitors get better.

Yes I agree, too high a framerate can make things look fake sometimes but it's really more of (Again) what we're used to seeing in the first place. Get framerates too low on a high resolution TV and it looks like crap and I don't see the industry reducing what a TV is capable of showing either.

BUT since this is about cinema, I guess all that is a mute point in the theater - It's when it gets in your home on your TV/Monitor is when 24FPS is just yuk.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

I wonder if there will ever come a day where CGI scenes (using HDR and ray tracing) exceed manufactured sets in terms of believability.  Even so, every extra frame means more cost in terms of ray tracing so shooting for the moon doesn't seem plausible.


----------



## Bones (Nov 5, 2018)

Probrably but I doubt we'll see it anytime soon, at least I probrably won't ever see it.


----------



## Fragment (Nov 5, 2018)

Didn't watch the full vid of the OP but I don't see resources or technical limits as main reason for keeping 24fps for cinema.

For me it's more that the immersion is being taken away ( this invisible barrier between movie world and real world )  by doing it in 60fps. It's the soap opera effect.
It gets very visible and understandable if you watch the close up shots of the characters and their face movements. It's like you subconsciously feel like you are standing on the film set next to the actors and it makes you feel like ... "oh it's just recorded"... harder to dive into.

Example:


----------



## bubbleawsome (Nov 5, 2018)

Y’all are crazy. I can understand the argument that higher frame rate might not fit movies, and I agree to a point. I think if movies were made with the proper amount of blur in mind then 48fps would look fine. However, I also think that 24/25fps content played at true 24/25 (i.e. not being forced to fit into another frame rate) looks fine as well. Watching a 24fps movie looks nice, watching (not even interacting with) a 24fps game looks weird.

Also, who in their right mind doesn’t think 4K is useful. I’ve got a 4K 15” laptop and while I’ll admit day to day usage isn’t impacted much, I could still easily tell the difference if it was running at 4K or 1080p. And 4K content looks much sharper as well, even from 2-3 feet away on such a small screen. Anyone who says 4K is useless, especially on a screen larger than a monitor, should be checked for blindness.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I have to apply the brakes for a second. Who honestly cares if it is jittery? Unless people look for it, they won't necessarily see it.


I do. Always have. And it's always bugged me. Hollywood needs desperately to get with the times framerate wise.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Even if they see it, is it enough to make them stop watching? I'd argue no.


Good point, but it is still irritating.


----------



## infrared (Nov 5, 2018)

I can't stand being at the cinema watching a fast paced action movie, it's hard to follow chaotic scenes at such a pathetic framerate. Especially when they started doing 3D, it might have improved since I last saw a film in 3D but it was pretty unwatchable at parts of the Desolation of smaug.. purely based on framerate. I want 60fps as the minimum!!

I have less of an issue with 24fps in slower paced films, but it is 100% noticable if the camera pans steadily, you notice the flickering, or I do at least.. I think playing games at high frame rates has kinda spoilt me, I know how smooth video should look and it's frustrating when it isn't.

60fps videos on youtube are a thing of beauty, not sure how some of you are claiming this makes you feel nauseous.. I believe you but just think it's pretty strange. Although, you can always set your monitor to 30hz and be closer to what your eyes are comfortable with, without messing up the frame timing.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2018)

Fragment said:


> Didn't watch the full vid of the OP but I don't see resources or technical limits as main reason for keeping 24fps for cinema.
> 
> For me it's more that the immersion is being taken away ( this invisible barrier between movie world and real world )  by doing it in 60fps. It's the soap opera effect.
> It gets very visible and understandable if you watch the close up shots of the characters and their face movements. It's like you subconsciously feel like you are standing on the film set next to the actors and it makes you feel like ... "oh it's just recorded"... harder to dive into.
> ...



that looks like crap because its upscaled - things move too fast and feel fake because of it.

watch something like this, for proper 60FPS video and how it should look without the 'fake' feel


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 5, 2018)

Well, gaming at 24 fps is decent for my eyes, and if there is no stuttering, can be an enjoyable experience. However, 100 people means 200 ti...uhm...200 eyes, and they all see images differently. Some complain that even 60 fps isn't fluid enough. With new high hertz screens, people want even 240 fps lock. Personally, I have no issues with current 25fps for movies, as they don't seem blurry to me, but it can't stay like that forever. Progress must be made, money bust be taken out of peoples wallets, and our behinds need to get bigger sitting in front of a screen, so that one day, we can get a heart attack after a life of quality technics and even higher quality tv shows consumed.


----------



## Osirus (Nov 5, 2018)

Auto-smoothing? Interpolation? Yuck. give me 23.976 fps any day.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 5, 2018)

Uhm, 23,976 sounds familiar. Is that a legit standard or pirated copies standard? And tv program should be at around 25 if I'm not mistaken? Best check wiki.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 5, 2018)

The "60fps looks fake" thing is purely a matter of conditioning. 60 fps looks fake because people aren't used to it. Kids born into a world of 60fps movies wouldn't feel that way. As for me, after gaming at high fps, I can't hardly deal with cinema. 

