# Why has Canon omitted 24p 4K recording in their new cameras such as the EOS M6 Mark II, EOS 90D and EOS RP?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2019)

> It’s easy to jump on a company or a product for features that it doesn’t have, and on the internet, the negative a lot of the time has a louder voice than the positives.
> Since the Canon EOS RP which doesn’t have 24p in Full HD record, but does in 4K without DPAF, PowerShot G7 X Mark III and PowerShot G5 X Mark II launched without 4K and/or 1080 recording in 24p, a lot of Canon users have been very vocal in their disapproval of the decisions along with asking why on earth the feature doesn’t appear in their new cameras.
> Now that the Canon EOS 90D and Canon EOS M6 Mark II have launched without 4K in 24p, it seems to be a new trend for Canon to omit this recording capability.
> The question is why?
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 29, 2019)

India for 1 is a country where mathematical formulations or algorithms or softwares cannot be patented.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 29, 2019)

I'd love if someone who actually knows about electronics could speculate if it could actually be a hardware issue with available timings or something.

The other video issue, the removal of MOV and ALL-I encoding, might really be about transistor budget; perhaps the hardware just isn't there in DIGIC 8. Though it is a mystery to me why Canon even bothered to make a distinction between MOV and MP4; after all they're just container formats and the actual data is MPEG-4 anyway…


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 29, 2019)

And what about 1080 in 24, 120, etc?

Otherwise very interesting answer and may be right in that area.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> I'd love if someone who actually knows about electronics could speculate if it could actually be a hardware issue with available timings or something.
> 
> The other video issue, the removal of MOV and ALL-I encoding, might really be about transistor budget; perhaps the hardware just isn't there in DIGIC 8. Though it is a mystery to me why Canon even bothered to make a distinction between MOV and MP4; after all they're just container formats and the actual data is MPEG-4 anyway…



I don't think it has anything to do with hardware, the DIGIC 8 powered EOS R does it all.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 29, 2019)

They've gotta leave something for Magic Lantern to do, don't they?


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 29, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with hardware, the DIGIC 8 powered EOS R does it all.



True. But I'm also not at all sure that a DIGIC_n_ is a DIGIC_n _is a DIGIC_n_. That is, the branding is more about marketing, and different instances of the same generation of DIGIC may have different hardware details, just like different Intel processor models have different features even though they share the microarchitecture generation.


----------



## cpreston (Aug 29, 2019)

My guess is that Canon decided to dumb down their consumer cameras. Most probably don't know what 24p vs 30p vs mov vs mp4 vs all-i vs intra mean. They just want an easy way to capture their kid running around their backyard. They are also just going to put the camera in auto. In this case, giving the user a single 30p/4K choice is the best option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

<sarcasm>Bigger is better. More is better. 24 is the lowest frame rate. It had to go.</sarcasm>

Note: The above is SARCASM. That's what the <sarcasm> tag means. Clear 'nuf?


----------



## amorse (Aug 29, 2019)

Good point on the licensing side. I hadn't considered that, but was just as confused as everyone else here. 

Again, I really don't buy segmentation here because there are no other upstream products to push people to at the moment that don't have their own sacrifices. Maybe there is another product coming that ticks all those boxes for the few interested and that is what people will be pushed to.


----------



## fentiger (Aug 29, 2019)

suppose we will see when canon release the next 1D.
i have the 1DX2 and dos 24fps in 2 and 4K


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bigger is better. More is better. 24 is the lowest frame rate. It had to go.


if you dont edit video that would make sense.


----------



## matthew_r (Aug 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bigger is better. More is better. 24 is the lowest frame rate. It had to go.



Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 29, 2019)

Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 29, 2019)

Canon is the type of company that would come out with a mid tier camera 5 years from now and not offer raw anymore because they think their jpegs are that good but still offer it on cheaper and more expensive cameras.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 29, 2019)

Greedy Canon putting profits above people. I wish they would go out of business and let some other benevolent company take over.

/s


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a greedy company.


Grow up. Canon is a _business_, not a charity.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.



There's a long list of companies that "care about their customers" right into bankruptcy. Would you rather Canon give you everything you want at the price you want for the next few years...and then go out of business, or produce imperfect-but-competitive cameras (and exceptional lenses) for the next 50-75 years?

Consumers think short view. Successful businesses think long view. There are often instances where one comes at the expense of the other. Finding the right balance is what leads to succeeding in a competitive marketplace, which Canon is doing.

It's also helpful to remember that if a company doesn't make products demanded by the market, they won't sell any and will go out of business. Canon has no interest in that scenario, and releasing the occasional head-scratcher or flop isn't proof otherwise.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Some companies care about customers and some don't.



Yeah? Like who?


----------



## Marine626 (Aug 29, 2019)

24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed. No more than a car MFG having to pay licenses for the speeds a car can go. More probable reason would be.. 24p gets choppy or jumpy when camera movement isn't smooth. Considering these 2 cameras were designed for the beginner or low level amateur whom probable owns less equipment. I believe they designed the camera to be successful with is user in mind.

24p wasn't set as the standard because how wonderful it was.... simply because it was the slowest that still provided realistic movement on screen. In other words... the cheapest way to produce a film people would like to watch without walking out of the theater. 

Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p. Additionally, the next two "Avatar" films are said to be filmed in higher frame rates as well.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 29, 2019)

ethanz said:


> Greedy Canon putting profits above people. I wish they would go out of business and let some other benevolent company take over.
> 
> /s


it is greedy. its like having a food business selling garbage as food as long as the customers cant get sick and sue just for money. some of you are fine with that logic but that isnt not the type of world i would want. Some people still believe in pride, quality, integrity, and trying to satisfy loyal customers.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed.



Exactly this.


----------



## VORON (Aug 29, 2019)

The answer is more than obvious. For regular user there's no difference between 24p, 25p and 30p, so he won't care about omission of 24p. But for serious video guys 24p is a workhorse framerate, and they will be forced to pay for advanced cameras (even if they could be served by cheap ones otherwise)


----------



## BrightTiger (Aug 29, 2019)

A quick look up shows this - a bit outdated but it makes the license issue a non-starter. Canon is simply forcing consumers upmarket.
_Under the terms in place for 2011-2015, the royalty rates are the same regardless of whether a product is part of an OS. There's no royalty for the first 100,000 units of a licensed product; sublicensees pay 20 cents per unit up to 5 million and 10 cents per unit above 5 million. The current agreement includes an annual limit: “The maximum annual royalty (‘cap’) for an Enterprise [is] $6.5 million per year in 2011-2015.”_


----------



## overniven (Aug 29, 2019)

Any comparisons out there of something shot in 24 vs 30, same exact scene?


----------



## scottw (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed. No more than a car MFG having to pay licenses for the speeds a car can go.



While I'm just guessing, I did look into it a bit before my tweet. There is a link in the wikipedia page that goes to the MPEG LA organization that does collect fees for use of MP4/AVC and other encoding formats. Canon is on the list of licensees ( https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/licensees/ ). Now, I do kinda doubt there are fees per mode like 24p/120p/etc, but we are all likely paying a few cents per camera for that format based on was I saw on the site.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Aug 29, 2019)

amorse said:


> Good point on the licensing side. I hadn't considered that, but was just as confused as everyone else here.
> 
> Again, I really don't buy segmentation here because there are no other upstream products to push people to at the moment that don't have their own sacrifices. Maybe there is another product coming that ticks all those boxes for the few interested and that is what people will be pushed to.



The 2nd paragraph is segmentation


----------



## planetMitch (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.


Geezus that's a very stupid comment. You must not be a business owner.

By the way, I have found Canon to be one of the best companies I've ever dealt with. Upstanding and respectable and very very smart about their business. 



Keith_Reeder said:


> Grow up. Canon is a _business_, not a charity.


AMEN Keith! Amen!


----------



## planetMitch (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed. No more than a car MFG having to pay licenses for the speeds a car can go. More probable reason would be.. 24p gets choppy or jumpy when camera movement isn't smooth. Considering these 2 cameras were designed for the beginner or low level amateur whom probable owns less equipment. I believe they designed the camera to be successful with is user in mind.
> 
> 24p wasn't set as the standard because how wonderful it was.... simply because it was the slowest that still provided realistic movement on screen. In other words... the cheapest way to produce a film people would like to watch without walking out of the theater.
> 
> Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p. Additionally, the next two "Avatar" films are said to be filmed in higher frame rates as well.



The Hobbit looked HORRIBLE in 48. HORRIBLE. 

And I disagree with your interpretation of history. 24 was picked because it looked the best. PERIOD. This has been proven over and over. People keep coming back to 24 because it is indeed cinematic.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Aug 29, 2019)

Famateur said:


> There's a long list of companies that "care about their customers" right into bankruptcy. Would you rather Canon give you everything you want at the price you want for the next few years...and then go out of business, or produce imperfect-but-competitive cameras (and exceptional lenses) for the next 50-75 years?
> 
> Consumers think short view. Successful businesses think long view. There are often instances where one comes at the expense of the other. Finding the right balance is what leads to succeeding in a competitive marketplace, which Canon is doing.
> 
> It's also helpful to remember that if a company doesn't make products demanded by the market, they won't sell any and will go out of business. Canon has no interest in that scenario, and releasing the occasional head-scratcher or flop isn't proof otherwise.



This line of thinking sounds like corporate trolling. I understand what you’re saying but we should stop shaming consumers for wanting what they want. Consumers think websites like this are to give canon praise when deserved and criticism when warranted. Otw a website like this is just a silly echo chamber. Healthy disagreement and discussion should be the norm here... if this site is about real canon consumers.

I also don’t think canon will go out of business over something that would come from user feedback. It’s a billion dollar titan.

My 2 cents


----------



## FredEOS (Aug 29, 2019)

Come on ... my $500 m50 does 24fps with the same digic 8, my EOS R doesn’t do 4K full frame neither 120fps in FHD. Also the m50 doesn’t have DP AF in 4K. And now the m6ii and 90D do full frame 4K with DP AF but not 24fps with the same digic 8...
I love my Canon gear, but they really shit on us now sorry to say that


----------



## Batman6794 (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed. No more than a car MFG having to pay licenses for the speeds a car can go. More probable reason would be.. 24p gets choppy or jumpy when camera movement isn't smooth. Considering these 2 cameras were designed for the beginner or low level amateur whom probable owns less equipment. I believe they designed the camera to be successful with is user in mind.
> 
> 24p wasn't set as the standard because how wonderful it was.... simply because it was the slowest that still provided realistic movement on screen. In other words... the cheapest way to produce a film people would like to watch without walking out of the theater.
> 
> Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p. Additionally, the next two "Avatar" films are said to be filmed in higher frame rates as well.



Those who think that the because the hobbit was shot in 48p means the version we all saw was 48p should do some research. Very few theaters presented it in 48p, (it was 24p almost everywhere.) and in the reaction was so negative in the places it was actually shown in 48p, I don't think they even released the third film in 48 anywhere.









Despite ‘The Hobbit,’ Hollywood Isn’t Adopting 48 Frames Per Second


Peter Jackson loves the controversial high-frame-rate format, but no other filmmaker has adopted it as Warners adds screens for “Desolation of Smaug.” Says Bryan Singer, “I had co…




www.hollywoodreporter.com





To get twice the frame rate, you end up with half the maximum shutter speed per frame. This cuts your motion blur in half, which makes it look more like a series of stills than a consistently moving subject. As you mentioned, when your frame rate is too low, and you get choppy motion. (Though you're wrong that 24p was chosen because its the slowest you can get away with realistic motion. Early movies were shot at 16-18 fps and made a mint. It wasn't until the sound era that 24 became the standard.) 

Anyone that says more is better is as uninformed as someone that says less is better. You make a trade-off when you go to either extreme, and you want to live in the sweet spot. Almost everyone making a living from narrative story telling agrees that sweet spot is at 24p, and Canon wants to sell them some more expensive tools.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed.


the point was licensing of the h.265 codec is per framerate so if canon has to fork out royalties, they may want to drop one that isn't used as much.


----------



## Ale_F (Aug 29, 2019)

As reported by FredEOS it's a sort of cutting functions in a middle level photo oriented - camera.


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 29, 2019)

Off to topic. 

I cant find, what is the HDMI output specs for this camera? 

10 bit 4:2:2 or what?


----------



## Ale_F (Aug 29, 2019)

Positive psychology.
Why all forumers are talking about the lack of one function and not talking about positive specs?
Are all a sony users :-D


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 29, 2019)

I think that licensing is not an issue here. I guess we are talking about "capturing", "producing" and "delivering" video contents to our audience. Some of the debate is also because of confusion related to "shutter speed" and "frame rate".
The target users of these cameras are average amateurs and 30p matches their needs for capturing, producing and viewing the contents they create and the results can be viewed on any available 60Hz TV set produced since 2006 without any trouble and jitters. 
Even advanced users who may want to use the 24p production workflow for editing and delivering contents (e.g. those who still produce DVDs or Blu-rays for their clients) are ok because 24p is the least denominator of the frame rates and any scene recorded in 30, 60 or 120p can be added to the timeline automatically in most common NLEs (Premiere, Resolve, etc.), either with its actual or stretched (slow motion) timeline without loss in quality. However, the opposite is not true, e.g. if you record 24p and want to add to a 30p timeline you will get additional artifacts and jitters. The conclusion is that 30p does not really affect the capturing and producing steps. 
As for shutter speed, people care about it (i.e. faster shutter speed reduces motion blur) and we are good at noticing it and picking it up but we usually don't notice the frame-rate that well. The remaining issue is that the 24p frame rate's "feel and look" is different than 25p, 30p or 60p. That is a matter of taste, tradition or even the bragging rights, something similar to the Bokeh debate, I guess. Average users don't know or care.


----------



## amorse (Aug 29, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> The 2nd paragraph is segmentation


Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point in that paragraph was segmentation doesn't make sense as things stand right now, but if they're releasing something to segment *to*, then maybe it is segmentation.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 29, 2019)

Removing 24P is a simple and very effective way of limiting the usefulness of these cameras in 24P production environments. Despite being inexpensive cameras they should be able to deliver high quality output in the hands of a skilled operator. Lack of 24P will make that more difficult. Not sure why Canon would think they need any more reason than that.


----------



## amorse (Aug 29, 2019)

canonnews said:


> the point was licensing of the h.265 codec is per framerate so if canon has to fork out royalties, they may want to drop one that isn't used as much.


I was also thinking that if they needed to choose which frame rates to drop, 24 might be an option as I think most cell phones (in North America anyway) film at 30/60/120 fps (at least mine doesn't have 24). So if they dropped 30 fps instead of 24 in these bodies, you may have some trouble with jittering when combining footage from a cell phone and the camera body. I suspect (with absolutely no evidence) that someone filming with an M6II is more likely to combine their footage with that from a cell phone than a cinema camera. Just a thought and I could be off base!


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 29, 2019)

matthew_r said:


> Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.


I think he was joking..... or I hope he was haha.


----------



## victorshikhman (Aug 29, 2019)

All the negative feedback here was already factored into the product design by Canon's marketing department. It seems only four options are available:

1) you'll buy the 90D anyway
2) be forced into buying the R or 5DIV to get your 24p frame rate
3) you'll sit out this product and wait for the next Canon iteration
4) you'll sell all your canon equipment & jump ship to sony/nikon/fuji

The statistical analysis they ran to maximize profit showed that enough of you can be pushed into buying the R/5DIV, or at least to buy the 90D as is, to more than offset those who will sit out this product, or go through the massive ordeal of selling off your Canon gear at painful discount and then buying into a brand new system.

If you don't like to be treated like this, then really, vote with your wallet. Get the most you can for your Canon gear and move to Sony, which throws a kitchen sink of features with every product they release. Or, choose option 3 - just keep working with the equipment you have. Do you really NEED 4k and 10fps? 

Above all, and this is a lesson I learned the hard way in 2012 with Blackberry - do NOT become emotionally invested in a company.


----------



## zonoskar (Aug 29, 2019)

planetMitch said:


> The Hobbit looked HORRIBLE in 48. HORRIBLE.
> 
> And I disagree with your interpretation of history. 24 was picked because it looked the best. PERIOD. This has been proven over and over. People keep coming back to 24 because it is indeed cinematic.


Was it picked because it looked the best, or because it was the best trade-off between looks and film cost. With higher frame rates, you burn through more film and that's not cheap.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 29, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> Off to topic.
> 
> I cant find, what is the HDMI output specs for this camera?
> 
> 10 bit 4:2:2 or what?





https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/90d/specs/eos-90d-specifications.pdf



All the specs are here. 

Resolution is listed as Auto/1080 and color options show 4:2:2 10 bit as avaliable.


----------



## ColinJR (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed. No more than a car MFG having to pay licenses for the speeds a car can go. More probable reason would be.. 24p gets choppy or jumpy when camera movement isn't smooth. Considering these 2 cameras were designed for the beginner or low level amateur whom probable owns less equipment. I believe they designed the camera to be successful with is user in mind.
> 
> 24p wasn't set as the standard because how wonderful it was.... simply because it was the slowest that still provided realistic movement on screen. In other words... the cheapest way to produce a film people would like to watch without walking out of the theater.
> 
> Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p. Additionally, the next two "Avatar" films are said to be filmed in higher frame rates as well.




Ahh yes, those cinematic masterpieces... Shall we list all the films that are shot in 24? Here we go... 

1. Everything that is not the sh**y Hobbit movies, including Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.


Greedy Canon just has fixed my broken 5D2. Because of Canon's greed, the 5D2 sales were so poor that even now, after 10 years, Canon still has a stock of new PCBs for them 

My (more recent) Vaio S notebook was another story. Obviously, Sony wasn't saving pennies for a rough future.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 29, 2019)

For the first time since the T3i, it looks like they're offering digital zoom. You can choose between shooting 4K across the frame or a 4K center cut. This is also the case on other cameras as well, but first time we saw this feature on Canon in quite some time.

The question is if it oversamples for the full frame 4K or if it uses line skipping. If it's a line skipper, the cropped mode will perform better when you're not limited by composition. If it's oversampling, then the full frame mode will outperform the crop mode in low light by a large amount.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Aug 29, 2019)

I saw today a youtube movie from a computer tech channel, wherein they were asked why they film in 60 fps instead of 30 fps. The reason was, if they did 30fps instead of 60 fps, they could not show off any monitor nor PC game clips. If they did the 30fps taken from the monitor looked choppy and would result in some people getting motion sickness.. So not in all cases 24 fps is a must.. But I agree it is nice to have.


----------



## cpreston (Aug 29, 2019)

planetMitch said:


> The Hobbit looked HORRIBLE in 48. HORRIBLE.
> 
> And I disagree with your interpretation of history. 24 was picked because it looked the best. PERIOD. This has been proven over and over. People keep coming back to 24 because it is indeed cinematic.



Mitch, here is a challenge for you. Take a handheld panning shot of your backyard in both 24p and 30p and then take a poll about which looks better. Or maybe you should pitch a competing network for ESPN because they don't realize that not shooting in 24p is hurting their sports programming. Come on, you know this "24 was picked because it looked the best. PERIOD." comment is absurd. 

Most people are either shooting sports, their kids running around, or panning shots of locations. They also aren't controlling their shutter angle. So, I think it is pretty obvious that Canon is intentionally crippling their cameras, but they aren't doing it to protect sales of the cinema series. They are doing it so they get less of the "my Canon cameras sucks at taking video because everything I shoot looks like a stuttering mess."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> I think he was joking..... or I hope he was haha.


