Darth Lucas said:
Your understanding, as well as your assumption, are incorrect.
Very few movies, unless they are very early digital movies, were shot in true 24fps.

My understanding is that 24 fps (true 24.0 fps) was settled on in the early 1900s (just Google it). This was for films (not video). And that makes sense: why would someone decide on a film frame rate of “23.976 fps” back in those days?

The 23.976 fps rate is related to the 29.97 fps of color TV. 29.97 was used to avoid problems with old TV hardware (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC).

The Wikipedia page for “24p” (in the “23.976p” section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p#23.976p) states, “Nevertheless, even in NTSC regions, film productions are often shot at exactly 24 frame/s.” It also states that, “Some 24p productions, especially those made only for NTSC TV and video distribution (e.g. in Canada or the USA), actually have a frame rate of 24 * 29.97 / 30 frame/s, or 23.976frame/s.”

So my understanding/assumption that most film productions destined for the cinema were shot at true 24.0 fps is pretty reasonable (if you find a reference that contradicts this, please post it). And if true, the Star Wars trilogy was also shot at 24.0 fps.

To address some earlier posts, I am not talking about dropping frames or anything like that. The video sources of the movies contain the actual frames that were shot by the film camera, and I am just saying to play those frames - all of them - sped up by 0.1% (during playback). Drawbacks could include “beating” with the refresh rate of your monitor, etc., but that’s another topic (and may be why this is not done typically).

Now, were those old cameras and projectors that accurate to begin with? Not sure.

And I know 0.1% is very, very small - I’m not arguing it’s really significant - this is more of a philosophical question. A “why not?”, if you will.