Thanks! What about 23,976 frps? Is that better or worse than 25 frps for web?

Usually 60Hz is framerate of most modern monitors connected to computer. Of course, you could have some old CRTs with weird 85Hz, or some tweakers. But main mass usually have such rate.

If the display frame rate is at least about 2.5x the content frame rate, it's not necessary to have a precise ratio like 2:1 or 3:2 between them for it to look alright. The player repeats frames as necessary to make up the difference, and our eyes are not too sensitive to the irregularity of the lengths of the repeated spans of frames. 30 fps on a 50-fps display is less than ideal, but 30 fps on a 100-fps display is just fine.

As Vitaliy said, if the web is your target format, I would not worry about people playing online videos on their TVs, as it's a small fraction of viewers. The vast majority play them on their PCs, which typically have 60-fps displays. For those viewers, 30 fps holds an advantage over 25 fps or 24 fps, both because of the higher rate, and because of the precise 2:1 ratio between the display rate and the content rate. The motion will be smoother and more uniform.

There is virtually no 60-fps web video delivery right now. Shooting in 60 fps gives you options for other delivery formats and for the future, but you'll use a 30-fps downconversion for today's web delivery. You can upload a 60-fps video to YouTube, which they automatically convert to 30 fps. Perhaps someday in the future they'll re-encode those videos and deliver them at 60 fps for suitably equipped viewers.

If you are targeting theaters, professional broadcasts, and Blu-ray, unfortunately 24 fps remains the universal standard, since there are clean ways of converting it to every standard around the world. That's slowly changing, with some theaters now able to show higher frame rates like 48 fps and 60 fps.

I'm in PAL country (OZ) and all my outdoor shoots are 60fps then down converted to 30 for web upload. Why I changeover is when 50 fps is down converted to 25 and played back on 60hz screens it is very noticeably jerky, even tearing if motion is fast. Add this to the slight strobing from a 1/100 shutter and it can be uncomfortable to watch.

One strange observation though, 25p on an iPad looks much better, smoother, maybe it's the small screen, much better than on LCD monitor and laptop.

Just to be clear, on an ipad, 25fps doesn't look better than 30fps, just better than a desktop LCD monitor or Laptop.

@Ralph_B

NTSC devices cannot playback PAL discs.

Who told you this? If you remove regional protection all play fine.

It's true that DVD players in a computer can play both NTSC and PAL discs, but stand-alone NTSC DVD/Blu-ray players cannot play PAL discs. And NTSC TVs will not sync to 50 Hz.

But my question is can PAL standalone players and TVs playback NTSC discs?

But the american DVD Player CAN NOT playback PAL DVDs. You have to buy a multiystem DVD player.

I got it. You mean playback of region free disks on original (with non removable protection) players. I think this is that you mean. This can be only special artificial protection.

As for DVDs, I have only old TV serier remaining on DVDs. DVD players are not really popular here.

But I have a question too. I produce martial arts instructional DVDs. I filmed up to now with a GH1 and a GH2 in 720/50p, so PAL, soon with the GH3 in 1080/50p MOV 50 Mbit or the AVCHD 28M bit version. I have to see.

So I edit on the PAL 720 timeline and render for PAL a PAL SD mp2 file for DVD production and for american DVDs I render a NTSC SD mp2 file. So far, no problem. The NTSC version does not look as nice., because of the different resolution and the other framerate.

Now, from the 720 timeline, I also render a file, that is for download purposes. If I understand it right, the HD resolution (720 and 1080) is the same in NTSC and PAL (contraty to SD), only the framerate differts. Correct?

So for the download files you say it would be best to convert in a 30p format?

@AKED

If you convert from 50P to 30P, you can do it three ways. From poorest to best: 1) Simple frame skipping 2) frame blending 3) Frame interpolation (ala Twixtor or After Effects with Quality set to best)

Most editing programs do frame blending as their default method of changing frame rates. It's sort of OK, but not great. The advantage is it renders fast. But the best way to change frame rates is to use frame interpolation where new frames are synthesized. This results in the smoothest motion. It works well going from a higher frame rate to a lower one. After Effects does an excellent job. No plug-in needed.

Back to the PAL/NTSC-Problem: Looking for a new Flatscreen abour 2 years ago, I found out that the current models (most of them fron LG) demanded 60hz refresh rate from my Mac laptop only - not 50hz ,as I live in PAL region. Will be the same with PC. Ended up in buying a used Panasonic TH-42PZ70E Plasma from a friend, which offers 50I/50p / 60i / 60p. He used it for 3D animation. Same with Displays. Only one on the market - EIZO Foris FX2431 as far as I know - offers true 50hz. All others, like NEC Multisyncs, do convert internally to 60hz and I assume, also many TV´s. Ever wondered, why they are touting scan rates based on 60 but not 50hz? One classical route for 60hz display (as well as 60p): Convert 24fps tp 60 based on 2:3 pulldown

Looking for a new Flatscreen abour 2 years ago, I found out that the current models (most of them fron LG) demanded 60hz refresh rate from my Mac laptop only - not 50hz ,as I live in PAL region

All LG TVs I checked worked with 50Hz.

All this require real and systematic testing, not just fast "demand" and "convert" claims.