Yeah, I thought the inherent sarcasm was obvious. My bad.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 29, 2019)

Probably was to make it easier on the intended customers of these products. Canon has long held back features on the 0D series to make things simple, hence why they don't let you easily customize the servo tracking like they do on the 7d2 but instead they bury it in a deeper menu. A huge part of their 0D sales are from the big box stores, esp from the costco or sams club types. Canon wants these people to come back to them later on so they don't want to confuse them or burden them with what they just bought. Canon probably has enough data to show these customers either never used 24p or they were taken back by so many options. By adding 4k and 1080/120 they added more features that can possibly confuse people, they probably made the decision to cut out some and make it simpler.


----------



## justawriter (Aug 29, 2019)

Isn't it obvious? Canon collects the tears of its users to make potions that give upper management immortality. I saw this on the internet so I know it is true.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> it is greedy. its like having a food business selling garbage as food as long as the customers cant get sick and sue just for money. some of you are fine with that logic but that isnt not the type of world i would want. Some people still believe in pride, quality, integrity, and trying to satisfy loyal customers.



Just in case you forgot. Cameras are for most people luxury items. And there is a range of cameras for you to choose from. So if you don't like what the cheaper models offer, then you are welcome to buy the more expensive models or even from another brand.

As far as pride, quality and integrity, Canon seems to be there with the best of the lot. Just because Canon has decided to sit itself into a particular marketing niche that you disagree with does not mean you have the right to shit on them.


----------



## BillB (Aug 29, 2019)

I


RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.


The low end cameras we are talking about are relatively high volume products, so pennies per unit cost can add up to some big bucks overall. If only a few buyers care about a feature that costs a few pennies, then the many buyers who don't care about the feature are subsidizing the few buyers who do care. At least theoretically, any increase in the price of a specific product is going to lead to a decrease in the number of units sold as some potential buyers decide the price is too high. The question is not whether Canon cares about customers. The question is which customers Canon cares about.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 29, 2019)

matthew_r said:


> Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.


If movies are made with actual film, they use 24 fps. I think its getting to be unusual to use film when making a movie anymore. It is not displayed at 24 fps because the flicker would wear you out. Projectors used to use special shutters to display each frame 2 or 3 times to avoid the flicker. So due to the high price of film, it was shot at 24 fps but projected by hacking the display rate at a faster rate. Now, film is digitized and can be converted to literally any frame rate desired.

With digital, modern films often use 48 fps or faster.

If you are going to show a video on TV, 30 or 60 fps may be used for capture, but much higher rates are possible. A TV hacks the lower frame rate by refreshing at 60 hz or higher to reduce flicker.

So, with no need to shoot at 24 fps due to film costs, there is little reason to offer it, particularly if it is going to cost more in license fees. You can always convert to 24 fps in post if you want a flicker effect.

This is a old chart with 2015 being the latest data, not many of the high grossing movies were shot with film, even 4 years ago. I'd think that budget movies are virtually all digital due to the high cost of film, but I'm certain that there are exceptions.


----------



## BillB (Aug 29, 2019)

nchoh said:


> Just in case you forgot. Cameras are for most people luxury items. And there is a range of cameras for you to choose from. So if you don't like what the cheaper models offer, then you are welcome to buy the more expensive models or even from another brand.
> 
> As far as pride, quality and integrity, Canon seems to be there with the best of the lot. Just because Canon has decided to sit itself into a particular marketing niche that you disagree with does not mean you have the right to shit on them.


Well, we all have the right to make silly statements whenever we want to.


----------



## jvillain (Aug 29, 2019)

Pretty well, the only country in the world that recognizes software patents is the US and that is only because of a mistake made at the court level. 

Back when the RP came out one of the Canon guys doing PR for the realease flat out stated that Canon didn't think 24P was right for consumers. I would prefer to make that choice rather than some executroid at Canon.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p. Additionally, the next two "Avatar" films are said to be filmed in higher frame rates as well.




True....and there are a lot of people that didn't like the look of the Hobbit.


----------



## Batman6794 (Aug 29, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If movies are made with actual film, they use 24 fps. I think its getting to be unusual to use film when making a movie anymore. It is not displayed at 24 fps because the flicker would wear you out. Projectors used to use special shutters to display each frame 2 or 3 times to avoid the flicker. So due to the high price of film, it was shot at 24 fps but projected by hacking the display rate at a faster rate. Now, film is digitized and can be converted to literally any frame rate desired.
> 
> With digital, modern films often use 48 fps or faster.
> 
> ...



Well that is almost entirely mis-information.

Yes, fewer and fewer movies are shot on film, but they're still being shot at 24 fps.

Many movies may use higher frame rate CAPTURE for slow motion effects in specific shots, but they achieve that by "printing" at the standard 24 fps, and the vast majority of their filming is done at 24. So far there have been exactly 3 Hollywood movies released with a standard frame rate higher than 24, and they were all called the Hobbit.

I'm not sure where you got your info on projectors, but I'm not aware of many digital projectors that have a mechanical shutter. The whole purpose of a shutter is to block the light path while film is advancing between frames. No need for that in a digital projector.

If someone DID build a digital projector with a mechanical shutter, how is it that you think showing the same frame 3 times during a 1/24th of a second period would reduce flicker compared to just leaving it up for the whole 24th of a second? If there's a shutter popping in between every frame, wouldn't showing it three times triple the flicker?

TV's don't display at 60 hz to reduce flicker. (Flicker hasn't been an issue since CRTs went out.) They display at 60 hz because that puts them in sync with the AC power cycle. TVs in PAL countries refresh at 50hz because that is the frequency of their power system. If you have any doubts, search for countries that use that PAL system vs NTSC, and then search countries who's power grids are at 50hz vs 60hz. You'll find a 1:1 correlation.

Are you perhaps conflating some actual facts about the differences between progressive and interlaced frames with some unrelated facts about mechanical projectors?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Yeah? Like who?


The Salvation Army or Holy Wonderful Sony, I presume...  are companies which are not greedy at all, but act for the welfare of the suffering humanity .
Especially Sony.
I've been working so long for a profit company, which was, fortunately, interested in making profit. To assume a different behavior from a big company is either naive or plain silly. But Canon isn't known for cheating or neglecting it's customers, at least, according to my personal experiences. So, in my opinion, they manage to combine good business practices and excellent customer-care.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Aug 29, 2019)

It is worth pointing out that the RP does in fact support 4k 24fps(No DPAF), it is just strangely absent from 1080P on the RP. Hard to argue that Canon is doing this due to a hardware limitation when they have already shown they can do it with current hardware.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed.



The framerate isn't patented, the encode/decode for the framerate is in some countries, as mentioned in the article.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2019)

If lack of 24p is due to a licensing issue, I would bet that the people complaining would gladly pay another $50 to have 24p in 4k and 1080.

If it's not due to licensing then it's a silly decision. Period. If Canon wants to protect Joe Consumer from choosing the "wrong" frame rate then they could hide 24p just like they do expanded ISOs. If it's to try and drive people to higher end cameras, there's no way to predict if those people will purchase an R or another brand. And is it really worth the risk when people buy lenses and future bodies based in large part on the camera they own today?


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 29, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> If lack of 24p is due to a licensing issue, I would bet that the people complaining would gladly pay another $50 to have 24p in 4k and 1080.
> 
> If it's not due to licensing then it's a silly decision. Period. If Canon wants to protect Joe Consumer from choosing the "wrong" frame rate then they could hide 24p just like they do expanded ISOs. If it's to try and drive people to higher end cameras, there's no way to predict if those people will purchase an R or another brand. And is it really worth the risk when people buy lenses and future bodies based in large part on the camera they own today?


I don’t want to assume, but are you concluding it’s a technology or hardware limitation? I agree with what you’re saying, in the long run if it’s not a limitation on their end, I don’t think it’s best. 

It seems like they’re playing on the fact that they’re #1 which I can see would cause the animosity a lot of current former Canon shooters have. I just can’t see Panasonic or Olympus purposely taking features out to move consumers to a higher price point. I don’t think they would survive like Canon could playing that game.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2019)

We may never know _why_ this feature is not included in certain models. I am reminded of something a top executive at AT&T once told me when I worked there. To paraphrase, he said whenever he was negotiating with someone (another company, a public official, etc.) he tried to never make any assumptions about motives, because when you do that, you are almost always wrong and it only makes it harder to come to a resolution. Instead, he tried to take everything at face value and negotiate from there.

Great advice. I see so many cases where people get caught up in assigning motives to Canon's actions, when we will probably never know why they made a particularly decision and, in fact, it doesn't matter. 

The feature is not on the 90D, M6 or RP. Make your buying decision based on what you need and move on. Maybe at some point in the future Canon will explain their rationale. Or maybe they won't. In either case, it's not going to make any difference.


----------



## BradC (Aug 29, 2019)

There’s really no good logical reason for this. They can give excuses, but it doesn’t make common sense. It’s not a Digic 8 issue. The M50 does 24p just fine. It’s “low end”. 

With regards to the article, it’s not even 4K-24p that’s missing... it’s 24p *anything*. I don’t even need 4K, even though it’s nice. Not having 1080-24p is just ridiculous. That’s a staple.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> All the negative feedback here was already factored into the product design by Canon's marketing department. It seems only four options are available:
> 
> 1) you'll buy the 90D anyway
> 2) be forced into buying the R or 5DIV to get your 24p frame rate
> ...



5) You'll add a Sony or Fuji for video. But even with an adapter that likely means some of your future dollars will go to their lenses and not Canon's.

I have a friend who shot for years with Nikon pro equipment. He picked up a Fuji XPro 2 for something small and lightweight, and he doesn't even talk about Nikon's new products any more. All of his money has gone to Fuji since buying that camera. I think handling with long teles is the only reason he hasn't sold off his Nikon gear to fill out his Fuji lens kit.

Now in Nikon's case they just didn't have a mirrorless to offer him when he wanted one. And that's a huge task (design, tooling, manufacturing). But why risk introducing your customers to the competition over a *firmware change???*

I'm still waiting to see what the 90D/M62 video quality is like, but it looks like I'm going to add an X-T3 this year simply for video. I would much rather add a Canon for the lens compatibility and shared ergonomics. In my case I can't see myself abandoning Canon for stills because I'm in love with 5Ds IQ. The 5Ds gives me what I lusted for back when I was shooting xxD bodies and the 7D, but wanting files from MFDBs. Even so, if I pull the trigger on an X-T3 it means some of my future lens purchases will be for that mount rather than Canon's.

It seems quite silly from where I'm sitting.



> The statistical analysis they ran to maximize profit...



Let's not worship market analytics. When someone screams that Canon is bleeding customers or that Canon management is full of idiots it's fair to point out that Canon's marketshare is growing. But not every marketing decision is ideal, nor immune from criticism, even from the perspective of profit.



> Get the most you can for your Canon gear and move to Sony, which throws a kitchen sink of features with every product they release.



Ironically, on other forums a lot of people are complaining about their two releases, the A6100 and A6600.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> I don’t want to assume, but are you concluding it’s a technology or hardware limitation?



I would be shocked to discover that it was a hardware limitation. I think they've made a foolish decision which sounded good in a boardroom. It's not a decision that's going to doom Canon or anything. But it's going to cost them some sales for nothing really.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 29, 2019)

There is no hardware/tech limitation. It's the same Digic 8 chip that is in the 5D4, EOS R, etc...

This was a marketing decision by Canon, pure and simple. That's their choice. They clearly are trying to keep film folks at the $2k + price range. Casual video folks are less concerned with standard film frame rates.

Yes, 24fps is STILL the Hollywood standard and will be for a while, regardless of a few experimental shootings like the Hobbit. Doubling the data handling and doubling the lighting requirements isn't something that industry would prefer, not to mention the additional time and resources (and huge costs) to do the more intricate CGI work on twice as many frames as before. It's not a matter of film vs digital, it all the ancillary and costly impacts it has.

AL THAT BEING SAID, while I respect (but disagree) with Canon's choice, I find it strange that they claim to want to expand their market share in a shrinking market, but at the same time seem to want to under serve (by comparison to say Sony or Panasonic or Fuji) the desires of what is arguably the segment of the market remaining that has seen the most growth in recent years.... the DSLR/MILC film folks.

I really love my EOS R. I got it mainly for filming. But the EOS RP and the 90D should have 24p. The extra money with the R could/would have given you the step-up of Canon Log and 10bit 4:2:2. (Would have been nice to have a full frame readout, since obviously the 90D can with the same Digic 8 and 32MP), but I can't complain.


----------



## ajm (Aug 29, 2019)

Here's the real reason. I work in Hollywood on mostly indie to low budget films. Many are shot on Sony A7's, 5D's, 1DXMII, and Yes the Canon 80D...and in 24 fps. If the budget is a little bigger for a Canon C300MKII or C200 or Sony FS5 -7...etc....then they will use those. But many times the previous mentioned cameras will do the job, especially with an external recorder to get a better image and good lighting. Canon knows this and wants the films to be shot in a proper cine camera or if you still want to use a DSLR/Mirrorless camera you will have to buy the more expensive full frame (Canon) cameras for 24p filming. Not so with Sony APS-C cameras as they have 24p. Of course the Canon Rebel series has 24p...which are used also in very low or no budget films out here. The 90D would kill it out here for indie films if it had 24p. Oh well. I was going to order one, but most likely not now.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> ...never make any assumptions about motives, because when you do that, you are almost always wrong and it only makes it harder to come to a resolution. Instead, he tried to take everything at face value and negotiate from there.
> 
> Great advice.



Great advice, indeed!

This is something I try to teach my kids when they have conflict. Instead of getting caught in the tar pit of assuming motive, just make a request of what you'd like the other to do (in positive language, if possible). The other party will either honor the request or decline. Either way, going down the rabbit hole of "why" generally fuels additional contention and rarely solves anything. Making a request gets directly to a potential solution.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> We may never know _why_ this feature is not included in certain models. I am reminded of something a top executive at AT&T once told me when I worked there. To paraphrase, he said whenever he was negotiating with someone (another company, a public official, etc.) he tried to never make any assumptions about motives, because when you do that, you are almost always wrong and it only makes it harder to come to a resolution. Instead, he tried to take everything at face value and negotiate from there.
> 
> Great advice. I see so many cases where people get caught up in assigning motives to Canon's actions, when we will probably never know why they made a particularly decision and, in fact, it doesn't matter.
> 
> The feature is not on the 90D, M6 or RP. Make your buying decision based on what you need and move on. Maybe at some point in the future Canon will explain their rationale. Or maybe they won't. In either case, it's not going to make any difference.





Famateur said:


> Great advice, indeed!
> 
> This is something I try to teach my kids when they have conflict. Instead of getting caught in the tar pit of assuming motive, just make a request of what you'd like the other to do (in positive language, if possible). The other party will either honor the request or decline. Either way, going down the rabbit hole of "why" generally fuels additional contention and rarely solves anything. Making a request gets directly to a potential solution.



And now I've learned something today from both of you. Thanks!!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2019)

ajm said:


> Canon knows this and wants the films to be shot in a proper cine camera or if you still want to use a DSLR/Mirrorless camera you will have to buy the more expensive full frame (Canon) cameras for 24p filming.



You're probably right. But this doesn't work when the competition undercuts your plans.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 29, 2019)

Batman6794 said:


> Well that is almost entirely mis-information.
> 
> Yes, fewer and fewer movies are shot on film, but they're still being shot at 24 fps.
> Many movies may use higher frame rate CAPTURE for slow motion effects in specific shots, but they achieve that by "printing" at the standard 24 fps, and the vast majority of their filming is done at 24. So far there have been exactly 3 Hollywood movies released with a standard frame rate higher than 24, and they were all called the Hobbit.
> ...



We are talking about blowing out of proportion the decision of limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some technical or business reason.
You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS? 
Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?


----------



## slclick (Aug 29, 2019)

Video work is putting a roof over your family's heads and you're complaining that an entry level camera doesn't have a particular frame rate? Were you depending on an M series body to keep your business afloat?


----------



## genriquez (Aug 29, 2019)

It is very strange that Canon is removing 24p from cameras. They should firmware it back.

At the same time 24p is for the internet, 48hz projectors and 120hz screens. 

30p is for the internet, 30p NTSC (television), 60p (broadcasting television, slow motion 30p), 120hz displays. 

Sure you can pull down/convert. But 30p seems more useful. 

They should put 24p back and end this.


----------



## Trey T (Aug 29, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a* greedy* company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.


wait ...whaaaaaat??? the last pay raise you accepted, did you not deserve it?


----------



## Arod820 (Aug 29, 2019)

Cool story bro, I’m not buying it if it doesn’t have 24p.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Aug 29, 2019)

While I personally never use 24p (and think it is more or less the emperor's old clothes, unusable for action, horrible looking panning even with the recommended 180 degree shutter especially on a big high-resolution screen... and I actually liked the 48 HFR version of the Hobbit, so much more realistic look [IMHO]), it is still a mystery why Canon left it out. There are people who want to shoot in 24p to get that old-fashined Hollywood look and when it is not available in these cameras, the production chooses another brand for their B or C camera. By the way 30 or 25 fps do not really translate well to a 24 fps timeline. Whereas the other way round works fairly well, 24=>30fps. 24=>25, on the other hand, has routinely been done speeding the frame rate, which is why movies in PAL TVs are 4 % shorter.

Or maybe they could not decide between the real film 24fps and the NTSC compatible 23.976 fps?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2019)

Ramage said:


> It is worth pointing out that the RP does in fact support 4k 24fps(No DPAF), it is just strangely absent from 1080P on the RP. Hard to argue that Canon is doing this due to a hardware limitation when they have already shown they can do it with current hardware.



Thank you, I have amended the article.


----------



## Trey T (Aug 29, 2019)

Famateur said:


> They've gotta leave something for Magic Lantern to do, don't they?


If there's enough popularity and demand, Magic Lantern will crack the camera and add 24p. What I really believe is that Canon was waging on the side that demand for video DLSR (or mirrorless like R or RP) for indie and hollywood film making has dropped dramatically. 

The whole 24P started back in 2008/2009 when film makers needed 24p because there were no other cameras out there that's competitive to the 5DII and 7D. Today, there are better designed video camera that's cheaper than Canon's DSLRs. Sure, the licensing fee to add 24p for some country is weighed very little in truth.


----------



## hoodlum (Aug 29, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> For the first time since the T3i, it looks like they're offering digital zoom. You can choose between shooting 4K across the frame or a 4K center cut. This is also the case on other cameras as well, but first time we saw this feature on Canon in quite some time.
> 
> The question is if it oversamples for the full frame 4K or if it uses line skipping. If it's a line skipper, the cropped mode will perform better when you're not limited by composition. If it's oversampling, then the full frame mode will outperform the crop mode in low light by a large amount.



Unfortunately, it looks like the full frame 4K is doing pixel binning from 3.5K and then upscaling to 4k. This will cause moire and a soft image so the crop would be the better option.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 29, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> We are talking about [...] limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some *technical* or *business* reason.



I doubt that Canon would be able to present any rational business case for the removal of the 24 fps setting. Some people in these forums have made the habit of deluding themselves that camera companies like Canon have superbly effective market research departments enabling them to have precise enough results but, well, given the state camera manufacturers are in in a world where photography has never been more popular, let's just say that it's BS. If Canon was that prescient at knowing where the photography market was going they'd have quickly started years ago to sell their sensors or whole imaging packages to third parties instead of going from leader to nearly irrelevant in the sensor business.

