Is that true ? 24fps is even specified in the Netflix requirements for content...

https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...

I don't think it means literal 24fps. I feel it means "you should use 24/23.976 instead of 30 or 60" (This is just my guess).

But anyway, I can confirm most of their videos are 23.976 fps for live action series. Exception: I do see 24fps for some animes.

This is not a guide for framerate. Netflix accepts multiple frame rates.

This is a guide about data bitrate, what it says is that for 24fps, you need at least 240Mbps (means it needs more if it has higher frame rate).

If anything, all the other language versions actually use "23.98" as example instead. E.g. this Deutsch version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WLz0O_dwmVWjqHafaHoLav0qvHU...

This guide https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/441... mentions more about frame rate but it's basically just "don't convert frame rate around, and use constant frame rate for intermediate file".

Good question. Last time I've submitted to Netflix, it was 24, but it goes through a third party "packaging" company before going to Netflix.

So some of them might reconvert to 23.976 even when we submit 24 fps masters as per the contractual agreement. Maybe you are right. I will check.

Low budget web series shot at 23.976 even get delivered and played back at 29.97i on some local platforms here in Canada (Crave, Noovo, tout.tv), so anything's possible nowadays.

On the other end, Blurays can be encoded at both 23 and 24, and Vimeo, Youtube, etc all support 24fps. So 24 fps exists, not just on DCPs.

By the way, the loss of quality from going to/from 23.976 and 24 is not much. I've never heard any artifacts from that kind of conversion. But since cinema theatres are most likely to have a better sound system that a home system, I think it makes more sense to have the unconverted mix playing in the cinema and not vice versa.

But how would you convert from 23.976 to 24? Either you will have a repeated frame once every 1000 frames, or you would need to interpolate every single frame.

Surely the first solution would be preferable. But it would still lead to more than one jitter per minute. I wouldn't call that "no artifacts".

You slow it down to run at 100.1% of its original length. Presto, 23.976FPS converted to 24.

1.7321 cents difference for your audio (100 cents is a half-step)

At the moment, blu-rays are also still predominantly 23.976p.

I do agree we should actively push this relic out, though. Wish Netflix etc. can do more to normalize whole number frame rate to end this. Unfortunately considering TV industry are still using 29.97i for broadcasting, I don't see it's going to happen any time soon. And it's worse in other countries like Japan.

Most other countries apart from Japan use 25i for television broadcasting, with none of the complexities of dropframe. Sadly the general consensus was to go for 1080i25 rather than 720p50 for HD.

Considering that slowing down FPS doesn't alter the images, and audio can be resampled with practically no audible artefacts, I doubt that quality would ever be an issue. As long as it's done with the proper care of course.

I would think the main consideration is workflow these days.

Netflix accepts 24fps

Source: https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/726...

Is there such a thing as a camera that does simultaneous capture at multiple frame rates?

Not well versed in video production but really interested layperson.

I understand that the two main reasons for 23.976/24 fps are that it’s:

1) been the standard for a really long time so you know everything will more or less support it (cinemas/vod/broadcast tv).

2) is now in people minds as what film should look like (in that 60 fps somehow looks “off” because we’re trained to expect 24 fps).

Given that analogue broadcast tv is dying off and that digital OTA tv is a similar case to vod in terms of codecs (maybe not receiver support?), wouldn’t a stopgap be some multiple of 24 fps (e.g. 48fps) that would allow better motion handling without the pace seeming off?

At 48fps, a movie already looks way too smooth and uncinematic

I'm quite convincented you already notice it at 30fps (but I'd have to check again)

I think the real reason HFR isn’t used much in cinema is that it ends up exposing a lot of the choreography, set design, special effects, etc. as fake, where before our brains filled in the details due to the low information rate and blurry frames.

Watch either of Ang Lee’s HFR movies (Billy Lynn/Gemini Man) and you’ll understand what I mean. HFR breaks suspension of disbelief. I didn’t want this to be true but I’ve come to accept that it doesn’t really have a place in cinema at least for now.

Wasn’t HFR mostly used in 3D films to get rid of the skipping in high paced scenes? If I remember correctly the first HFR film was The Hobbit?

(I worked in the industry at the time on the technical side, but I’m not a film buff, so the details are forgotten a long time ago. All I remember is that there was a huge amount of work involved to get all the equipment upgraded to support HFR. Cinemas had to upgrade both their playback servers and projectors for thousands of dollars. All for less than a handful of films.)