I would absolutely LOVE it if the whole world just stopped using anything but 60fps native. Interpolation and all that is alright, but I can see where videophiles would rather have the native framerate, even if it is low framerate. 

But good god, I can't even hardly go to the movies anymore. Not for an action movie. Watching action movies in theatre just ruins them for me. It's a jittery mess on that big of a screen. Watching at home on a 55 inch isn't so bad (though still noticeable.) Some of Infinity War even made me nauseated.


----------



## baryluk (Nov 5, 2018)

For the same reason, I am not really interested in playing at 4K. It shows problems with geometry and textures easier. I prefer to play new and older games at lower res, so my brain just assume it is low res but realistic image, not see easily that it is not. For the same reason old console games, or stuff like NES/SNES games just feel better on old fuzzy CRT screens, and when you switch to sharp and color accurate noisless digital LCD, it just feels so fake.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 5, 2018)

In gaming, I want 165 Hz @ 1440p ... for films, I have yet to be able to visually observe the difference, tho many do not like the effect when films are shot at 48 fps.

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2018)

The thing is, the human eye can't refresh that fast anyway. 24fps is plenty.
The problem is the type of display use to view those movies. LCD needs black frame insertion (or other tricks) in order to fight its own image retention, plasma does not. So movies will continue to be shot at 24fps while the display technology will be left to deal with its shortcomings on its own.

Look up "motion blur" and "persistence of vision" on Wikipedia if you have to.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> The thing is, the human eye can't refresh that fast anyway. 24fps is plenty.
> The problem is the type of display use to view those movies. LCD needs black frame insertion (or other tricks) in order to fight its own image retention, plasma does not. So movies will continue to be shot at 24fps while the display technology will be left to deal with its shortcomings on its own.
> 
> Look up "motion blur" and "persistence of vision" on Wikipedia if you have to.



That is simply 100% not true. The human eye doesn't have a "refresh rate." If you think the human eye can't see faster than 24fps, I feel very sorry for you.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> That is simply 100% not true. The human eye doesn't have a "refresh rate." If you think the human eye can't see faster than 24fps, I feel very sorry for you.


Why would you feel sorry for @bug? Just because they don’t see frame differentiation to the degree you do?

There is a lot of snobbery by many in this thread, looking down on us lesser human beings who apparently do not have the finely honed and tuned eyes that the “elite” seem to think is necessary.  

I also notice this group of “elite” are the same ones who look down on anyone that thinks 60fps is fine is games.


----------



## Kursah (Nov 5, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Why would you feel sorry for @bug
> There is a lot of snobbery by many in this thread...



Agreed. Let's see if we can keep this from getting personal. Keep it constructive folks.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 5, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Why would you feel sorry for @bug? Just because they don’t see frame differentiation to the degree you do?
> 
> There is a lot of snobbery by many in this thread, looking down on us lesser human beings who apparently do not have the finely honed and tuned eyes that the “elite” seem to think is necessary.
> 
> I also notice this group of “elite” are the same ones who look down on anyone that thinks 60fps is fine is games.



I'm not looking down on anyone. I feel sorry for him because he will never know the glory of what it feels like to go to 144hz.

Also I feel sorry for him because he will probably always have this view that people can't see faster than that, simply because HE can't see it. And nothing I ever say will likely change his mind, he'll just continue to think I'm lying, or there's some sort of placebo effect going on (as people who hold his beliefs generally do)... So (I assume) he will probably forever be wrong. And that's lamentable.

To be 100% clear, I did not mean that to be disparaging, or a personal attack. I do, genuinely feel sorry for him.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> To be 100% clear, I did not mean that to be disparaging, or a personal attack. I do, genuinely feel sorry for him.


Ok, I take you at your word.    But many don’t care. I don’t feel any loss because I don’t see the value of those higher frames. I see what I see.  My life is just fine, even as the owner of 1,500(+) movies.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 5, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Ok, I take you at your word.  But many don’t care. I don’t feel any loss because I don’t see the value of those higher frames. I see what I see.  My life is just fine, even as the owner of 1,500(+) movies.



That's fine. Honestly, I'd like to be able to go to the movies again without the annoyance of the jitteriness... so I can see where it could be considered an advantage.

That being said, I don't back down from going against the assertion that the human eye can't "refresh" fast enough to need more than 24fps... Anyone who says that is simply objectively wrong, and I don't see it as a personal attack to say that. I'll go up against any test you or anyone else wants. I personally see a difference up until about 120fps, when in juxtaposition (i.e., rapidly changing between framerates within the same video source.) For more realistic tests, I can discern up to at least 60 fps, even if the entire video source is uniform frame rate. Saying that 24 fps is good enough for anybody is simply wrong. If it's good enough for you personally, great. But Bug asserted that it's good enough period. And that's just not true.