It's probably just a business culture kind of thing. They've had this mindset like this for ages already, it's worked relatively speaking decently well for them so far (compared to other dedicated camera manufactures, obviously not when it comes to the photographic industry as a whole), and it hasn't been internally questioned yet. I think that it's just a case of "cemented minds" as Morrissey would have put it, exactly the same way Sony seems to struggles for some inexplicable reason to make a better grip for their A7 series.


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 29, 2019)

Does it meant that 90D, M6 Mk2 and RP don't support H264 encoding at all? Because if they do, Canon already has to pay those royalties anyway so I don't see it as a valid reason.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 29, 2019)

amorse said:


> Good point on the licensing side. I hadn't considered that, but was just as confused as everyone else here.


The argument makes no sense. It doesn't even pass the most rudimentary sniff test. They have H.264 in the camera. Canon already has to pay H.264 license fees. Removing p24 doesn't save them from paying H.264 licensing fees. Only removing H.264 would save them from paying H.264 licensing fees.



VORON said:


> ...But for serious video guys 24p is a workhorse framerate, and they will be forced to pay for advanced cameras (even if they could be served by cheap ones otherwise)


No, they'll buy something at the same price from someone other than Canon.



Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Removing 24P is a simple and very effective way of limiting the usefulness of these cameras in 24P production environments. Despite being inexpensive cameras they should be able to deliver high quality output in the hands of a skilled operator. Lack of 24P will make that more difficult. Not sure why Canon would think they need any more reason than that.


It is that simple, but the Canon faithful refuse to believe that Canon took it out to attempt to push buyers upmarket by crippling the downmarket cameras in a new way after the footage has otherwise gotten too close to the high end cameras in other footage quality metrics where they used to fall short.



amorse said:


> I was also thinking that if they needed to choose which frame rates to drop, 24 might be an option as I think most cell phones (in North America anyway) film at 30/60/120 fps (at least mine doesn't have 24). So if they dropped 30 fps instead of 24 in these bodies, you may have some trouble with jittering when combining footage from a cell phone and the camera body.


But they didn't have to drop any of them. It's not like there's a limit to how many framerates they could have supported.



RickWagoner said:


> Probably was to make it easier on the intended customers of these products. Canon has long held back features on the 0D series to make things simple, hence why they don't let you easily customize the servo tracking like they do on the 7d2 but instead they bury it in a deeper menu. A huge part of their 0D sales are from the big box stores, esp from the costco or sams club types. Canon wants these people to come back to them later on so they don't want to confuse them or burden them with what they just bought. Canon probably has enough data to show these customers either never used 24p or they were taken back by so many options. By adding 4k and 1080/120 they added more features that can possibly confuse people, they probably made the decision to cut out some and make it simpler.


So you really think Canon removed it because their users are too stupid to pick the framerate they want? 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With digital, modern films often use 48 fps or faster.


Can you name more than a handful of "films"? The three Hobbit movies, and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk are the only major ones. The latter being the only one that released to home video at a high framerate.



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The framerate isn't patented, the encode/decode for the framerate is in some countries, as mentioned in the article.


So some random factually incorrect tweet counts as news? The licensing fees are real, but the fees don't work that way. H.264 licensing fees are per device, not per file, or per format.

Can you give an example of even one of those countries that charge more for H.264 licensing fees based on the number of video resolution & framerate combinations the camera supports?



bhf3737 said:


> You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
> Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS?
> Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?


Doing so will have undesireable visual artifacts unless you're going to undercrank them to p24 for a slow motion or visually artistic effect which is why you shoot at the framerate of the final project (or perhaps an even multiple of it).


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> We are talking about blowing out of proportion the decision of limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some technical or business reason.
> You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
> Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS?
> Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?



There is no good way to convert 30p to 24p. All methods involve compromise. NLEs have processing options that interpolate footage in an attempt to make 24p footage out of 30p footage - this is equivalent to attempting to upscale a low-rez photo into a high-rez one. Explaining how this should be fine for video makers is the same as telling a photographer that low-rez photos are fine because they can be upscaled.

The only way to properly display 30p footage at 24p is to slow it down by 25%. Sometimes footage is shot at 30p with the intention of doing just this - the process is called "overcranking" because it refers to a time in which filmmakers would literally turn the lever on a hand crank camera faster in order to capture a higher framerate.

Shooting in 30p and converting to 24p is is not common practice in multi-cam setups. "Pulldown" is a term that refers to 24p capture to 29.97 fps display rate, not the reverse.

Source: I work in film.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> The argument makes no sense. It doesn't even pass the most rudimentary sniff test. They have H.264 in the camera. Canon already has to pay H.264 license fees. Removing p24 doesn't save them from paying H.264 licensing fees. Only removing H.264 would save them from paying H.264 licensing fees.



Do you have the information on how licensing works in each country and each company that the fees have to be paid to? I have not been able to find that information today.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2019)

There is a distinct possibility that this is a stills camera and not a video camera.......


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> NLEs have processing options that interpolate footage in an attempt to make 24p footage out of 30p footage - this is equivalent to attempting to upscale a low-rez photo into a high-rez one.


To downscale, actually, just with not an optimal ratio.



navastronia said:


> Explaining how this should be fine for video makers is the same as telling a photographer that low-rez photos are fine because they can be upscaled.


Another difference is that we want our downscaled photo to look sharp and artifact-free, but we don't need the same for our interpolated video frames, because pixel-peeping is not how they are going to be watched.


----------



## Batman6794 (Aug 29, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> We are talking about blowing out of proportion the decision of limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some technical or business reason.
> You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
> Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS?
> Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?



Yeah it is. Most viewer's enjoyment isn't based on the frame rate specified in the container file, but on how it looks, and shooting at 30 and converting to 24 does not look the same as something shot in a native 24 frame rate. If you have a previous Canon camera, or a camera from just about any other manufacturer you'll have the ability to do a direct comparison and see the results for yourself.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 29, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Do you have the information on how licensing works in each country and each company that the fees have to be paid to? I have not been able to find that information today.


MPEG-LA is the worldwide* licensing body. https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/

The details are spelled out here:


https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/avcweb.pdf



*They probably don't have real worldwide reach, but if you want to sell your product in the US or countries that allow patents on video compression methods and technologies you're going to need a license from them.


----------



## cpreston (Aug 29, 2019)

30p in a 24p timeline looks terrible, It doesn't work. Luckily, 30p in a 30p and 24p in a 30p timeline looks just fine.

This whole argument about 24p in these cameras is ridiculous. If Canon added 24p back to these cameras, would anybody complaining here actually buy the camera to shoot video? No. Canon doesn't care about the DSLR video enthusiast market. They are marketing these cameras to people who don't pretend to know anything about video but might want to use the camera to try to capture their kid scoring a goal in video mode. These people don't need 23.98p, much less 24p. And they don't want to be going through a page full of options of video modes that they don't understand.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> we should stop shaming consumers for wanting what they want.



And where has that happened?

Look: my politics are so left-of-centre that most Americans (even those that get called "Left-wing" over there) would have a heart attack, but even I understand that here, _in the Real World_, businesses have a right to try and make money.

Comparatively speaking, Canon is pretty much a paragon of virtue as far as social and corporate responsibility are concerned, and pulling up a risible, frankly infantile comment about "greedy Canon" is a million miles away from "customer shaming".

*Besides, customers have all the power here: don't like what Canon is doing? Spend your money somewhere else, then.*


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 29, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Thank you, I have amended the article.



Precisely, so having in there is not a tech challenge. Ergo, it must have been a marketing decision that are withholding that basic function from what they deem their lower tier. Which is surprising with the 90D considering it is now in the place of their highest tier APSC. It’s a head scratcher. Especially since they appear to still
Offer 10 bit 4:2:2 output! It’s just seems like they really want to drive people into the EOS R want a MILC body for filming. Mine with the Atomos Ninja V is a beast.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> I doubt that Canon would be able to present any rational business case for the removal of the 24 fps setting.


I’m sure there’s a business case for it. I’m fairly sure they’ll never present it externally, so it’s irrelevant from a practical standpoint.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

jvillain said:


> I would prefer to make that choice rather than some executroid at Canon.



Unless I've missed the release of Canon's modular "_build yourself your own perfect camera_" range, Canon executroids are already making many of those decisions for you.

The fact that (I assume) you _are _a Canon user, suggests they're doing a pretty good job.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m sure there’s a business case for it. I’m fairly sure they’ll never present it externally, so it’s irrelevant from a practical standpoint.



Oh I'm sure that some people at Canon _believe_ there's a case for it. I'm also pretty sure that none of them would be able to provide for tangible evidence and even if they did that it wouldn't pass scrutiny. It's completely delusional to think that a company like Canon has what it takes to accurately anticipate the implications of such a move (way too many variables at play for any market research to be that accurate).


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p. They are not the same and they cannot be converted into footage that looks EXACTLY the same. Yes, you can use time interpolation options in Premiere Pro to try to smooth out the effects of converting 30p to 24p, but this is not ideal and will not look as good as simply capturing it at the proper frame rate.

EDIT: for more explanation


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

BradC said:


> There’s really no good logical reason for this.



Because Canon is _well known_ for making random, arbitrary, illogical decisions about the stuff it sells, right?

You not understanding the logic is not the same as there being none...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> We are talking about blowing out of proportion the decision of limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some technical or business reason.
> You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
> Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS?
> Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?


Steady on - you sound dangerously as if you _actually know what you're talking about_...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Steady on - you sound dangerously as if you _actually know what you're talking about_...


I made a similar comment to bhf3737's about importing to a different frame rate timeline in a recent thread and got ripped to shreds for it. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about! I haven't seen a negative impact of 25p footage imported to a 24p timeline, I'd love to see an example of where it dissent work, but I have yet to see one.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> There is a distinct possibility that this is a stills camera and not a video camera.......


Glad you pointed that out, Don - I was just about to post that I'm heartily sick of discussions about _cameras _being hijacked by habitually malcontent wannabe videographers...


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Steady on - you sound dangerously as if you _actually know what you're talking about_...



No, no he does not, for the reasons I state above.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Because Canon is _well known_ for making random, arbitrary, illogical decisions about the stuff it sells, right?



Canon is in no position to not have to take arbitrary decisions at times. Canon executives obviously don't randomly select the features they will or won't implement in a camera. There's obviously a thought process at play. But it's delusional to think that this thought process is based on accurate enough market research to not have to imply at some point a risk / arbitrary decision taken, and it's all but granted that this thought process is particularly well, thoughtful.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I made a similar comment to bhf3737's about importing to a different frame rate timeline in a recent thread and got ripped to shreds for it. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about! I haven't seen a negative impact of 25p footage imported to a 24p timeline, I'd love to see an example of where it dissent work, but I have yet to see one.


Welcome to Canon Rumours...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> No, no he does not, for the reasons I state above.


You _saying_ it doesn't make it so...


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> You _saying_ it doesn't make it so...













Top comment on the second video is a perfect explanation:

"hey man... as a professional media engineer for MTV Networks.. i've learned quite a bit about cameras and gear from watching your videos. i was a little surprised that you were editing like this. that is always a 100% rule. * never ever edit in a 23.98 timeline unless ALL of the media was captured/shot at 23.98 ("24p"). in the case of documentaries that contain new modern 29.97 interview footage and older 23.98 film based footage...the 23.98 footage will have a telecine conversion run on it to make it 29.97. in 1 second...it will take 3 progressive frames...then it will have 2 interlaced frames (combining frames 1 and 2....and the other combining frames 2 and 3 of the sequence.) this is called 3:2 pulldown. this is done so that if you needed to...you can actually run an INVERSE telecine and bring the file back to the native 23.98. so the rule is that you can always go from 23.98 to 29.97...but never the other way around. * another note.. while the term 24P is what we all call it...there actually is a difference between 23.98 and true 24p. 24p is only achieved using very high end cameras like professional Sony cameras used in the film industry. this is so that they are able to transfer the content to film if that is the plan. all available pro and prosumer cameras shoot in 23.98. same with 29.97...although there is no 30P. it's all 29.97 fps"

Believe it or a not, a simple YouTube comment explains the issue better than most anything else I've seen. Why this source and not something that looks more reputable? Because professional videographers and filmmakers don't spend their time _arguing on forums - _because even DSLRs have been capable of capturing 23.98 for over 10 years, there's nothing to argue over. With access to the proper capture format, the debate never even occurs.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> Canon is in no position to not have to take arbitrary decisions at times. Canon executives obviously don't randomly select the features they will or won't implement in a camera. There's obviously a thought process at play. But it's delusional to think that this thought process is based on accurate enough market research to not have to imply at some point a risk / arbitrary decision taken, and it's all but granted that this thought process is particularly well, thoughtful.


Oh, just _stop._

Canon _is not _putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera - there's simply no way on God's green earth that _any _such decision will not have been analysed and rationalised.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> It is that simple, but the Canon faithful refuse to believe that Canon took it out to attempt to push buyers upmarket by crippling the downmarket cameras in a new way after the footage has otherwise gotten too close to the high end cameras in other footage quality metrics where they used to fall short.


So you’ve now revised your earlier claim that they removed it for no apparent reason other than being petty and arrogant and to show distain for their customers, to claiming that there is, in fact, a legitimate business case for doing so. 

Of course, now that you have come around to that viewpoint you’ve constructed a strawman in your head that you get why they did it (or at least, you’ve acknowledged one among several plausible possibilities), but nobody else does. Nice.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


>


I'm always swayed by randomly-posted YouTube videos by people about whose opinions I have no reason to care...


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Oh, just _stop._
> 
> Canon _is not _putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera



You obviously didn't bother to read what I just wrote.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I'm always swayed by randomly-posted YouTube videos by people about whose opinions I have no reason to care...



k


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Oh, just _stop._
> 
> Canon _is not _putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera - there's simply no way on God's green earth that _any _such decision will not have been analysed and rationalised.


Obviously not, but if you think that’s what @MayaTlab was suggesting, you had better go back and reread the post to which you replied (which is also quoted below). 



MayaTlab said:


> Canon is in no position to not have to take arbitrary decisions at times. Canon executives obviously don't randomly select the features they will or won't implement in a camera. There's obviously a thought process at play. But it's delusional to think that this thought process is based on accurate enough market research to not have to imply at some point a risk / arbitrary decision taken, and it's all but granted that this thought process is particularly well, thoughtful.


I’m certainly not arguing that their market research is pinpoint accurate down to the level of individual features. But I would argue that in aggregate, their decisions on these sorts of things have been broadly effective. The evidence for that is their domination of the ILC market for 16 years and counting.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 29, 2019)

Originally movies were shot at 18 frames-per-second—with hand-cranked cameras. Search for _*persistence of vision*_—18 fps is where persistence of vision starts to produce smooth results.
When sound came along, 24 FPS was adopted because it was the slowest speed for sound projection of optical sound on-film. There is nothing magical or cinematic about 24 fps. The only reason for 24 fps is that producers wanted to maximize profits—simple as that. Today, non-pros show there movies digitally. Your family-and-friends watch on phones, not in movie theaters. Why does anyone miss 24 fps???
*BTW Oklahoma! (1955) and Around the World in 80 Days (1956) were shot and projected at 30 fps. The Hobbit Trilogy at 48 fps.*


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you’ve now revised your earlier claim that they removed it for no apparent reason other than being petty and arrogant and to show distain for their customers, to claiming that there is, in fact, a legitimate business case for doing so.


No, they are being petty and showing disdain for their customers. Their logic and reasoning is fundamentally flawed. I never said that they didn't believe that they had a good reason or a sound strategy for doing so. I firmly believe that the strategy is utterly baffling when considering actual market dynamics and will fail spectacularly at their goal, but that doesn't doesn't mean that they don't think the strategy is genious.



> Of course, now that you have come around to that viewpoint you’ve constructed a strawman in your head that you get why they did it (or at least, you’ve acknowledged one among several plausible possibilities), but nobody else does. Nice.


Sorry, but I haven't changed my viewpoint.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I made a similar comment to bhf3737's about importing to a different frame rate timeline in a recent thread and got ripped to shreds for it. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about! I haven't seen a negative impact of 25p footage imported to a 24p timeline, I'd love to see an example of where it dissent work, but I have yet to see one.


Just because you don't accept reality doesn't make you right.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> Originally movies were shot at 18 frames-per-second—with hand-cranked cameras. Search for <b>persistence of vision</b>—18 fps is where persistence of vision starts to produce smooth results.
> 
> When sound came along, 24 FPS was adopted because it was the slowest speed for sound projection of <b>optical sound on-film</b>. There is nothing magical or cinematic about 24 fps. The only reason for 24 fps is that producers wanted to maximize profits—simple as that. Today, non-pros show there movies digitally. Your family-and-friends watch on phones, not in movie theaters. Why does anyone miss 24 fps???
> 
> BTW <i>Oklahoma!</i> (1955) and _Around the World in 80 Days _(1956) were shot and projected at 30 fps. The Hobbit Trilogy at 48 fps.



Here's a video with 24p and 60p footage shown side by side. Do you prefer 60p?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Just because you don't accept reality doesn't make you right.


Thanks for the link to an example I asked for.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Oh, just _stop._
> 
> Canon _is not _putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera - there's simply no way on God's green earth that _any _such decision will not have been analysed and rationalised.


And yet big companies go bankrupt or fail spectacularly all the time due to bad decisions. Wait, I know... Those just must be the companies that didn't make their decisions as carefully as Canon.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I'm always swayed by randomly-posted YouTube videos by people about whose opinions I have no reason to care...


That's a rather ironic position for you to take given what you're doing here on this site. Do you think we should discard your posts with the same dismissive argument?


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

I'm astounded by the arrogant photographers in this thread trying to tell video makers what they need and don't need.

Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m certainly not arguing that their market research is pinpoint accurate down to the level of individual features. But I would argue that in aggregate, their decisions on these sorts of things have been broadly effective. The evidence for that is their domination of the ILC market for 16 years and counting.



I agree that relatively speaking it worked out better for Canon's camera division in the long run (but not their sensor's division - not developing and selling to third parties might have been the biggest mistake Canon made in the last 15 years as of all the markets Canon was in it's the one that grew the fastest by far and they used to be at its forefront). 
I would argue though that Canon was greatly helped by their competitor's incompetence. In the grand scheme of things all camera manufacturers have flatly failed to anticipate where photography was going, still do (connectivity is still way below what it could be in 2019), and are paying for it. To me that means that their understanding of their own customers was very much perfectible and that many assumptions they had about them were wrong. 
And many variables besides necessarily imperfect market research can affect decisions being taken, some of which are definitely not rational. Anyone who's worked in a large company before would get that I think.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?


And that would be relevant because…the M6II, 90D and RP are the cameras of choice for shooting Hollywood movies?


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Aug 29, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> And yet big companies go bankrupt or fail spectacularly all the time due to bad decisions. Wait, I know... Those just must be the companies that didn't make their decisions as carefully as Canon.



Canon has already massively diversified their portfolio, if they stopped selling consumer based Camera's tomorrow it would have little impact on their business as a whole.

Canon might be known for Camera's today but if they continue to buy into other fields with their war chest they will be fine. The doom and gloom of the consumer camera market might be real but to classified Canon as flippant with their business decisions to wholly wrong.

Look at Motorola (yeah they used to make Phones) just passed 180USD a share and they have not made a phone in years.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I'm astounded by the arrogant photographers in this thread trying to tell video makers what they need and don't need.
> 
> Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?


I'm astounded that video makers are so insistent at forcing their will and demands onto photographers cameras. There are lots of video orientated cameras at all price points with specific video orientated features, ND filters, frame rates, audio recording and headphone sockets, etc etc etc.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


>


While both videos show how pathetic those Internet talking heads look when displayed at 24p on a 60p monitor, the first video actually tells how to do the _proper_ conversion from 30p to 24p. The guy in the second one obviously has no idea.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> And that would be relevant because…the M6II, 90D and RP are the cameras of choice for shooting Hollywood movies?



Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.

This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm astounded that video makers are so insistent at forcing their will and demands onto photographers cameras. There are lots of video orientated cameras at all price points with specific video orientated features, ND filters, frame rates, audio recording and headphone sockets, etc etc etc.



Ah, but this is where we agree! You're saying that filmmakers need different features in their cameras than photographers do. No argument from me, there. My issue is with those who are trying to tell filmmakers what they need and don't.

EDIT: Last point and I'm done in this thread - whatever Canon's reasons are for leaving 24p out of these cameras, there will be a flood of people on YouTube telling filmmakers to stay away from Canon's entry level cameras and buy a Sony, Nikon, or Fuji instead, and those people will be right.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> And now I've learned something today from both of you. Thanks!!



You're welcome!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> And yet big companies go bankrupt or fail spectacularly all the time due to bad decisions. Wait, I know... Those just must be the companies that didn't make their decisions as carefully as Canon.


Yeah, I just knew you’d eventually get to YAPODFC.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Ah, but this is where we agree! You're saying that filmmakers need different features in their cameras than photographers do. No argument from me, there. My issue is with those who are trying to tell filmmakers what they need and don't.


I'm happy to agree. I won't comment on video features in video orientated cameras, you won't comment on video features not in photo orientated cameras. I won't say you don't need that feature and you shouldn't say my photo orientated cameras should have that feature. Agreed?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2019)

At this point Canon should add 24p wherever it's missing via firmware updates just to save the electricity being used to argue about 24p online. There is the environment to consider after all.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Here's a video with 24p and 60p footage shown side by side. Do you prefer 60p?


Hello? They are both the same 24p footage converted to 60p. They just use different conversion methods.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Glad you pointed that out, Don - I was just about to post that I'm heartily sick of discussions about _cameras _being hijacked by habitually malcontent wannabe videographers...


Yes!

The ergonomics on any DSLR are pathetic compared to a video camera. If these people really want to be a videographer, then go get the right tool for the job!


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm happy to agree. I won't comment on video features in video orientated cameras, you won't comment on video features not in photo orientated cameras. I won't say you don't need that feature and you shouldn't say my photo orientated cameras should have that feature. Agreed?


Maybe the problem here lies in the fact the lines between photo and video products have been blurred and will continue to do so even more, hence the entire reason this debate is even happening.

The main criticism seems to me that Canon is slow to respond to this reality in the same way they were to full frame mirrorless. I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that the (edit: many of the) people left in this shrinking market are moving towards mirrorless and they demand the best of both worlds in photo & video. 

The photo only consumer market is shrinking drastically. That’s a fact. The YouTube generation and video market is increasing. Video content commercially consumed is massive and growing. 

Unfortunate for camera makers, a phone will do just fine for a majority of internet photos and apps. Not so for video.

And lastly, everyone wants value and versatility to some extent. Much of the market that is spending $10k-20k on gear wants all of it to work seamlessly together. One brand, one set of lenses, photo and video together......

And I’m willing to bet amateurs, small studios, commercial and portrait, marketing companies, and especially the wedding industry are bursting at the seems with hybrid shooters.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> I'm also pretty sure that none of them would be able to provide for tangible evidence and even if they did that it wouldn't pass scrutiny.



This is an interesting statement to me. It seems to present Canon decision makers as inept, out-of-touch and negligent in their lack of scrutinizing product segmentation decisions. Such a supposition would mean that either Canon's success to-date is completely accidental, management responsible for successful endeavors to date has been replaced by morons, or they all suddenly lost their business and marketing acumen. Is this what you believe is true? More so than the possibility that they have legitimate reasoning for the decisions they make that, perhaps, haven't occurred to you?

I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The ergonomics on any DSLR are pathetic compared to a video camera. If these people really want to be a videographer, then go get the right tool for the job!


I’m not a videographer, but rather a dad who shoots occasional home movies. For me, a camcorder is the right tool for the job. Oh, and it shoots p24...not that I care.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Glad you pointed that out, Don - I was just about to post that I'm heartily sick of discussions about _cameras _being hijacked by habitually malcontent wannabe videographers...







Don Haines said:


> Yes!
> 
> The ergonomics on any DSLR are pathetic compared to a video camera. If these people really want to be a videographer, then go get the right tool for the job!



You guys do realize you’re commenting on a thread wholly devoted to video. Who’s hijacking the discussion? No one is forcing you photographers to read and comment on video lol. As long as there’s video capability on these cameras, it will be a discussion of the camera. 

And it’s pretty evident you guys aren’t doing video. Tripods, monopods, gimbals, glidecams, sliders, etc. don’t care what ergonomics your DSLR has.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p.



The gist I'm getting from the "apologists" is more along the lines of, "If you need 24P for professional reasons, you'll have no problem getting a camera that provides it, Canon or otherwise. If the M6II doesn't have it, but you want it, you're not the target market for the M6II. Amateur stills shooters that want basic video functionality for home use likely are the target market. Sure, it's a head-scratcher, but if the 'professional results' you need can only come from 24P, you can easily justify purchasing the product that provides it."

Honestly, I haven't met a Rebel/M shooter who gives two hoots about frame rate in video, let alone is aware that there's a meaningful difference. When the curious exploration of a feature's absence from an amateur/enthusiast camera turns into lamentation and criticism of a "greedy" company, it sounds more like budget-constrained video "pros" who want to get what they need from an amateur/enthusiast stills camera...instead of just buying the professional gear.

(Honest Question) Who is more closed-minded: die-hard brand apologists, or those who criticize a brand for not giving them what they demand rather than just buy what they need from another brand? Food for thought...


----------



## f119a (Aug 30, 2019)

I'm sorry to say it but the fact is - 
IF you're thinking you need 24p to make your videos "looking good", you're a really, really miserable shooter who puts everything else before good contents.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Maybe the problem here lies in the fact the lines between photo and video products have been blurred and will continue to do so even more, hence the entire reason this debate is even happening.
> 
> The main criticism seems to me that Canon is slow to respond to this reality in the same way they were to full frame mirrorless. *I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that the people left in this shrinking market are moving towards mirrorless and they demand the best of both worlds in photo & video*.
> 
> ...


I do argue that. I am a member of two active camera clubs and less than 10% of the members of either have any interest in using their cameras for video. In my experience the 90D type market are not that interested in video, neither are the 5D MkIV or R buyers, well not the ones I talk to at the two camera clubs who's membership, whilst not population typical, numbers in the hundreds and are very active camera buyers.

Yes stills orientated cameras can shoot video, but video orientated buyers are not, generally, that interested in stills specs, I do take umbrage at the insistence of video standards being constantly criticized in stills orientated cameras yet if I similarly demanded stills specs on video forums I'd be laughed out to the place.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I'm astounded by the arrogant photographers in this thread trying to tell video makers what they need and don't need.
> 
> Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?



This is a crack-up. I must be one of those arrogant photographers because it's clear to me that Canon isn't aiming its M series at "video makers." No need to argue the merits of 24P in professional workflow and production. It's legit for those who need it. Debating it is a fruitless sidetrack. But. This is an M series camera. Does it really make sense to be telling Canon what they should or shouldn't put in an amateur stills camera to please professional "video makers?"


----------



## Otara (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> And I’m willing to bet amateurs, small studios, commercial and portrait, marketing companies, and especially the wedding industry are bursting at the seems with hybrid shooters.



Maybe. But other than some kinds of amateurs, they don't want those groups buying this camera is my bet.


----------



## ysyoo87 (Aug 30, 2019)

Wait I don't get this posting, you can use 25p pal mode, and put it on 24p timeline, I'm sure no one will notice it. What is the problem here? Just the fact that you need to switch back to Pal mode everytime??


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Here's a video with 24p and 60p footage shown side by side. Do you prefer 60p?



Unfortunately, it's not a good example. It's 24 fps camera footage being exported as 60 fps on one side with 24 fps on the other side. The YouTube video Is also playing back at 60 fps. 

A true comparison would require different videos being played. One shot at 24 fps with a shutter speed of around 1/50th and one shot at 60 fps with a shutter speed of around 1/120th. 

Some other people point out that we should film a lot of camera shake with 24 fps vs 60 and assume 24 fps will look jittery. 60 fps is a better choice for people who don't carry around neutral density. 24 fps looks buttery smooth when using neutral density and using a 180 degree shutter.

It would make sense if 1080 didn't have 24 fps since 1080 is likely what average people will use. It's baffling that it's the other way around.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

Famateur said:


> Does it really make sense to be telling Canon what they should or shouldn't put in an amateur stills camera to please professional "video makers?"



Heaven forbid a customer tell a company what would encourage them to buy more product


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 30, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> I'd love if someone who actually knows about electronics could speculate if it could actually be a hardware issue with available timings or something.
> 
> The other video issue, the removal of MOV and ALL-I encoding, might really be about transistor budget; perhaps the hardware just isn't there in DIGIC 8. Though it is a mystery to me why Canon even bothered to make a distinction between MOV and MP4; after all they're just container formats and the actual data is MPEG-4 anyway…



---

Now THIS is something I have actual real-world low-level assembler and C++ software coding and hardware design expertise on!

The Canon Digic series of chips are ARM-based Cortex A4/M4 cores and I have SUCCESSFULLY coded a 24 fps to 60 fps interframe AND intraframe DCI 4K and UHDTV 4k wavelet-based codec that outright avoids the MPEG-LA group patents (Getting around those patents is WHY there is a Bell 429 parked in the hangar now!). The KEY programming issue is to use as many hardware-specific shortcuts you can to avoid as much actual real number math as possible and STICK to integer-based computation and lookup tables.

ALL of the Canon DSLR and Mirrorless models from the Canon M50 to M5/M6 mk1/2's to the 5D mk 2/3/4 and the 1Dx/1Dx2/1Dc and the D90/Rebel series DO HAVE the capability to do full 24 fps to 120 fps at up to 2048 by 1080 pixels RGBA 14 bits per RGB channel! I've tested it! It works! PERIOD!!! The ADC/DAC/DSP's on those are only 12-to-14-bits per channel so anything higher is pointless in terms of colour sampling. The M-series AND the M50 can do UHDTV 4k 3840 by 2160 pixels at up to 60 fps. The 5D mk2/3 can do UHDTV 4K at up to 30 fps so 24 fps is trivial!

The 5D mk4/1D-series can also do UHDTV 4k 3840 by 2160 pixels (16:9 aspect ratio) AND DCI 4K (4096 by 2160 pixels - Academy 1.89:1 aspect ratio) at between 30 fps to 60 fps depending upon camera model.

Hooking INTO the Canon camera BIOS to upload and use the codec is/was a beeee otchy programming problem and is NOT A TRIVIAL TASK! That said, interest was high from many parties and YOU (the general public!) will soon be able to experience the fruits of that extensive codec design labour!

--

50.3 Megapixel (8192 by 6144 pixels) 16-bits per channel 4:4:4 Stills RAW and Wavelet (up to 60 fps burst rate) ....AND.... full DCI 8K 8192 x 4320 pixel video at 60 fps! 2K at 480 fps or 960 fps at 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 up to 16-bits COMING to an upcoming medium format GLOBAL SHUTTER camera AND to two APC-C and 2/3rds inch GLOBAL SHUTTER Ruggedized IP-68 SMARTPHONES very soon now! Get ready world! These will change EVERYTHING !!!!!

.


----------



## ysyoo87 (Aug 30, 2019)

just do 25p and put it on 24p timeline smh


----------



## EduPortas (Aug 30, 2019)

Guys, it ain't that complicated:

Canon is forcing anyone that wants to record good 4K 24p _with_ DPAF to go upstream.

That would include a few DSLRs/MILCs and the expensive C-Line videocameras.

There's some $$$ to be had with that sub target of consumers. That's about it.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 30, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



The main reason for not doing 24p is it looks crappy compared to 30p.

*"Shoot* everything in *30FPS* or 60FPS all of the time.
If you need that cinematic look of 24 frames (actually 24.9 or 25FPS in countries that use the PAL format for video), you *do* it in your video processing program. Video shot at 30 or 60FPS and then converted *will* look better than video shot in a *24FPS* mode. "

The 24p rate was purely a choice to reduce film costs not for any sort of intrinsic quality of the film. 30p is better and produces superior video while reducing rolling shutter that is more problematic with 24p. It is just snobs and losers that demand 24p and mainly it is an excuse to bash Canon because canon is producing a superior product with 30p, better video and it embarrasses the 24p shooter.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 30, 2019)

planetMitch said:


> The Hobbit looked HORRIBLE in 48. HORRIBLE.
> 
> And I disagree with your interpretation of history. 24 was picked because it looked the best. PERIOD. This has been proven over and over. People keep coming back to 24 because it is indeed cinematic.



24 fps looks "Good" to the human visual system ONLY because of motion blur! If you shot at 24 fps at say 1/2000th of a second shutter speed you would likely remark just how crappy that moving imagery looks! Douglas Trumbull (special effects supervisor and camera system inventor for Blade Runner, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, etc) created the 72 fps Showscan system which I had the pleasure of watching in FULL SIZE 120 feet wide glory multiple times in 1986 during Expo 86 in Vancouver, Canada! It was a GLORIOUS high frame rate motion picture system that truly DID look "Cinematic" because it too had the proper motion blur AND high contrast ratio endemic to Hollywood cinema. He wasn't a computer person but rather a FILMMAKER and knew what parts of an image to expose in such a way that it looks cinematic!

That SOAP OPERA effect is caused by not enough motion blur, too much smoothing of common camera movements, too much colour saturation and too much highlight blowouts or shadow crushing! The 60 fps can STILL be cinematic IF you shoot your subject matter correctly with proper lighting, keeping your highlights and shadow rolloffs SMOOTH and not jarring so you can STILL SEE the details in clouds and the weave of dark cloth. Do remember to use common camera movements in a more organic, non-motion compensated manner! AND remember to reduce that colour saturation!

THE BEST cinematic looking video I have yet seen was from a 1000 fps 1920x1080p Phantom Gold camera and when played back on an ACTUAL 1000 hz custom-built large-screen 1920 by 1080p cinema RGB laser projector display, we could see TRUE cinematic smoothness WITHOUT that "Soap Opera" effect because the camera operator/cinematographer KNEW HOW to shoot "Film" properly!

Again, HIGH FRAME RATE AT 60 fps to 1000 fps IS JUST FINE if you KNOW how to shoot your imagery properly!

.
.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

ysyoo87 said:


> Wait I don't get this posting, you can use 25p pal mode, and put it on 24p timeline, I'm sure no one will notice it. What is the problem here? Just the fact that you need to switch back to Pal mode everytime??


It doesn't matter how sure you are, it doesn't make you right. If you slow the p25 down to p24 people might not notice. If you decimate the p25 to p24 anyone with a keen eye will see it.



EduPortas said:


> There's some $$$ to be had with that sub target of consumers. That's about it.


And that money will go to someone other than Canon.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

Famateur said:


> This is a crack-up. I must be one of those arrogant photographers because it's clear to me that Canon isn't aiming its M series at "video makers." No need to argue the merits of 24P in professional workflow and production. It's legit for those who need it. Debating it is a fruitless sidetrack. But. This is an M series camera. Does it really make sense to be telling Canon what they should or shouldn't put in an amateur stills camera to please professional "video makers?"


Then Canon should remove all the video features and stop pretending that they're pursuing the video market with these cameras. As it is, it's clear that they want to pursue the video market, just not very hard. As such, they're going to get criticized.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 30, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> We are talking about blowing out of proportion the decision of limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some technical or business reason.
> You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
> Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS?
> Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?



---

HOW True! ....BUT.... with one caveat in that the frame-by-frame conversion MUST be motion compensated usually using a frame decimation (or frame interpolation) algorithm that uses edge detection to find MOVING objects and re-calculate in-between distances of objects within a scene to fit evenly within the newly set 24, 25, 30, 50, 60 or 120 fps frame rate. It's trivial to do that nowadays on common Intel/AMD CPU hardware with decent graphics cards. 

I have found that Blackmagic Resolve timeline editor and their Adobe After-effects-like Fusion software products have one of the BETTER object-oriented frame interpolation algorithms out there! The frame rate conversion using motion compensation within Resolve and Fusion works VERY WELL giving me GREAT super-slow motion AND great 60 fps to 30, 50, 25, and 24 fps frame rate conversions. I have found when I convert imagery on a scene by scene basis (i.e. I re-cut video to convert and fit individual scenes to a specific NEW frame rate and scene length) I get a much better frame rate conversion result. Just remember to export/render as UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO 4:4:4 to keep the original quality and only do a final compressed video file export once you are DONE with all your colour correction, scene editing and frame rate conversions.

.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.
> 
> This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.


Oh, so ‘amateur filmmakers’ are the target market for the M6II / 90D / RP. 

Keep on digging that hole your in, it can always get deeper!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Then Canon should remove all the video features and stop pretending that they're pursuing the video market with these cameras. As it is, it's clear that they want to pursue the video market, just not very hard. As such, they're going to get criticized.


Sure they’ll be criticized. Just as they were criticized for not having more low ISO DR, not having dual card slots in low-mid level cameras, etc. The current criticism will likely have a similar effect...none. 

But feel free to cry Kodak and let slip the dogs of Nokia.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

ysyoo87 said:


> Wait I don't get this posting, you can use 25p pal mode, and put it on 24p timeline, I'm sure no one will notice it. What is the problem here? Just the fact that you need to switch back to Pal mode everytime??



It doesn’t work like that. It’s like me telling you to set your camera to shoot 8mega pixel JPEG’s and upscale them to 32 to save space.

First of all putting 25p on a 24p timeline there would be a rhythmic judder as it drops one frame a second. The cadence of movement would be all wrong. And second of all - if that were an option - you can’t just switch to pal if you’re not in a pal region or anything you shoot will have flickering lights. Pal is 25 because their power system is 50 hertz. America / NTSC is 30 because their power system is 60 hertz. One dividends equally into the other. If you Mis match those anything you film near a powered light is going to flicker and look awful.

I shoot 25p in the UK so it doesn’t effect me but I do sympathise with those that do. if you happen to shoot 24p it automatically takes this camera purchase out of the running. It’s a really odd decision.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

Anyone shop for a tv lately? Picked up a 50” UHD 4K Smart namebrand for under $275 at Walmart and it’s not even Black Friday. 

We expect this now, the same tv was probably in the $750 range a few years ago. What do you think the consumers of the content we create expect? They want a pro cinematic production in HD or 4K and they want it on a budget. 

What do you think that does to professionals creating that content? They go with lower price point gear that’s versatile and do anything they can to remain competitive.

Canon isn’t delivering on this front while Fuji, Sony, Pani are delivering. Look at Sony’s Share of Revenue over the past 5 years. This huge growth despite shotty ergonomics, crappy menus, terrible battery life, overheating, bugs, etc. etc. People want the specs, versatility, value, and run and gun style MILC afford them. 

Clearly there’s a big market for MILC that gives video people what they want. 

Canon isn’t doing themselves any favors by crippling entry level cameras. The future leaders of the industry have to buy their first camera at some point and they’re going to go for the best value and most features then slowly upgrade in the brand they buy into.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Canon isn’t doing themselves any favors by crippling entry level cameras. The future leaders of the industry have to buy their first camera at some point and they’re going to go for the best value and most features then slowly upgrade in the brand they buy into.


How is that different today than for the past decade? Need I remind you what happened to ILC market share over the past decade?


