YouTube Format IDs

24fps is the worst part of film for me. I've watched a lot of films, and I made an effort to watch important and critically acclaimed ones. While I enjoyed a lot of it at the time, I don't really have any desire to watch any more, or to re-watch things I've already seen. The low framerate always drags me out of the story. Perhaps the only exceptions are the films of Yasujirō Ozu, which use so little motion that it's hard to see the low framerate.

I have a similar reaction to music from the early 70s and earlier. But if the sound quality is good, I still enjoy listening to new music and re-listening to things I've already heard. I think I'd still be interested in film if they'd actually taken advantage of improved technology like the musicians did.

The most enjoyable film-watching experience in my life was watching 60fps Showscan shorts at Futuroscope in France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing actual real life (and there's no interlacing like with old soap operas). For this reason, I've always found 60fps better on YouTube. Lower fps doesn't look more sophisticated imo, it usually looks worse unless it happens to be done by a good videographer that wants it to look like a movie. It's especially terrible for things like action content (mountain biking, karting) or things like fps games, where the higher frame rate helps a ton with all the fast motion. This happens to be a lot of what I watch on YouTube.

The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.

Same vibe as preferring black-and-white cinema, or analogue (and/or mono) audio.

The neat thing is that 25fps content played out at 50fps doesn't use a lot more bandwidth than 25fps played out at 25fps because it only has to update every second frame, assuming identical noise between frames.

And then you can go to field-per-frame 50fps footage when you need to say "camcorder".

Last time I went to the movies I didn't have a good time watching "motion" at 24Hz on a large screen while used to watch motion at 240Hz on a small screen.

I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.

If there isn't much movement, it's probably a modest increase in bitrate anyway as the codec will see that most frames aren't changing.

yeah, it was more of a way of showing my disdain for said content and wasting of electrons pushing bandwidth

If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.