[lecoyote418]

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.

[room500]

Netflix accepts 24fps

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

[thrdbndndn]

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.

[iso1631]

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.

[lukastr0]

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".

[Dwedit]

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)

[michaelgrafl]

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.

[xattt]

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