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Then Canon should remove all the video features and stop pretending that they're pursuing the video market with these cameras. As it is, it's clear that they want to pursue the video market, just not very hard. As such, they're going to get criticized.



Is it not possible that Canon is pursuing the "amateur photographer who occasionally shoots home videos" market?


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Heaven forbid a customer tell a company what would encourage them to buy more product



Fair point that customer feedback is important to effective product development and market segmentation. That said, "pros" pining for "pro" features in a product clearly marketed to an amateur/enthusiast segment stretches that a bit far...


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about video didn’t chime in with a bunch ignorant comments haha. I gotta get to work. What a time suck.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> You guys do realize you’re commenting on a thread wholly devoted to video. Who’s hijacking the discussion? No one is forcing you photographers to read and comment on video lol. As long as there’s video capability on these cameras, it will be a discussion of the camera.
> 
> And it’s pretty evident you guys aren’t doing video. Tripods, monopods, gimbals, glidecams, sliders, etc. don’t care what ergonomics your DSLR has.



Fair enough -- the features are open for discussion. And an interesting discussion it can be.

You do realize you're commenting about the lack of a feature "necessary" for professional workflow and video timelines...on a camera clearly not intended for pro filmmakers, right? No one is forcing pros to buy this amateur camera and settle for a hampered workflow...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about video didn’t chime in with a bunch ignorant comments haha. I gotta get to work. What a time suck.


This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about business and the ILC market didn’t chime in with a bunch of ignorant comments.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. *Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films*. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.
> 
> This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.



Yep. The people complaining bitterly about a missing video feature in an amateur/enthusiast stills camera want Hollywood-like video results...without using the equipment Hollywood uses.

I also want my next factory-fresh Subaru Outback to have the same "pro" performance as a souped up rally cross monster. Without paying for the latter. 

[For the record, I'm still happily enjoying my 1997 Outback with 305K miles, knowing full well it can't produce the "pro" results with which Subaru is capable of imbuing it. It feels good to be in the target market for the product I own...]


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p.



The gist I'm getting from the "apologists" is more along the lines of, "If you need 24P for professional reasons, you'll have no problem getting a camera that provides it, Canon or otherwise. If the M6II doesn't have it, but you want it, you're not the target market for the M6II. Amateur stills shooters that want basic video functionality for home use likely are the target market. Sure, it's a head-scratcher, but if the 'professional results' you need can only come from 24P, you can easily justify purchasing the product that provides it."

Honestly, I haven't met a Rebel/M shooter who gives two hoots about frame rate in video, let alone is aware that there's a meaningful difference. When the curious exploration of a feature's absence turns into lamentation and criticism, it sounds more like budget-constrained video "pros" who want what they need from an amateur/enthusiast stills camera.

(Honest Question) Who is more closed-minded: die-hard brand apologists, or those who criticize a brand for not giving them what they demand rather than just buy what they need from another brand? Food for thought...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p.


Explanations are irrelevant. You might as well explain why the M6II and 90D are crippled by the lack of a FF sensor. These cameras don’t have p24. If you require p24, buy a different camera.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.
> 
> This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.



Please tell me about your adventures in Hollywood. Maybe we worked at some of the same studios.

Twentyfour was strictly to save money. Less film used for Principal Photography as well as on Release Prints. It's all about the budget, art has little to do with it.


----------



## Shutterbug (Aug 30, 2019)

VORON said:


> The answer is more than obvious. For regular user there's no difference between 24p, 25p and 30p, so he won't care about omission of 24p. But for serious video guys 24p is a workhorse framerate, and they will be forced to pay for advanced cameras (even if they could be served by cheap ones otherwise)


Or they'll just move to another camera system and lose the customer. Many do not need the more advanced C series but need a hybrid. Especially the freelancers out there. I wouldn't call myself a serious video guy but need 24p.There are plenty of new alternatives popping up. The past 2 years have been a boom. With Sony , Fuji and others. 2 years ago Canon was an easy sell. Not anymore.


----------



## Shutterbug (Aug 30, 2019)

And there we have a new drinking game. Anytime someone says The Hobbit was shot in 48fps. Go!


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

For me it comes down to ease of use. I had a broadcast Sony HDR Z1 for professional work then added a 70D as my travel shooter. Switched to the 80D entirely when it came out and now have a 90D on order. 

When it comes time to buy a new camera I look at the competition and video wise it’s the GH5 which I’ve used and while fine is a pain to focus. Sony a6600 is interesting as it shoots 4K HDR. But every Sony camera says “now we’ve nailed the auto focus, no really this time”. And I have no way of editing 4K HDR without buying a £2k adapter box and preferably a £30k+ HDR monitor. 

Maybe I’m just lazy as I get old. I could switch to a camera with objectively better specs but It would be much harder work day to day and I wouldn’t be able to shoot things like fashion shows I do now because I couldn’t rely on auto focus from another camera. Moving up to a Canon C model camera is a oath but not without spending thousands and increasing the size and weight of everything I carry when I like everything to be in a small backpack. 

The only real thing for me t think about was I could probably sell my 80D and some lenses and break even on a 2nd hand 5D mark 4. But it has a worse crop than the 90D for 4K and 5x the file size for video so the 90D seems the way to go.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

Famateur said:


> Yep. The people complaining bitterly about a missing video feature in an amateur/enthusiast stills camera want Hollywood-like video results...without using the equipment Hollywood uses.



Canon's competition is basically offering this in several bodies now available, including a few that are close to the 90D's price point. The people complaining want to use their Canon lenses on a Canon body that gives them this as well.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about business and the ILC market didn’t chime in with a bunch of ignorant comments.


Please tell us what we need to do to get you to take your own advice?


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> And there we have a new drinking game. Anytime someone says The Hobbit was shot in 48fps. Go!


Because the 90D shoots in 48fps right?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> You guys do realize you’re commenting on a thread wholly devoted to video. Who’s hijacking the discussion? No one is forcing you photographers to read and comment on video lol. As long as there’s video capability on these cameras, it will be a discussion of the camera.
> 
> And it’s pretty evident you guys aren’t doing video. Tripods, monopods, gimbals, glidecams, sliders, etc. don’t care what ergonomics your DSLR has.


It is a camera that is designed for stills and the vast majority of users will shoot predominantly stills. That is why it is not loaded with video features. This is not hijacking the discussion, it is pointing out a very pertinent fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> .There are plenty of new alternatives popping up. The past 2 years have been a boom. With Sony , Fuji and others. 2 years ago Canon was an easy sell. Not anymore.


Sure, and maybe someday some of those alternatives will start taking market share from Canon. It just hasn’t happened yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Please tell us what we need to do to get you to take your own advice?


If my advice applied to me, I’d suggest you could start by not being the latest in a long string of people claiming the lack of their own particular favorite feature spells doom for Canon. Probably too much to ask, though.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Then Canon should remove all the video features and stop pretending that they're pursuing the video market with these cameras. As it is, it's clear that they want to pursue the video market, just not very hard. As such, they're going to get criticized.


That’s going too far..... remember the target market.....

It is a stills camera that has the ability to shoot simple video clips to watch on your TV..... a TV that is probably at a 60hz or 120hz refresh rate....


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

Famateur said:


> Fair point that customer feedback is important to effective product development and market segmentation. That said, "pros" pining for "pro" features in a product clearly marketed to an amateur/enthusiast segment stretches that a bit far...



C-Log is a pro feature. 10-bit 4:2:2 is a pro feature. I'm not sure 24p qualifies as a pro feature. It would be like Canon letting you adjust brightness and saturation in DPP, but NOT contrast because contrast adjustments to a RAW file are a "pro feature."


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You could start by not being the latest in a long string of people claiming the lack of their own particular favorite feature spells doom for Canon. Probably too much to ask, though.



For the record I don't think this spells *DOOM* for Canon. Never the less, I think it's silly and I know of at least one sale it will likely cost them.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

Famateur said:


> The gist I'm getting from the "apologists" is more along the lines of, "If you need 24P for professional reasons, you'll have no problem getting a camera that provides it, Canon or otherwise. If the M6II doesn't have it, but you want it, you're not the target market for the M6II. Amateur stills shooters that want basic video functionality for home use likely are the target market. Sure, it's a head-scratcher, but if the 'professional results' you need can only come from 24P, you can easily justify purchasing the product that provides it."
> 
> Honestly, I haven't met a Rebel/M shooter who gives two hoots about frame rate in video, let alone is aware that there's a meaningful difference. When the curious exploration of a feature's absence turns into lamentation and criticism, it sounds more like budget-constrained video "pros" who want what they need from an amateur/enthusiast stills camera.
> 
> (Honest Question) Who is more closed-minded: die-hard brand apologists, or those who criticize a brand for not giving them what they demand rather than just buy what they need from another brand? Food for thought...


30P?

30P?

Most of the footage shot on these entry level cameras is going to be viewed on 60 or 120 hz televisions.....


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2019)

Here is a simple time saver. Take any of the old threads on the EOS R and do a word replacement of the term "card slot" with the term "24 fps." The arguments and results are exactly the same -- some people think these are critical features, others don't. 

I'm just worried that all this arguing is wasting valuable internet space and there isn't going to be any left for the rest of us.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> That’s going too far..... remember the target market.....
> 
> It is a stills camera that has the ability to shoot simple video clips to watch on your TV..... a TV that is probably at a 60hz or 120hz refresh rate....


But Don, without p24 how will all the aspiring cinematic geniuses ever have a hope their footage will be shown at Cannes or Sundance?


----------



## Kharan (Aug 30, 2019)

cpreston said:


> 30p in a 24p timeline looks terrible, It doesn't work. Luckily, 30p in a 30p and 24p in a 30p timeline looks just fine.
> 
> This whole argument about 24p in these cameras is ridiculous. If Canon added 24p back to these cameras, would anybody complaining here actually buy the camera to shoot video? No. Canon doesn't care about the DSLR video enthusiast market. They are marketing these cameras to people who don't pretend to know anything about video but might want to use the camera to try to capture their kid scoring a goal in video mode. These people don't need 23.98p, much less 24p. And they don't want to be going through a page full of options of video modes that they don't understand.



I'd buy an M6II if it had it. It's a good enough body, and I could live with the limited buffer with C-RAW. But it doesn't, and the new A6XXX bodies from Sony also have iffy compromises, so it seems like it's Fujifilm or the highway for me. And that's exactly what manufacturers *should* *not want* in a crashing market like there is right now.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Aug 30, 2019)

The only reason they removed 24p (and all-i) is to protect higher end models and cinema camera's.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2019)

matthew_r said:


> Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.


That depends upon who you are talking about. Not all of Hollywood still uses 24fps and 60fps is better suited for televisions. Many of them don't shoot film anymore. When they do, it is digitized afterwards. I can't remember the last time I sat through a wait for the reel to be changed or the switch between two different projectors. Grain, dust, and hair on film or lens can be added in post, if that's what people are worried about. That's what I think about when I think about film. People are worried it won't look like film when they take their home videos? Please. It won't look cinematic watching most anybody's home movies. Me? I won't buy until there is an 8mm mode.

*Steven Spielberg: "The only thing that I caution all of us about is, it still doesn’t look like film unless you put the reels up in the booth.”*

He's right. He knows more about that than any home video "filmmakers" around here.

People these days are growing up with fast television rates and video game rates. They don't give 2 craps about p24. They've already adjusted and most don't watch old movies.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> And there we have a new drinking game. Anytime someone says The Hobbit was shot in 48fps. Go!


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not sure 24p qualifies as a pro feature.



I'd agree, but many on this thread are bemoaning the lack of 24P in the M6II as a hindrance to achieving the "professional" look of Hollywood movies. For example:



navastronia said:


> Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. *Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional*.



If it's not a pro feature, why all the fuss over it's omission from an amateur/enthusiast stills-oriented camera? Why the insistence that it's vital to a professional result?


----------



## bbb34 (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Most of the footage shot on these entry level cameras is going to be viewed on 60 or 120 hz televisions.....



Is that so? I don't have numbers, but I doubt that globally households with 60 Hz are the majority. The native panel frequency of many (possibly most) modern TVs is 50 Hz.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.
> 
> This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.


Perhaps you are making mistake by mixing up "frame rate" and "shutter speed". The look comes from shutter speed and format is related to frame rate. Two different things, but related. Just saying.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 30, 2019)

For the newbies, this video "Mixing Frame Rates: Can You Edit 24p, 30p, & 60p Together" explains (with sample footages) the concept of look and frame-rate. It specifically mentions that 24p footage doesn't look good on standard 60Hz display because of two reasons:
1. Requires 3:2 conversion to be viewed on standard 60Hz displays, so the picture may become jittery somehow.
2. Requires slowest and steadiest pan to look good. (soccer moms do pan a lot, don't they?)
I guess, that is the reason that 24p may have been excluded to provide the best possible experience an average user can get from shooting and viewing video with this cameras on average PC/TV screens. Is this is right or wrong, we don't know, and I personally don't mind.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 30, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> Now THIS is something I have actual real-world low-level assembler and C++ software coding and hardware design expertise on!
> 
> ...


Harry is back!


----------



## seasonascent (Aug 30, 2019)

The lack of 24p doesn't bother me being in Australia. PAL 25p


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 30, 2019)

You beat me to it, mate


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 30, 2019)

"Here's lookin' at you, kid!"


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> That’s going too far..... remember the target market.....
> 
> It is a stills camera that has the ability to shoot simple video clips to watch on your TV..... a TV that is probably at a 60hz or 120hz refresh rate....



Happy I make a living from ‘simple video’ clips shot on this stills camera.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 30, 2019)

cpreston said:


> 30p in a 24p timeline looks terrible, It doesn't work. Luckily, 30p in a 30p and 24p in a 30p timeline looks just fine.


Let me correct your statement:
30p in a 24p timeline looks terrible *if you watch it on a 60Hz screen. On 120Hz screen it is fine.*
30p in a 30p and 24p in a 30p timeline looks just fine *on both 60Hz and 120Hz screens*.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2019)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> The only reason they removed 24p (and all-i) is to protect higher end models and cinema camera's.


There can be multiple reasons why they might remove 24p. But after watching those self-proclaimed "video gurus" shooting themselves in 24p for "cine look" on YouTube, one is clear: removing 24p from consumer cameras would be a great service to humanity.


----------



## SonySucks (Aug 30, 2019)

It’s hilarious how far these nimwits in this thread will go to say that 24p is a “useless, extra feature just for wannabe videographers” when it’s present in damn near every Canon camera that shoots video for the better part of almost a decade.


----------



## SonySucks (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> But Don, without p24 how will all the aspiring cinematic geniuses ever have a hope their footage will be shown at Cannes or Sundance?



You’re an incorrigible little troll, aren’t you?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> But Don, without p24 how will all the aspiring cinematic geniuses ever have a hope their footage will be shown at Cannes or Sundance?


Obviously it is not filming in p24 that has kept video clips of my cat chasing a laser pointer from winning an Oscar!


----------



## Etienne (Aug 30, 2019)

This is a big issue for anyone who edits footage from more than one camera. They cannot use footage from this camera in a 24p timeline because 30p looks horrible in a 24p timeline, even if you convert the frame rate. 24p converts better to 30p than the other way around.
Anyway, this just looks more like Canon's habit of random withholding of features. Making your footage compatible from all of your cameras should be a no-brainer, and the only thing needed is that they offer compatible frame rates. They don't all need to offer the highest frame rates, but they should be compatible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

SonySucks said:


> It’s hilarious how far these nimwits in this thread will go to say that 24p is a “useless, extra feature just for wannabe videographers” when it’s present in damn near every Canon camera that shoots video for the better part of almost a decade.


It’s hilarious how these nimwits in this thread bemoaning the lack of p24 on these new cameras think their whining and complaining matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

SonySucks said:


> You’re an incorrigible little troll, aren’t you?


You’re a petulant little nimwit, aren’t you?

Welcome to CR forums, by the way.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> The only reason they removed 24p (and all-i) is to protect higher end models and cinema camera's.


I'm mostly just curious to see how far up the model line up they remove it from new models. I expect them to remove it all the way up through their DSLR/MILC line in response to their Cinema camera sales dropping off a cliff.



bhf3737 said:


> Let me correct your statement:
> 30p in a 24p timeline looks terrible *if you watch it on a 60Hz screen. On 120Hz screen it is fine.*
> 30p in a 30p and 24p in a 30p timeline looks just fine *on both 60Hz and 120Hz screens*.


No it doesn't. Repeating the same lie over and over again isn't going to make it true.



SonySucks said:


> It’s hilarious how far these nimwits in this thread will go to say that 24p is a “useless, extra feature just for wannabe videographers” when it’s present in damn near every Canon camera that shoots video for the better part of almost a decade.


Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be along shortly to point out all their posts from the past 10 years bemoaning the fact that Canon is needlessly including p24 in a camera where it's not necessary.



neuroanatomist said:


> It’s hilarious how these nimwits in this thread bemoaning the lack of p24 on these new cameras think their whining and complaining matters.


So "hilarious" that you have to defend Canon and reply to every one. If it didn't matter you'd just leave it alone. Your actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 30, 2019)

Etienne said:


> This is a big issue for anyone who edits footage from more than one camera. They cannot use footage from this camera in a 24p timeline because 30p looks horrible in a 24p timeline, even if you convert the frame rate. 24p converts better to 30p than the other way around.
> Anyway, this just looks more like Canon's habit of random withholding of features. Making your footage compatible from all of your cameras should be a no-brainer, and the only thing needed is that they offer compatible frame rates. They don't all need to offer the highest frame rates, but they should be compatible.



And HERE is the final word on the random withholding of 24p from the M6 mkII and the 90D: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/nope-...d-and-eos-m6-ii-to-save-h-264-licensing-fees/

PS ... The M6 mk I has 24p frame rate. So all this talk about fees and costs is pure hogwash. As mentioned in the article, they are trying to push customers to higher priced products, but they may just push customers to a different brand in the long run.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

Etienne said:


> And HERE is the final word on the random withholding of 24p from the M6 mkII and the 90D: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/nope-...d-and-eos-m6-ii-to-save-h-264-licensing-fees/
> 
> PS ... The M6 mk I has 24p frame rate. So all this talk about fees and costs is pure hogwash. As mentioned in the article, they are trying to push customers to higher priced products, but they may just push customers to a different brand in the long run.


I wouldn’t say any article from that site is the final word on anything. He’s a very angry individual, like a man with a fork in a world of soup.

He banned me from the site around the 80D launch when I pointed out that publishing his forum users real names and details to make fun of those who disagreed with him was not only in bad taste but also in breach of GPDR data rules.


----------



## bbb34 (Aug 30, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I wouldn’t say any article from that site is the final word on anything. He’s a very angry individual, like a man with a fork in a world of soup.



You might be right about the site in general, but this article seems plausible, and his four bullets of facts are verifiable.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I wouldn’t say any article from that site is the final word on anything. He’s a very angry individual, like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
> 
> He banned me from the site around the 80D launch when I pointed out that publishing his forum users real names and details to make fun of those who disagreed with him was not only in bad taste but also in breach of GPDR data rules.





Etienne said:


> And HERE is the final word on the random withholding of 24p from the M6 mkII and the 90D: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/nope-...d-and-eos-m6-ii-to-save-h-264-licensing-fees/
> 
> PS ... The M6 mk I has 24p frame rate. So all this talk about fees and costs is pure hogwash. As mentioned in the article, they are trying to push customers to higher priced products, but they may just push customers to a different brand in the long run.


But what if Canon thinks that the typical user of the camera has no interest in that frame rate? They may have gotten rid of it to free up space in the bios or for some other reason. Remember, they have access to the market research data and user buying data, we do not. Plus, we forum users do not represent the typical consumer.

