>and looks "better" due to 24fps being the frame rate of movies
I think this is just Stockholm syndrome from people used to bad frame rates. If the content was originally in 60fps don't butcher it by converting it to 24fps.
Sorry but thats the worst reasoning i've ever heard when it comes to this FPS debate. 24fps is a bad framerate. Even for movies with the "prerendered motion blur", which helps to smooth the video a bit, its a stuttering mess. Comparing it to watching static photographs makes no sense, an inherent quality of video is it not being static.
Don't forget that 46 fps was determined by Edison to be the minimum viable framerate to not cause eye fatigue but then it was decided to go down to 24 to lower the cost of movie productions. 24fps is literally just the low budget option.
The higher the fps the smoother the video the better the video. I'd pick 720p60fps over 1080p30fps any day if im somehow limited by bitrate restrictions.
24fps is definitely not just a low-budget option. People with very expensive cameras capable of shooting 60fps without any issues at all are still CHOOSING 24fps.
The debate about 24fps vs higher frame rates is nuanced. It's about trade-offs and style choices. Here's an example of a videos discussing 24fps vs higher frame rates:
24 Hz is not necessarily a bad frame rate (depends for what, really), but even disregarding that most display technology is for 30/60 Hz, I don't think there is any argument that 24Hz is not worse than any higher framerate in terms of visuals. Just like 60 Hz is worse than 144 Hz or even higher rates. The difference is very noticeable.
What's worse, how do you intend to display 24 Hz content on a 60 Hz monitor for example? Display one content frame on every 2nd or 3rd monitor frame? That will lead to speedup / slowdown. Maybe display one content frame every 3rd monitor frame, but drop every 6th content frame? That will display the content at proper speed but the result will be a jerky watching experience. Maybe think about interpolating the content by computing in-between frames dynamically? I'm not sure to what extent this is done in existing devices, but I'm positive the watching experience won't be optimal.
If it was somehow proven that the human perception system "samples" individual frames at a fixed framerate of 24 Hz, then you could make a case that 24 Hz is preferable to 30 Hz, but I'm pretty sure that is not the case.
I remember playing Halo on the original Xbox. I was distracted for weeks because it was an unpleasant jerky experience. About once per second there was an annoying jerk when just walking in a straight line. At some point I noticed that on a friend's Xbox Halo ran very smooth - at least during scenes that hadn't a lot of action going on. I was already considering that his Xbox was a newer, stronger model, but then I noticed my friend had his Xbox set to NTSC mode. I'm from Germany, where as most of Europe the usual video system was PAL (slightly higher resolution and running at 60 Hz instead of NTSC which runs at 50 Hz). I set my console to NTSC for Halo and it fixed my issue. The whole thing might be an issue in Halo's engine, maybe they weren't able to fix this in time before the release. Or I don't know, fixing it might have caused huge headaches with multiplayer. In any case this situation might illustrate why you don't want to put 24 Hz video on a 60 Hz screen if you can have 30 Hz video.
NTSC is 29.97 fps and PAL is 25 fps - PAL was higher resolution because it sacrificed frame rate. (Doesn’t change your point of course)
(Back in the cathode days seeing a TV set in Europe was like going to a strobe show.)
As TFA says (well maybe it was in the comments) there are standard ways of conversion and you pretty much hit them but newer equipment will be able to playback 24fps natively to give the “cinema experience”.
> What's better, a gallery exhibition of 20 photographs or 2000? It doesn't work that way.
Yes, it doesn't work that way, the number of frames you have and the number of pictures you select for a gallery exhibition are two totally different things, the only thing that they have in common is that both are a number of pictures. Unless you consume video content by pausing and watching it frame by frame, which I doubt you do. And even in that case, a lower framerate doesn't equal more "work" being put into each frames, which would be the case for the gallery exhibition, but isn't the case for "livestreaming", since you don't have the time to do that when doing something live.
>and looks "better" due to 24fps being the frame rate of movies
I think this is just Stockholm syndrome from people used to bad frame rates. If the content was originally in 60fps don't butcher it by converting it to 24fps.