----------



## silentbogo (Nov 5, 2018)

This whole "24FPS is better"  or  "60FPS not fit for movies" is a total shitton of garbage. It's akin to the old debate of casettes vs CDs, but with less ground under its feet. 
It's like 60FPS content on youtube does not exist for that dude from the video: you have beautiful and crisp shots of nature in various documentaries, you have tons of podcasts shot in 60p that look just as good as TV, you have actual TV content shot and broadcasted in 60FPS nowadays. Even this whole "soap opera" effect is bullshit, cause the fakeness is caused not by framerate, but by the lack of post-processing of the media. Even if you want to have a "feeling" of 24p, the crispness of the image which you get in 50p/60p can be easily mitigated by post-processing.  It'll look exactly like 24FPS but much-much smoother. 
Also, his argument on worldwide agreement on 24FPS is semi-accurate, cause 24 / 25 FPS solidified itself as a standard not because of some magic numbers, but because that framerate was used w/ *this device* for the sole purpose of easy audio sync from a phonograph. Only after that and a commercial success of the device we've got 24p standardization, and all of the following "research" in human perception which tried hard to prove that 24 frames is a human limit. Hence all the cold war era 25th frame ads and global "subliminal message" scare.

In reality 24 FPS is a minimum tolerable level. 12-15FPS may still be perceived as animation, but it's only suitable for cartoons and definitely not movies.
Heck, even 30FPS makes more sense, since most of our TVs, phone/tablet screens and monitors are running at 60Hz and will not require all of the special treatment of 24p (e.g. special scaling algorithms, frame duplication, and lots of other stuff that your playback devices have to do to make it look as pretty as it does).


----------



## infrared (Nov 5, 2018)

Mussels said:


> that looks like crap because its upscaled - things move too fast and feel fake because of it.
> 
> watch something like this, for proper 60FPS video and how it should look without the 'fake' feel



That video is stunning! Although I think there were a few points in in that weren't native 60fps, 3:20 and 4:02 definitely looks a bit juddery to me, but the rest is silky smooth bliss. This is the future!

edit - those points were filmed in time lapse, maybe it's that or an editing issue.


----------



## 27MaD (Nov 5, 2018)

If it's a movie , anything above 24 FPS makes the movie look crappy , but for normal shows , videos , reviews , anything but movies , YES 60 FPS IS AWESOME.


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> That is simply 100% not true. The human eye doesn't have a "refresh rate." If you think the human eye can't see faster than 24fps, I feel very sorry for you.


Then hurry up and fix Wikipedia. (If you bothered to read it - or simply move your hand  quickly in front of your eyes - you'd that while the eye doesn't have a "refresh rate", the brain does have an information processing limit.)


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> Then hurry up and fix Wikipedia. (If you bothered to read it - or simply move your hand  quickly in front of your eyes - you'd that while the eye doesn't have a "refresh rate", the brain does have an information processing limit.)



I won't go into why fixing wikipedia isn't possible lol... Regardless, I didn't see where you linked what you're referring to.

And regardless of what wiki says, the human brain's capacity to perceive fps is FAR higher than 24. That's why I said what I said about feeling sorry for you. Apparently you can't perceive it.. so you'll never believe me. It would be like trying to convince a color blind person that those red and brown balloons are different colors. If your optic nerve, or the visual processing part of your brain is incapable of perceiving more, that's fine... More power to you, and you probably enjoy going to see an action movie at the cinema much more than I do. But what I don't like is when people like you insist that because YOU can't perceive faster frame rates, that none of us can. I'm not being mean, or elitist in any way when I say that. You saying that the human brain's speed limit is 24 fps is to imply that those of us who CAN perceive faster rates are lying or being fooled. And I wish there was a way to show you that you are 100% wrong, in the same way that a colorblind person is wrong about the red and brown balloons.

Here's a good site: https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=6&background=stars&pps=3840

MOST people will see a difference up to 60hz.

Try running this on a 120-144hz monitor... With the tests right next to each other, MOST people will see a difference at least up to 60hz, with a good majority being able to discern at least a bit above that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> Uhm, 23,976 sounds familiar. Is that a legit standard or pirated copies standard? And tv program should be at around 25 if I'm not mistaken? Best check wiki.


NTSC/ATSC (common in North America) operate on 29.97 fps because of color allocation of bandwidth coupled with 60 Hz power mains results in some really nasty fractionals that result in that number.  This video explains it:









The same trick was applied to 24 fps so you get 23.976 Hz in color video.  Black & white NTSC is 24/30 fps.


25 fps is standard for PAL (common in Europe).


----------