On a personal level, I can say that I would like to have p24 included, just in case I might want to use it, even though I probably would not. I don't shoot a lot of video, just short clips now and then. It will never become movie footage and will only be seen on a computer or phone screen. I don't have proof to this, but I believe that this would be true for the typical user. Odds are, their short video clips will be seen on YouTube and Facebook, both of which compress the h**l out of the video, and compressed like that it really does not matter how you shot it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> ... their Cinema camera sales dropping off a cliff.


I wasn’t aware that Canon published data on their cinema EOS sales. Can you share the source for your information on that topic?



Stereodude said:


> So "hilarious" that you have to defend Canon and reply to every one. If it didn't matter you'd just leave it alone. Your actions speak louder than words.


I do have a tendency to reply to posts that are obviously inane. Many of yours seem to fall into that category, such as the ascription of a malicious motive for the removal of a feature, or predictions of dire consequences resulting from that removal. If someone continually posted that the earth is flat, I’d respond to that as well.


----------



## Kannon (Aug 30, 2019)

lol


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2019)




----------



## syder (Aug 30, 2019)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> The only reason they removed 24p (and all-i) is to protect higher end models and cinema camera's.



Yes, I would gladly trade a C200 for a 90D/M6II if only they had 24p.

Because 4K60p in RAW is almost exactly the same as 4K30p 8-bit 4:2:0

After all who needs useless features like built NDs and XLRs.

Who cares about a video camera handling like a video camera.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 30, 2019)

Famateur said:


> They've gotta leave something for Magic Lantern to do, don't they?


I knew that Magic Lantern would be covered in the first comments coming up here


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 30, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.


Is a company that goes bankrupt better for its customers?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 30, 2019)

planetMitch said:


> The Hobbit looked HORRIBLE in 48. HORRIBLE.
> 
> And I disagree with your interpretation of history. 24 was picked because it looked the best. PERIOD. This has been proven over and over. People keep coming back to 24 because it is indeed cinematic.


Cinematic is Kodak's Motion Picture film, of course 24 frames/s. Quentin Tarantino e.g. still prefers film. Here is a list of movies that were recently shot on film:








Shot on Film


Shot On Film. Films made with KODAK film products.




www.kodak.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 30, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



The ONLY reason that 24p even exists, if you know history, was NOT better quality, it is actually poor quality, but to use less film which cost money. 30p is far superior and would have been preferred if money had not been the deciding factor. 
Also rolling shutter is less of an issue with 30p so again a superior video. 
Finally 24p is just another snob way of bashing Canon for producing a superior product. In the R they added it just so snobs could say they have it as they get busy shooting rolling shutter and inferior videos. 
Just a bit of history.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2019)

ethanz said:


> Greedy Canon putting profits above people. I wish they would go out of business and let some other benevolent company take over.
> 
> /s


I've heard rumors that Canon has a 501(c)(3) patent in the works. 24 frames elements pages.


----------



## WillT (Aug 30, 2019)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the M6 and 90D are shooting 2.8K and then upsampling to 4K. So is it really 4K or is this shitty marketing?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 30, 2019)

WillT said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but the M6 and 90D are shooting 2.8K and then upsampling to 4K. So is it really 4K or is this shitty marketing?



Where does Canon state that it does that?


----------



## Batman6794 (Aug 30, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That depends upon who you are talking about. Not all of Hollywood still uses 24fps and 60fps is better suited for televisions. Many of them don't shoot film anymore. When they do, it is digitized afterwards. I can't remember the last time I sat through a wait for the reel to be changed or the switch between two different projectors. Grain, dust, and hair on film or lens can be added in post, if that's what people are worried about. That's what I think about when I think about film. People are worried it won't look like film when they take their home videos? Please. It won't look cinematic watching most anybody's home movies. Me? I won't buy until there is an 8mm mode.
> 
> *Steven Spielberg: "The only thing that I caution all of us about is, it still doesn’t look like film unless you put the reels up in the booth.”*
> 
> ...



LOL. You're aware that there is a frame rate weather you shoot film or video right? 60fps works better for old tube tvs, but not anything that was made in the last 10 years. 

Where are people getting the idea that hollywood isn't shooting 24p. Yes, film projectors went out, even before film stopped being the dominant capture medium. But if you're sitting in a theater, you're watching at 24p, even from a digital projector.


----------



## WillT (Aug 30, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Where does Canon state that it does that?



I don't see it stated anywhere if it is true it seems like shady marketing to me. Source: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/canon-and-sony-aps-c-flagships-disappoint-buy-the-fuji-x-t30-instead/


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2019)

All this talk about the Hobbit just illustrates to me that no frame rate, no matter what it is, can turn crap into gold.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

This is what happens when Canon execs are given iPhones to replace their Samsungs.


----------



## Batman6794 (Aug 30, 2019)

SonySucks said:


> It’s hilarious how far these nimwits in this thread will go to say that 24p is a “useless, extra feature just for wannabe videographers” when it’s present in damn near every Canon camera that shoots video for the better part of almost a decade.



Exactly. If I'm shooting narrative, I'd take the T2i over the 90D, which is really sad. Not saying the 90D doesn't have some great features for video, but 4K and less compressed colors are really nice to have, 24p is a must.


----------



## Batman6794 (Aug 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> All this talk about the Hobbit just illustrates to me that no frame rate, no matter what it is, can turn crap into gold.


 
That's the wrong question to ask. For my money, the question is can it turn gold into crap. I'd say not quite, but still too close for my money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> This is what happens when company execs are given iPhones to replace their Samsungs.


Doe that mean the iPhone doesn’t shoot p24 video? How will those company execs who are also amateur filmmakers capture video that looks like professionally shot cinematic footage if they can’t use their iPhones or their 90D/M6II/RP cameras?


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Doe that mean the iPhone doesn’t shoot p24 video? How will those company execs who are also amateur filmmakers capture video that looks like professionally shot cinematic footage if they can’t use their iPhones or their 90D/M6II/RP cameras?


The joke is that Apple purposely takes out features and options to simplify their products and tell its users what they need. They force their will on their users and the users love it and keep coming back for more. Myself included. 

It seems Canon might be headed that direction. In the corporate world we were usually given an iPhone or Galaxy.....since Blackberry bit the dust haha. 

You seriously spend too much time on here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> The joke is that Apple purposely takes out features and options to simplify their products and tell its users what they need. They force their will on their users and the users love it and keep coming back for more. Myself included.
> 
> It seems Canon might be headed that direction. In the corporate world we were usually given an iPhone or Galaxy.....since Blackberry bit the dust haha.
> 
> You seriously spend too much time on here.


Yeah, damn them for taking out floppy drives. Then optical drives. But Canon Rumors had a Dark Mode before iOS.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2019)

That new Panasonic S1H looks like a beast. I’d love to see Canon make a real competitor to that. A Full blown, full frame MILC built for film folks. 6k. $3999. That compact form factor is becoming more and more popular. Bigger bodies like the Cinema line cant always be as agile and versatile. It’s why Sony makes complimentary MILCS to their bigger FS models (the Sony Cinema line) I hope Canon eventually moves in this direction too. They are taking a few baby steps now. They still have the best color science and look.


WillT said:


> I don't see it stated anywhere if it is true it seems like shady marketing to me. Source: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/canon-and-sony-aps-c-flagships-disappoint-buy-the-fuji-x-t30-instead/


Reid has been on a screed lately. I was told by him on facebook to “go F**k yourself”. Or maybe it was “go f**k off” after I and several others reacted as one would expect when demanded that “governments” should investigate and ban the practice of monthly fee software (like
adobe)


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Ah, but this is where we agree! You're saying that filmmakers need different features in their cameras than photographers do. No argument from me, there. My issue is with those who are trying to tell filmmakers what they need and don't.
> 
> EDIT: Last point and I'm done in this thread - whatever Canon's reasons are for leaving 24p out of these cameras, there will be a flood of people on YouTube telling filmmakers to stay away from Canon's entry level cameras and buy a Sony, Nikon, or Fuji instead, and those people will be right.


I get that. However, this is a situation where video features are being added to a photography based camera. So we come full circle to the argument of how there are true video based bodies yet budgetary concerns keep them out of your hands and then the hybrids are being decried as basically criminal since they don't do video justice. This is why we get the Porsche/Hyundai analogy.

But hey, Blackmagic has your camera, takes your EF lenses and doesn't break the bank. Head on over there and Namaste.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2019)

Batman6794 said:


> LOL. You're aware that there is a frame rate weather you shoot film or video right? 60fps works better for old tube tvs, but not anything that was made in the last 10 years.
> 
> Where are people getting the idea that hollywood isn't shooting 24p. Yes, film projectors went out, even before film stopped being the dominant capture medium. But if you're sitting in a theater, you're watching at 24p, even from a digital projector.


Does it matter to you? Are you making films for the big screen? Holy Macaroni Batman! No.

BTW: Like I said, not everyone is shooting film. Not everyone is shooting at 24 frames per second. Not every movie is projected at 24p. Then when they shoot at HFR, it is not always 24 in the theaters. "It doesn't look like film unless projected on film in the theaters." (light paraphrase) That's Spielberg. LOL! I think he probably knows a little more about it than you and I.

Someone who does work in the industry made it very clear in an earlier post: 24 fps is what Hollywood used because it saved $, not because it gave a particular "look". Nobody said that some in Hollywood are not shooting in 24p. Just as nobody denies movies are now shot at 48p, 60p, and 120p (well, maybe you deny it). The idea that Hollywood doesn't shoot in anything other than 24p, and that we'd all get sick watching anything else, is an uninformed idea. Blanket statements are almost always wrong. You're welcome.

Regardless, Hollywood doesn't set the standard for home video of your hamster.  Also, what people are complaining about is the shooting frame rate. There is no argument here about what speed it is watched in. Either way, you are wrong.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> I knew that Magic Lantern would be covered in the first comments coming up here


Because there's a reasonably working Magic Lantern version for the 70D? Oh wait, no...

If they're still messing with getting a reasonably polished version for a 6 year old model, I wouldn't be banking on Magic Lantern to turn the 90D into the Video powerhouse Canon wouldn't anytime soon if at all.


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2019)

Now I'm really mad that the M line isn't full frame. Crippled! 

(nor does it have a built in Arca Swiss L plate, fine Corinthian leather handstrap or Hobbit 48p mode) 


This thread is about as ricockulous as complaining about location of the strap lugs on a Pen F at Olympusrumors.


----------



## KrisK (Aug 30, 2019)

Etienne said:


> And HERE is the final word on the random withholding of 24p from the M6 mkII and the 90D: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/nope-...d-and-eos-m6-ii-to-save-h-264-licensing-fees/
> 
> PS ... The M6 mk I has 24p frame rate. So all this talk about fees and costs is pure hogwash. As mentioned in the article, they are trying to push customers to higher priced products, but they may just push customers to a different brand in the long run.



But why wouldn't an aspiring filmmaker want those higher end products, anyway? The cost diff. between these crop cameras and something like a grey-market R aren't that great, and you get features that, IMHO, are a lot more important to a filmmaker (such as built-in C-Log.)


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Where does Canon state that it does that?


That’s an opinion on the eosHD site. We don’t know if it’s fact.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

WillT said:


> I don't see it stated anywhere if it is true it seems like shady marketing to me. Source: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/canon-and-sony-aps-c-flagships-disappoint-buy-the-fuji-x-t30-instead/


That’s not the best source. Canon don’t send him review samples so anything from Canon he hates.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Where does Canon state that it does that?


That’s an opinion on the 


bbb34 said:


> You might be right about the site in general, but this article seems plausible, and his four bullets of facts are verifiable.



He hates canon because they don’t send him review samples. It may well turn out to be right but I’d wait for peta pixels or fstoopers or literally any other website to confirm before taking his opinion as fact.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

WillT said:


> I don't see it stated anywhere if it is true it seems like shady marketing to me. Source: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/canon-and-sony-aps-c-flagships-disappoint-buy-the-fuji-x-t30-instead/



If it’s true it’s still common practice. The Ari Alexa is a much more expense Hollywood camera and shoots 2.8k upscaling to 4K. The majority of 4K movies available today are upscaled from 2k. Also I believe 70D and 80D upscale to get to 1080 so it’s not unheard of. Not defending the practice of labelling things as 4K when they aren’t, I’m just saying it wouldn’t be surprising as seems to be an industry wide practice.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

Scenes said:


> Not defending the practice of labelling things as 4K when they aren’t, I’m just saying it wouldn’t be surprising as seems to be an industry wide practice.


Except that Arri is very clear that's what you're buying. They clearly list in the specs that their 4K UHD mode uses 3200x1800 photosites.

Canon just puts a "*through image processing" in the fine print after their "4K" hoping people don't notice.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2019)

I don't think Canon did this to make people buy the higher models, but they did it based on what they perceive that market segment to use most. 
In other words (well, my words), if someone is so serious about video that not having 24p in the 90D makes them change systems and spit bile, then they would not be using the 90D for video anyway, especially as the only real complaint seems to be doing serious video editing across platforms.
Canon explained long ago that their research shows most people take video to supplement their stills and to post content on social media. NOT to make award winning documentaries. 

So looked at from that POV, it bemuses me why people are getting so worked up about all this.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 30, 2019)

SonySucks said:


> > neuroanatomist said:
> > But Don, without p24 how will all the aspiring cinematic geniuses ever have a hope their footage will be shown at Cannes or Sundance?
> 
> 
> ...



He's the worst part about CR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Scenes said:


> If it’s true it’s still common practice.


There are lots of misleading specs out there. I see one whenever I look at the top right corner of my iPhone.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2019)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> He's the worst part about CR.


Don't hate him because he's smart. Just study harder.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are lots of misleading specs out there. I see one whenever I look at the top right corner of my iPhone.


5G.... how quaint!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> He's the worst part about CR.


That's a common perception among CR members who don't like having their baseless assumptions challenged or for whom facts and data are anathema.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Except that Arri is very clear that's what you're buying. They clearly list in the specs that their 4K UHD mode uses 3200x1800 photosites.
> 
> Canon just puts a "*through image processing" in the fine print after their "4K" hoping people don't notice.


Fair point. But it still doesn’t say ‘upscaled’ on UHD 4K Blu-ray.

Honestly when I first read about it being upsampled I was like ‘ick’. But reading on these forums about 70D/80D also being upsampled to reach HD I never noticed and I just published my 360th video shot with them. lol.

The 90D crop mode must shoot ‘full’ 4K then and that’s why people commented on it having more detail in the hands on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Canon just puts a "*through image processing" in the fine print after their "4K" hoping people don't notice.


I suspect that most people don't notice, and of those who do, most don't care. Note that by 'most people' I mean actual buyers of cameras at this level, not people who complain about camera specs on this forum.


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2019)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> He's the worst part about CR.


Or the best, depends whom you ask.


----------



## thelebaron (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bigger is better. More is better. 24 is the lowest frame rate. It had to go.



Its fine not to understand another industry, but doubling down on a dumb uninformed take is just silly. Its one thing to criticize Canon for not including something such as ibis or [email protected], but 24fps is such an easy "gimme". Its like including an auto power off in the software, another tool in the toolbox that is easy to implement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

thelebaron said:


> Its fine not to understand another industry, but doubling down on a dumb uninformed take is just silly. Its one thing to criticize Canon for not including something such as ibis or [email protected], but 24fps is such an easy "gimme". Its like including an auto power off in the software, another tool in the toolbox that is easy to implement.


Just for you, I went back and added a <sarcasm> tag to my post. 

On topic, of course it's a 'gimme'. It was already on their models, and they removed it from the most recent ones. So why did they do that? Honestly, we can all speculate until the pigs fly over snowbanks in hell, but the salient points are that it's not a feature of these cameras, it was an intentional decision for which there was a reason, and that reason is fundamentally irrelevant. All we need to know is that the feature isn't there, and then we need to determine if that fact affects our purchasing decisions.

Despite that, people will continue to complain. That's the internet for you.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 30, 2019)

I'm not sure posters here appreciate the kind of resources Canon has committed to developing it's cinema line. Obviously Canon has a different take on the importance of video than many posters here. I don't entirely understand their strategy but anyone who thinks video isn't important to Canon just isn't paying attention.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Aug 30, 2019)

Technically speaking, movie theaters do not display at 24fps. You would see the flicker. They display at 72fps or faster. As someone correctly mentioned in a previous comment, for a film shot in 24p, you see each of the 24 frames displayed on the screen three times in a row, for a total of 72 "flashes" on screen per second. This eliminates flicker to the human eye. If you took video of the movie screen and played it back in slow motion, you'd see each of the 24 frames displayed 3 individual times. Of course this doesn't change that there are still only 24 distinct "images" being displayed, but technically speaking, you're watching 72fps. Digital Projectors do something similar. You can see more here at the 3:45 minute marker:






If people want to film at 24fps to achieve a choppier look that's fine. As many have stated, 24p was chosen for cost reasons, not for any benefit in the "look" of the movie. We're all used to it now and it remains the standard. That doesn't mean it's the "best".

Shutter angle has no significant relevance in today's digital world with consumer cameras like these. We set the shutter speed. 24p has nice motion blur in each frame when shot around 48fps or 50fps. You can set whatever shutter speed you want in your camera, it doesn't have to be twice the fps to match the old (and irrelevant for these cameras) shutter angle rule. 1/60th of a second shutter speed has about the same motion blur as 24p with a 180 degree shutter angle. I shoot video on my M6 at 60fps with a 1/60th second shutter speed, wide open aperture with a 8-stop ND filter (for sunny days to shoot wide open) on a tiny Zhiyun Crane M2 gimbal and the results are spectacular. It's the smoothest video you are going to get out of these cameras. You get the same motion blur in each frame as 24p with more than double the number of individual images per second. Again, if someone wants to choose to film in a choppier manner by using 24p, by all means go ahead. There's nothing wrong with that, or with wanting to shoot 24p to maintain similar frame rate with other cameras or people you're collaborating with.

We're also all commenting on an article specifically about the fact that these cameras don't offer 24p. So that's the audience for this discussion. The vast majority of the target customer for this camera don't care about 24p. They want the smoothest, highest quality video of their kids and pets, and they'll get that with 60fps at 1/60th shutter speed.

I have no idea why Canon would have removed 24p from the M6 II since the Mark I had it. Personally I think it wasn't a smart decision, even though I don't use it. But I'm sure they aware that a majority of the customers who buy that camera don't really care that much, and whatever sales of the M6 they lose they consider insignificant. Maybe some of those people will go ahead and buy the more up-market Canon's, maybe some will switch brands. But either way, they've thought it through.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> have no idea why Canon would have removed 24p from the M6 II since the Mark I had it. Personally I think it wasn't a smart decision, even though I don't use it. But I'm sure they aware that a majority of the customers who buy that camera don't really care that much, and whatever sales of the M6 they lose they consider insignificant. Maybe some of those people will go ahead and buy the more up-market Canon's, maybe some will switch brands. But either way, they've thought it through.


^^This


----------



## thelebaron (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Just for you, I went back and added a <sarcasm> tag to my post.
> 
> On topic, of course it's a 'gimme'. It was already on their models, and they removed it from the most recent ones. So why did they do that? Honestly, we can all speculate until the pigs fly over snowbanks in hell, but the salient points are that it's not a feature of these cameras, it was an intentional decision for which there was a reason, and that reason is fundamentally irrelevant. All we need to know is that the feature isn't there, and then we need to determine if that fact affects our purchasing decisions.
> 
> Despite that, people will continue to complain. That's the internet for you.



Well now I feel silly, Iactually that that was a serious post


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2019)

Like I said, if Ya want 24p... here’s Canon’s answer. The EOS R. Putting her to work this afternoon


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 30, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Technically speaking, movie theaters do not display at 24fps. You would see the flicker.  They display at 72fps or faster. As someone correctly mentioned in a previous comment, for a film shot in 24p, you see each of the 24 frames displayed on the screen three times in a row, for a total of 72 "flashes" on screen per second. This eliminates flicker to the human eye. If you took video of the movie screen and played it back in slow motion, you'd see each of the 24 frames displayed 3 individual times. Of course this doesn't change that there are still only 24 distinct "images" being displayed, but technically speaking, you're watching 72fps. Digital Projectors do something similar. You can see more here at the 3:45 minute marker:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must have missed the spec where the M6II can shoot 4K60P.  As far as I know it's only "4K" 24P that's missing.

Open shutter can have an interesting look but I'm not sure it replaces 24P in a meaningful way and you generate a lot more data for editing.


----------



## cpreston (Aug 30, 2019)

WillT said:


> I don't see it stated anywhere if it is true it seems like shady marketing to me. Source: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/canon-and-sony-aps-c-flagships-disappoint-buy-the-fuji-x-t30-instead/


I just looked at Andrew's post on EOSHD and I think I know what he is trying to say. The 90d/M6 are not supersampling their 4K to get a higher detail 4K image. They are just pixel binning or line skipping a sample of 3840x2160 photosites to get a 4K image. The resulting perceived resolution is less than the actual resolution of the video file. It has been Canon's practice to do this with its 4K and 1080p DSLR video since the beginning. As far as I know, the only Canon DSLR's that don't do this are the 1DC in S35 mode and the EOS-R in it's cropped 1080p mode. This isn't shady marketing, it's just standard Canon engineering.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Like I said, if Ya want 24p... here’s Canon’s answer. The EOS R. Putting her to work this afternoon


And when the replacement to the R has it removed?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> And when the replacement to the R has it removed?


Since you can’t even seem to provide facts to back up your claims about the current state of affairs, I’d recommend that you avoid making claims about the future.


----------



## Sergio Smorovoz (Aug 30, 2019)

OMG! Photographers quarreled with filmmakers! 
The Canon M6 has now become a photo camera than a movie camera. But now with 4K DPAF.
This is magical for my vlog video!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

The 90D and M62 are fine still cameras with good amateur video capabilities. I'm sure they will sell well. Or as well as they can in this shrinking market. But the lack of 24p and the upscaled video* are going to send a number of buyers to other cameras. Some of those people will go ahead and buy a 5D4 or an R. Others will simply buy from another brand. Canon marketing apparently thinks the risk is worth it, that up sells to Canon equipment will out weigh losses to the competition. But I have my doubts.

The commenters here who are defending Canon's decision keep saying...directly or through sarcasm...that the target market does not need 24p. But that's an overly simplistic view of potential buyers. As but one example: if the 90D had oversampled 4k and 24p it would be my cinema/backup camera, compatible with all of my EF glass and offering extended reach and frame rate in wildlife and sports scenarios. I'm not the expected 'target market' yet I could still be a potential sale. But with hobbled video it becomes a no sale. I've been waiting a while for Canon to offer a hybrid to fill that empty spot in my bag. It looks like that spot will go to an X-T3.

There are many other examples. The vlogger who wants excellent 4k 24p. The film student on a budget who wants the same. The serious amateur or pro who wants to mix cameras to the same timeline. The guy buying a B camera to his "real" cinema camera. That's real money Canon is throwing away.

Now I'm not "abandoning Canon" nor do I think they are *********. I've said repeatedly that I think 5Ds IQ is phenomenal, and I have nothing but glowing words to say about my L lenses. Add to that great AF, great IS, gorgeous color science, and best in field ergonomics. (And weather sealing. Let's not forget weather sealing _cough_ Sony.) My stills kit overhaul was intended to satisfy me for years, and I could happily shoot that equipment for the next decade.

But some people will look at their budgets and their existing gear and decide "...if brand X can do everything I want and Canon won't even give me simple features, why not jump?" Those can be quite expensive losses to Canon. We keep talking about their marketshare but their profitability suggests they're shoring up marketshare through entry level sales. They also need prosumer and pro users who keep buying upper tier bodies and lenses over the long haul. That includes social media influencers: vloggers that some deride as 'the next Spielberg' or just some 'YouTube talking head.' Make fun of them all you want, but they drive sales. The last thing you want is some YouTuber making fun of your 90D with an animated 'cripple hammer' swinging around the screen. No, you want guys like JP and Tony to be screaming "OMG I can't believe Canon did it YOU WANT THIS CAMERA!"

As for up selling to the R: that strategy might have worked on me if the R was FF oversampled 4k. Or at least a relatively mild 6k crop out of the sensor to 4k. But with its severe crop it feels like yet another compromise, like Canon is trying to up sell me again. Trouble is, for stills/cinema hybrid they don't have anything left to up sell me to. But the competition does. I would have really, really loved to maintain a Canon only kit for the lens compatibility and ergonomics. But Canon seems bent on preventing me from doing that.

* The rumor here is likely correct. For full width readout Canon is either oversampling, binning, or line skipping. If they were oversampling then full width 4k would be better than crop. Hell, they might not even include the crop mode. Someone probably grabbed a frame from a sample video and figured out the actual recording resolution. This is worrying because it suggests that even with a new sensor, Canon still can't do oversampled 4k. Hybrid stills/video is only going to become more important as time moves on. They need to solve this.


----------



## WillT (Aug 30, 2019)

cpreston said:


> They are just pixel binning or line skipping a sample of 3840x2160 photosites to get a 4K image.



I don't think that is what he is saying



> and if that isn’t bad enough, it’s not even pixel binning at 3840 x 2160 resolution... The actual resolution is closer to 2.8K and then upsampled.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 30, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I don't think Canon did this to make people buy the higher models, but they did it based on what they perceive that market segment to use most.
> In other words (well, my words), if someone is so serious about video that not having 24p in the 90D makes them change systems and spit bile, then they would not be using the 90D for video anyway, especially as the only real complaint seems to be doing serious video editing across platforms.
> Canon explained long ago that their research shows most people take video to supplement their stills and to post content on social media. NOT to make award winning documentaries.
> 
> So looked at from that POV, it bemuses me why people are getting so worked up about all this.



Well, I'm not worked up about it because I gave up on Canon producing stills/video hybrid bodies with great quality video long ago. 

However (and although all this talk about licensing fees and cost of 24p is all very interesting), common sense tells us this is just another way Canon will continue to segment their stills bodies, leaving 24p to the higher end models since they would like people who are into film and video to spend more money to purchase these. 

Nothing wrong with a company trying their hardest to make money for shareholders by differentiating their product lines, but this is why working, low-budget filmmakers who purchase stills bodies are all using Sony models now like the A7sII (soon to be A7sIII) and A7III, A7R, etc. Panasonic is also huge but I see those being used less on set. It's clear Canon is content to sell lenses to this crowd (many of whom still adapt) and has no interest in fueling it with serious video in their lower-end stills cams. I'm plenty happy with my Fuji X-T3 and still have my Canon lenses for more serious work when I need to rent a RED.

By the way, plenty of Canon stills cameras were used as B cameras and sometimes main cameras on award-winning documentaries and other productions, but I think this will be less and less as time goes on. No, Canon's not *******, but they're certainly not following their own motto "Imagine the Impossible" with regards the video features on their stills bodies. It's too bad, because without 24p, younger people starting out with Canon for stills won't discover the magic of that frame rate, which is the basis for most of the history of cinema. And filmmakers just starting out will certainly continue to gravitate to Sony (or other) bodies and get into other camera ecosystems. 

So, overall, not the smartest move by Canon except for the money and product segmentation which is a safe, yet predictable and uninspiring choice. This certainly won't win them any new friends or build a new halo around their brand.


----------



## Sergio Smorovoz (Aug 30, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> It looks like that spot will go to an X-T3.



Fuji knows how to 4K DPAF?


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since you can’t even seem to provide facts to back up your claims about the current state of affairs, I’d recommend that you avoid making claims about the future.


*hump* *hump* *hump*


----------



## cpreston (Aug 30, 2019)

WillT said:


> I don't think that is what he is saying


No, that is what he is actually intending to say. During the debayering process, you lose about 75% of the detail in the maximum resolution so a 3840p resolution drops to about 2.8k of resolving detail. Knowing Canon, they probably resorted to line skipping rather than pixel binning which is why he made the pixel binning comment. In any case, nothing Andrew Reid writes should be taken seriously as information.


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> *hump* *hump* *hump*


WTF?


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

slclick said:


> WTF?


He follows me around like a lost puppy trying to hump my leg all the time. I'm pretty sure he's infatuated with me.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> He follows me around like a lost puppy trying to hump my leg all the time. I'm pretty sure he's infatuated with me.


Don’t be so full of yourself. His omnipresence on this board finds ALL who criticize Canon or disagree with him. No one is safe.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Because there's a reasonably working Magic Lantern version for the 70D? Oh wait, no...
> 
> If they're still messing with getting a reasonably polished version for a 6 year old model, I wouldn't be banking on Magic Lantern to turn the 90D into the Video powerhouse Canon wouldn't anytime soon if at all.


That's why we all keep our 60D's rolling


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> *hump* *hump* *hump*


Evidently your petulance knows no bounds. Pathetic.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Aug 30, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I must have missed the spec where the M6II can shoot 4K60P.



Good point! If I upgraded my M6 I would have been sorely disappointed when I went to shoot in 60p in 4k!  I much prefer to shoot in 60fps over all other frame rates.



Graphic.Artifacts said:


> As far as I know it's only "4K" 24P that's missing.



According to the spec sheet, they *removed* 24p even from regular HD 1920 x 1080. That's what I found so strange... they literally removed something that was already there. Even though I didn't use it, I think it was a bad idea to remove it.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 30, 2019)

Scenes said:


> That’s not the best source. Canon don’t send him review samples so anything from Canon he hates.


Not the only one on the web. If Canon would go bankrupt or stop their camera business, those guys would lose all of their meaning in life. The only way out of this psychic black hole would be to hold such a Mamiya pistol camera at their own heads and pull the trigger.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 30, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Good point! If I upgraded my M6 I would have been sorely disappointed when I went to shoot in 60p in 4k!  I much prefer to shoot in 60fps over all other frame rates.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the spec sheet, they *removed* 24p even from regular HD 1920 x 1080. That's what I found so strange... they literally removed something that was already there. Even though I didn't use it, I think it was a bad idea to remove it.



My bad. Sorry I didn't realize it was 1080P as well. Thanks for the tip though. I think I will experiment with 60p at 1/60th at bit more. 60p 120 can look a bit overbaked.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Don’t be so full of yourself. His omnipresence on this board finds ALL who criticize Canon or disagree with him. No one is safe.


I’m all for criticism of Canon or disagreement with me that’s based on facts and logic. I’ve delivered some criticism of Canon myself, occasionally here, but mostly where it can actually make a difference, i.e. directly to Canon. When people provide facts showing I’m wrong, I acknowledge it and appreciate learning something. When people bring claims they pull out of their ass, I will try to set the record straight.

For example, Mr. Humper claimed Canon’s Cinema EOS sales are dropping off a cliff. I asked for his source of that information, since I’ve never seen Canon publicize sales data at that granular a level. He has not answered. Big shock.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Aug 30, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> My bad. Sorry I didn't realize it was 1080P as well. Thanks for the tip though. I think I will experiment with 60p at 1/60th at bit more. 60p 120 can look a bit overbaked.



All good, I'm glad you mentioned about the 60p on the Mark II. 

Yeah I love the look of 60fps at 1/60th on my M6 . It's much better than anything over 1/100th+ second. So much so that it was worth me shelling out a few bucks for an ND filter to make sure I could shoot at 1/60th even in the brightest sunlight.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

Sergio Smorovoz said:


> Fuji knows how to 4K DPAF?



Fuji's video AF is good in its own right, and their footage is spectacular. You could literally do a Hollywood big budget movie on X-T3's.


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> He follows me around like a lost puppy trying to hump my leg all the time. I'm pretty sure he's infatuated with me.


So you post abstract things only your mind can comprehend? Didn't Grandma tell you to keep those things inside?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 30, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Fuji's video AF is good in its own right, and their footage is spectacular. You could literally do a Hollywood big budget movie on X-T3's.


No disrepect to the X-T3 which is a great camera but there is something pretty amazing about the way DPAF pulls a focus transition between two subjects that I can't get with Fuji AF. Fuji's manual focus tools are much better than Canon's so I can usually get something using MF but it's not quite the same. Tracking a subject with AF is easier with the Fuji's in my experience.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Here's a video with 24p and 60p footage shown side by side. Do you prefer 60p?



I like the smoothness of the one I assume is 60p (on the right?). The left hand one is more juddery.



navastronia said:


> I'm astounded by the arrogant photographers in this thread trying to tell video makers what they need and don't need.
> 
> Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?



I don't have a dog in this fight, but why does every camera need every option? I get why it would piss some people off, but why not just take the attitude, clearly these models aren't aimed at me?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

Three fact remain inarguable. 

1): They had a working 24P.

2): It will cost them nothing extra in licensing to have kept it.

3): They removed it.

Everything from this point on is supposition!

Obviously, they must have a reason to do so. Since they want to maintain sales, they must have figured that to the vast bulk of buyers, that the presence of this feature does not matter. Why they did so is anyone’s guess. It could have been to free up space on the Bios to put in a higher frame rate codec. It might be to keep menu entries to a particular level. It could have something to do with a new sensor. It could be darn near anything.......

What is done is done. No amount of internet noise is going to change things. If you are upset with Canon, then DO NOT BUY THE CAMERA! Sales numbers is what they will pay attention to. If it does not sell, then perhaps they will release an update with the p24 codec in it. 

Since the vast majority of users will be using p60, and p120 on those rare occasions that they shoot video ( it is a mid to low level STILLS camera), a p24 update is not a very likely scenario. 

On a personal level, I will get the M6 II. Even if it had p24, I would have never used it.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Evidently your petulance knows no bounds. Pathetic.


It's crazy how the moderator uses the exact same language and phrasing as you... That would explain quite a bit...


----------



## Etienne (Aug 30, 2019)

KrisK said:


> But why wouldn't an aspiring filmmaker want those higher end products, anyway? The cost diff. between these crop cameras and something like a grey-market R aren't that great, and you get features that, IMHO, are a lot more important to a filmmaker (such as built-in C-Log.)


Filmmakers typically have several cameras and an awful lot of shots are 0.5 - 2 seconds. These shots are grabbed from dangerous, risky, camera-destroying locations at times, and sticking a $ 4 - 10,000 camera-lens combination in every location is prohibitive. Even big budget Hollywood films use the lowly GoPro, which has 24p. Canon is being excessively stingy and stupid with these pathetic restrictions at this point in video capture history.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> It's crazy how the moderator uses the exact same language and phrasing as you... That would explain quite a bit...


Crap! Neuro, he’s on to you! Better be careful or he will find out that you are also Mt Spokane, unfocused, click, myself, and Harry Film!


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Filmmakers typically have several cameras and an awful lot of shots are 0.5 - 2 seconds. These shots are grabbed from dangerous, risky, camera-destroying locations at times, and sticking a $ 4 - 10,000 camera-lens combination in every location is prohibitive. Even big budget Hollywood films use the lowly GoPro, which has 24p. Canon is being excessively stingy and stupid with these pathetic restrictions at this point in video capture history.


Been waiting for someone to bring up this fact. 

I contract work with another guy who does weddings, commercial, and corporate events photo and video. We typically have 6-8 bodies with us all day depending on the crew. Many of us have our own businesses as well so expecting him to have 3-5 “video cameras” at $5k-$10k a piece, lenses, lighting, audio, stands, tripods, etc, and a whole kit for stills would be crazy at the competitions price points. 

It’s nice when we can all bring our bodies that can be used for stills and video and have access to the same features as one another. Not nice when Canon starts crippling their gear. For example, my RP and RF 35 is great for gimbal work.... not great when it doesn’t have 24p and all the other cameras have to work around this. 

Sony guys are running around hand holding their cheap bodies and delivering good footage at higher resolution than Canon and charging low prices....it’s hard not to be salty about stuff like this when you’re so invested into Canon already. 

I can tell from a lot of the criticisms against video makers that many in here are hobbyists and simply can’t relate to or empathize with full time pros. 

They also obviously have the time on their hands to debate topics not relevant to them either. Sad.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 30, 2019)

A lot of the 24p vs HFR issue is strictly personal prefference which is why it always spins out of control like this.

If you think spending 12 straight hours playing Fortnite on a 240 Hz monitor sounds like a slice of heaven you might like HFR better. If that sounds like the 7th level of Hell you're probably going to be happier with 24P.

There's no right or wrong answer for everyone. Both have their place. 24 fps might not look sharp to someone who can visually process a lot of information. 48 FPS or higher can cause others significant visual discomfort.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 30, 2019)

Scenes said:


> That’s an opinion on the
> 
> 
> He hates canon because they don’t send him review samples. It may well turn out to be right but I’d wait for peta pixels or fstoopers or literally any other website to confirm before taking his opinion as fact.



You can choose to dislike him for not liking his opinions, but assuming he has a bias only because he doesn't get a review unit from Canon is just silly.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Been waiting for someone to bring up this fact.
> 
> I contract work with another guy who does weddings, commercial, and corporate events photo and video. We typically have 6-8 bodies with us all day depending on the crew. Many of us have our own businesses as well so expecting him to have 3-5 “video cameras” at $5k-$10k a piece, lenses, lighting, audio, stands, tripods, etc, and a whole kit for stills would be crazy at the competitions price points.
> 
> ...


I would also add that it’s not just 24p. A lot of video guys are pissed that Canon is behind by almost 3 years. They want to stay with Canon, they like the gear, the eco system, they’re invested. 

But when Canon is behind AND they start dicking around with common features and crippling their gear, that’s a little too far for a lot of them. 

Personally, I don’t mind waiting. Video isn’t my full time gig, stills are my thing. But the more our business grows, the more video we’re doing so I get it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> It's crazy how the moderator uses the exact same language and phrasing as you... That would explain quite a bit...


Lol, nice conspiracy theory. Has it occurred to you that your petulance is simply obvious to everyone? If I was moderating your posts, I’d have just banned you and been done with it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> No disrepect to the X-T3 which is a great camera but there is something pretty amazing about the way DPAF pulls a focus transition between two subjects that I can't get with Fuji AF. Fuji's manual focus tools are much better than Canon's so I can usually get something using MF but it's not quite the same. Tracking a subject with AF is easier with the Fuji's in my experience.



I would agree. But it doesn't out weigh the other factors.

DPAF's superiority for video only makes this hurt more. It seems so simple but DPAF + flip out screen + Canon skin tones makes cameras like the 80D and 90D perfect for vlogging, Instagram, etc. But that just brings us back around to: why would Canon annoy this market by leaving out 24p? It doesn't matter if you think other frame rates are soap operas or if you think 24p is trash because of The Hobbit. The market demands it and it's a software feature. Put it in the #@!$ camera and make the sale.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Crap! Neuro, he’s on to you! Better be careful or he will find out that you are also Mt Spokane, unfocused, click, myself, *and Harry Film!*


You offend me, Sir.


----------



## Otara (Aug 31, 2019)

I get the impression that theres a group out there that wants a DPAF APS-C GH5 from Canon or thereabouts.

And for whatever reason thats just not what Canon is going to release. It must be frustrating.


----------



## cpreston (Aug 31, 2019)

Otara said:


> I get the impression that theres a group out there that wants a DPAF APS-C GH5 from Canon or thereabouts.
> 
> And for whatever reason thats just not what Canon is going to release. It must be frustrating.


No, what they wanted was the S1H, which has just been announced. Admittedly, if it was Canon they would be complaining that at was $1000 overpriced, but the S1H is the camera that DSLR video enthusiasts have been demanding.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 31, 2019)

cpreston said:


> No, what they wanted was the S1H, which has just been announced. Admittedly, if it was Canon they would be complaining that at was $1000 overpriced, but the S1H is the camera that DSLR video enthusiasts have been demanding.


Absolutely. My friend I contract with is eyeing this camera up. He needs 3 bodies and thinking of jumping ship for this right now.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 31, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I'm astounded by the arrogant photographers in this thread trying to tell video makers what they need and don't need.
> 
> Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?


that's right, because every stills camera will be used to shoot the next hollywood blockbuster.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> You can choose to dislike him for not liking his opinions, but assuming he has a bias only because he doesn't get a review unit from Canon is just silly.



I’m not assuming a bias. He literally wrote a long rambling post saying just that a year or two ago. At the same time he also picked very public fights with every major camera website for being ‘shills’. 

I wouldn’t take his opinion on the weather let alone a camera purchase.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Harry is back!



---

I never went away !!!!   

I'm just being a ghost right now but I AM STANDING RIGHT BESIDE you EVERYWHERE AND ANYWHERE !!!!

...


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I wouldn’t say any article from that site is the final word on anything. He’s a very angry individual, like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
> 
> He banned me from the site around the 80D launch when I pointed out that publishing his forum users real names and details to make fun of those who disagreed with him was not only in bad taste but also in breach of GPDR data rules.



--

ALL DOT COM sites are by definition managed by the USA (i.e. part of the Verisign and ICANN .COM web domain management contract) and thus DO NOT FALL under the rules of the GPDR if their servers are in the USA or Canada. the GPDR HAS NO LEGAL FORCE in these countries! and NO U.S. or Canadian judge will enforce ANY GDPR privacy or extradition order against a U.S./Canada based website and/or its principals over GDPR rules!

Sooooo, the website operator ABSOLUTELY CAN reveal whoever or whatever they see fit since the U.S. Constitution's FIRST AMENDMENT rules of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press apply here and GDPR DOES NOT APPLY in the USA or Canada! 

And since I know MORE than a few U.S. and Canadian lawyers (and even a few Judges!) with SPECIFIC EXPERTISE in this, I think I will defer to THEIR actual and very real legal-world knowledge and precedent-setting court rulings!

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> I get that. However, this is a situation where video features are being added to a photography based camera. So we come full circle to the argument of how there are true video based bodies yet budgetary concerns keep them out of your hands and then the hybrids are being decried as basically criminal since they don't do video justice. This is why we get the Porsche/Hyundai analogy.
> 
> But hey, Blackmagic has your camera, takes your EF lenses and doesn't break the bank. Head on over there and Namaste.



YES! YES !!! and TRIPLE YES !!!!

Of all the recent cameras introduced so far as of August 2019, the Blackmagic 6K BMPCC system is the BEST of the lot with regards to supporting ALL the latest frames rates and compression ratios. AND its actual CMOS imager has soooooooo many colour science improvements that it is TRULY NOW A SERIOUS COMPETITOR to the Sony A7s2/A9/R4, Nikon D5/D850/Z6/Z7 and the Canon 5Dmk4/1DMk2 series of DSLR/Mirrorless small form factor cameras! Price-wise versus its total feature set and adding in its actual image quality NOW makes the 6K BMPCC the SUPERIOR camera to all other small form factor systems and SHOULD be in your Top-3 choices if you are seriously in the market for a new video-centric camera!

With the appropriate lighting and resolution setting, you can even use RAW VIDEO or 4:2:2 formats on the 6K BMPCC as an 18 megapixel 24 fps to 60 fps burst-rate stills camera! What's not to like about that for your action/wildlife/sports stills imagery?! Do remember to BUY the Sharpest set of Sigma Art Series or Canon prime lenses (i.e. 16mm 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 200mm) you can afford! Buy the lenses USED if you have to but GET either the Sigma Art Series or the Canon L-series glass for the 6K BMPCC system!

.
You just cannot beat the price vs feature set when you consider the 6K BMPCC !!!!
.


----------



## slclick (Aug 31, 2019)

Great, now I'm in league with the devil.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> You just cannot beat the price vs feature set when you consider the 6K BMPCC !!!!



It looks like a great camera, sure. Except I can’t use it to make money. I shoot fashion shows with people walking back and forth toward the camera. I need reliable auto focus. It also comes in handy for documentary style footage. And if that wasn’t an issue, shoring in 6K at those bitrates would eat into profits I make in hard drive space alone. Not to mention to the extra turnaround time in editing required to grade raw footage.

Not every camera is ideal for every situation.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> --
> 
> ALL DOT COM sites are by definition managed by the USA (i.e. part of the Verisign and ICANN .COM web domain management contract) and thus DO NOT FALL under the rules of the GPDR if their servers are in the USA or Canada. the GPDR HAS NO LEGAL FORCE in these countries! and NO U.S. or Canadian judge will enforce ANY GDPR privacy or extradition order against a U.S./Canada based website and/or its principals over GDPR rules!
> 
> ...



Not sure what that has to do with 4K on a 90D? I’m pleased you know so many lawyers. I wonder why so many US sites remain inaccessible to Europe or serve different versions of sites Here because of GPDR rules.? I”m genuinely curious? 

In any case, it doesn’t change the fact it’s in bad taste to reveal someone’s private information to make fun of their actual name.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2019)

Steven Spielberg bribed Canon to cut off competition.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The 90D and M62 are fine still cameras with good amateur video capabilities. I'm sure they will sell well. Or as well as they can in this shrinking market. But the lack of 24p and the upscaled video* are going to send a number of buyers to other cameras. Some of those people will go ahead and buy a 5D4 or an R. Others will simply buy from another brand. Canon marketing apparently thinks the risk is worth it, that up sells to Canon equipment will out weigh losses to the competition. But I have my doubts.
> 
> The commenters here who are defending Canon's decision keep saying...directly or through sarcasm...that the target market does not need 24p. But that's an overly simplistic view of potential buyers. As but one example: if the 90D had oversampled 4k and 24p it would be my cinema/backup camera, compatible with all of my EF glass and offering extended reach and frame rate in wildlife and sports scenarios. I'm not the expected 'target market' yet I could still be a potential sale. But with hobbled video it becomes a no sale. I've been waiting a while for Canon to offer a hybrid to fill that empty spot in my bag. It looks like that spot will go to an X-T3.
> 
> ...




---

"....Canon still can't do oversampled 4k. Hybrid stills/video is only going to become more important as time moves on. They need to solve this..."

The M5-series and 5Dmk4/1Dx-series hardware is FULLY Capable of oversampled 4K ....BUT.... since Canon don't have DECADES of VIDEO CODEC design and coding expertise, they're doing waaaaaay too much real-number and general math computation on their DIGIC cpu cores and NOT using all the built-in ARM Cortex A4/M4 integer math and lookup tables capability that would reduce computation time and the high heat production caused by excessive math computation on a processor designed more for low-end semi-smart phones than what SHOULD be in any video camera (i.e. you SHOULD have at least a Qualcomm Snapdragon 835/845/855 or AMD Ryzen 2300u/2700u cpu!)

.
On ANY camera that is over $1000 U.S., Canon SHOULD BE spending from $50 to $160 for the older Snapdragon 835/845/855 or AMD Ryzen 2300u/2700u cpus which would put ALL the Canon DIGIC cpus to shame AND those better CPUs would have faaaaar superior video frame processing power for 4K/6K and even 8K 60 fps video or stills recording at up-to-16-bits 4:2:2 AND 4:4:4 colour sampling!
.
Canon just needs to bite on the sour apple and BUY Snapdragon or AMD cpus for their cameras! Put in a BIGGER battery to power those faster cpus if you need to! Add a big heatsink or even active liquid cooling to controlheat production. People WANT 4k/6k/8k 60 fps video AND Stills Burst rates --- Sooooooo....GIVE IT TO THEM by putting in a BETTER cpu !!!!!!!!

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> Not sure what that has to do with 4K on a 90D? I’m pleased you know so many lawyers. I wonder why so many US sites remain inaccessible to Europe or serve different versions of sites Here because of GPDR rules.? I”m genuinely curious?
> 
> In any case, it doesn’t change the fact it’s in bad taste to reveal someone’s private information to make fun of their actual name.



---

MANY U.S./Canadian websites defer to GDPR rules for simple monetary and general political reasons ...BUT.... they legally DO NOT HAVE TO !!!!! Again, NO U.S. or Canadian Judge will sign an extradition order or apply ANY legal sanction to a U.S./Canada-based website with a .COM name and servers based in these two countries because of a GDPR rule! And, if you want access to U.S./canada websites while in Europe, just use a VPN with an IP spoofer and you are all set for surfing those sites without restriction! 

I should note HOWEVER, if your base of operations or servers IS in a European country and/or you SPECIFICALLY, by ongoing custom or by actual corporate directive, target European website users, THEN GDPR DOES APPLY on an absolute legal basis !!!

.

P.S. 2700+ hours of combined Canadian and U.S. legal deposition observation experience here.... Ya tend to learn A LOT about multi-country legal systems and the results of actual precedent-setting court rulings in such an environment!

.


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> Great, now I'm in league with the devil.



He gets a bad rep.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Crap! Neuro, he’s on to you! Better be careful or he will find out that you are also Mt Spokane, unfocused, click, myself, and Harry Film!



---

"..... and Harry Film! ...."

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ,,,,,,,,,, !!!!!!

HarryFilm (me!) is a logical entity entirely unto himself with NOOOOOOOOOOO affiliation to Neuro, Mt Spokane, unfocused, click or yourself....

I do however have another attribute which would/should UTTERLY SHOCK YOU !!!!!

---- I ----- AM ------ CANADIAN ------ !!!!!!

...


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> It looks like a great camera, sure. Except I can’t use it to make money. I shoot fashion shows with people walking back and forth toward the camera. I need reliable auto focus. It also comes in handy for documentary style footage. And if that wasn’t an issue, shoring in 6K at those bitrates would eat into profits I make in hard drive space alone. Not to mention to the extra turnaround time in editing required to grade raw footage.
> 
> Not every camera is ideal for every situation.




Then you need the Nikon D850, Nikon D5, Canon 5Dmk4, Canon 1Dxmk2 or Sony A9 for Fashion Shows .... OR .... as a reasonably priced HIGH PERFORMANCE/RUGGED alternative, I would also suggest the Olympus OM-D E-M1X which has Canon 1Dx2 weather sealing and ruggedness for half the price! I know it has a smaller sensor (i.e. an M4/3 imager) and wider area of sharpness (i.e. less Bokeh), but for fashion shows that might actually be an advantage since you can zoom into anywhere you want for maximum sharpness corner to corner!





__





OM SYSTEM OM-D E-M1X Mirrorless Digital Camera | Olympus Cameras, Audio & Binoculars


OM SYSTEM E-M1X compact mirrorless digital camera features 50MP handheld shots, 60fps, GPS, Bluetooth, dual AF w/ AI & stabilization for landscape & wildlife photography. Weathersealed performance & innovation tech.




www.getolympus.com





.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2019)

Ramage said:


> Look at Motorola (yeah they used to make Phones) just passed 180USD a share and they have not made a phone in years.


They were known for making radios, originally car radios, hence the name, and later TVs. I used a RAZR phone for years.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Explanations are irrelevant. You might as well explain why the M6II and 90D are crippled by the lack of a FF sensor. These cameras don’t have p24. If you require p24, buy a different camera.


The M6II is crippled by not having a mirror or OVF. The 90D is crippled by lack of an EVF.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 31, 2019)

[QUOTE="navastronia, post: 790714,
Because professional videographers and filmmakers don't spend their time _arguing on forums - _
[/QUOTE]
I think this line is very important. You are right. PROFESSIONAL videographers and film makers don't spend their time arguing on forums. They make films on PROFESSIONAL gear. Those on here arguing about the lack of 24p on this gear are not PROFESSIONAL and will not make PROFESSIONAL content regardless of the frame rate they are shooting in. If it Is crap in 30p it will be crap in 24p.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> I should note HOWEVER, if your base of operations or servers IS in a European country and/or you SPECIFICALLY, by ongoing custom or by actual corporate directive, target European website users, THEN GDPR DOES APPLY on an absolute legal basis !!!.



So given that his base of operations is in Europe and his website is targeting European website users GDPR does apply?


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

Just reading the 90D Manual and one thing I’ve not seen mentioned anywhere is if you use SDXC cards with a 90D it formats them as exFat and the 4GB video clip limit is removed. Nice. That’s incredibly useful.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Technically speaking, movie theaters do not display at 24fps. You would see the flicker. They display at 72fps or faster. As someone correctly mentioned in a previous comment, for a film shot in 24p, you see each of the 24 frames displayed on the screen three times in a row, for a total of 72 "flashes" on screen per second. This eliminates flicker to the human eye.


Which, incidentally, is why 60hz is the frequency chosen for AC power in the USA. Otherwise, we would perceive the flicker of the lights turning on and off... which is what happens in AC circuits. I'm sure 50hz does the same for people elsewhere. Very thoughtful post. Thanks Travel_Photographer.


----------



## JBfromEngland (Aug 31, 2019)

Wasn't Canon one of the first manufacturers to bring 24p to the market with the 5D series? Since then it's been a staple in nearly all of their cameras, even the lower-end Rebel series.

It allowed small budget filmmakers to produce videos / short films that had the "Hollywood look" to them and it became the standard across the industry.

The main issue for me is that, my SL2 and 80D both have it and nearly all previous lower-end Canon cameras have included 24p for as long as I can remember, and now they've just started taking it away, forcing people to higher end models like the EOS R (which compared to other mirrorless cameras doesn't stack up yet). I do believe the upcoming models will though, given the new RF lenses.

It's frustrating considering they defintely were going to put it in the 90D as it was on the official spec sheet at launch. I read somewhere that someone officially asked Canon reps about 24p they said it was removed last minute. Not sure how true that is, obviously.

Anyway, those arguing about whether the camera is aimed at photographers or videographer is absurd. In an age where your smartphone can do everything, camera manufacturers need to be adding in more features to keep sales going and, businesses and media teams are requesting both stills and video from the same shooter more often.

Just put 24p back in the camera, Canon.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Crap! Neuro, he’s on to you! Better be careful or he will find out that you are also Mt Spokane, unfocused, click, myself, and Harry Film!


Remember, you read it here first!


----------



## Otara (Aug 31, 2019)

cpreston said:


> No, what they wanted was the S1H, which has just been announced. Admittedly, if it was Canon they would be complaining that at was $1000 overpriced, but the S1H is the camera that DSLR video enthusiasts have been demanding.



Thats another price point again I think. Does look pretty good though.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> So given that his base of operations is in Europe and his website is targeting European website users GDPR does apply?




EosHD is a Euro guy? I know CanonRumors is a Canadian guy living in or near Ontario's lake country but I always though EOSHD was from California but travelled everywhere. Anyways, if he IS Euro then GDPR DEFINITELY APPLIES !!!!

Again, MANY U.S. and Canadian websites defer to GDPR rules more for customer relations purposes rather than on an ABSOLUTE legal requirement but GDPR really is NOT legally applicable to websites based in the USA and Canada with a .COM or .CA domain name who do not primarily target European users. For example: FroKnowsPhoto aka Jared Polin is PRIMARILY targeting US users and has the FULL protection of the First Amendment under the U.S. Constitution (i.e. Free Speech and Freedom of the Press) to completely ignore the mandates of the GDPR -- NO U.S. Judge will assign or apply any court order to follow GDPR rules nor will said U.S. judge sign any extradition order sending Jared to a GDPR country for GDPR prosecution!

BUT ... Google.com and Microsoft.com and even Canon, having European subsidiaries, DO HAVE TO abide by GDPR rules since those sites have specific systems and applications targeting Euro-centric users! And ... European countries CAN apply actual legal sanctions to the heads of Google, Microsoft and Canon AND said U.S. judge WILL sign an extradition order and/or apply legal sanction to those U.S.-based or Japanese entities and its principals BECAUSE they also specifically target European users and have operating European subsidiaries!

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 31, 2019)

....AND.... All BlackMagic NEEDS to do now is licence some patented NIKON fast-focus technology for a measly ONE to THREE U.S. dollars per camera (which I think Nikon WOULD agree too!) to completely blow out any upcoming Canon or Sony low-to-mid-level Mirrorless/DSLR camera! A BlackMagic 6K BMPCC with Nikon D850 autofocus would just KILL the Canon M50 and even M5/M6 cameras. AND if BlackMagic WOULD make the 6K BMPCC IP-68 waterproof and weathersealed/ruggedized MOST users would spend an extra $100 to $150 US per camera to see that happen!

I personally think Nikon will EVENTUALLY BOW OUT of low-end camera production EXCEPT maybe for their ruggedized waterpoof point and shoots and focus ENTIRELY on the D6/Z6/Z7 and a mirrorless version of the D850 line. They WILL make money if they just focus on IP-68 waterproof point-and-shoots and the high end pro-series gear. There's ENOUGH people who DO NOT WANT to use a Canon 5D4/1Dx2 that Nikon will remain viable in the pro market with their current lens offerings!

.

Sony has BETTER GET ON with introducing the 2/3rds inch and APS-C sensor super-smartphones before Olympus comes crashing through first with their well-priced Micro-4/3rds sensor IP-68 waterproof 4K 60 fps 10-bit 4:4:4/4:2:2 video-recording super-smartphone! I LIKE their super-rugged E-M1X series SO MUCH that I'm actually rooting for them now to BE FIRST in the large-sensor IP-68 ruggedized super-smartphone race!

.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 31, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> 24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed. No more than a car MFG having to pay licenses for the speeds a car can go. More probable reason would be.. 24p gets choppy or jumpy when camera movement isn't smooth. Considering these 2 cameras were designed for the beginner or low level amateur whom probable owns less equipment. I believe they designed the camera to be successful with is user in mind.
> 
> 24p wasn't set as the standard because how wonderful it was.... simply because it was the slowest that still provided realistic movement on screen. In other words... the cheapest way to produce a film people would like to watch without walking out of the theater.
> 
> Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p. Additionally, the next two "Avatar" films are said to be filmed in higher frame rates as well.



It is nice to see a thinking person posting here.

I think Canon knows more about what the customers actually want and use than most posters here here including me does.

I suspect that this governs the feature list of any camera.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 31, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> You're probably right. But this doesn't work when the competition undercuts your plans.



It works very well if the people that care will add the feature through Magic Lantern which they will add anyway.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 31, 2019)

ajm said:


> Here's the real reason. I work in Hollywood on mostly indie to low budget films. Many are shot on Sony A7's, 5D's, 1DXMII, and Yes the Canon 80D...and in 24 fps. If the budget is a little bigger for a Canon C300MKII or C200 or Sony FS5 -7...etc....then they will use those. But many times the previous mentioned cameras will do the job, especially with an external recorder to get a better image and good lighting. Canon knows this and wants the films to be shot in a proper cine camera or if you still want to use a DSLR/Mirrorless camera you will have to buy the more expensive full frame (Canon) cameras for 24p filming. Not so with Sony APS-C cameras as they have 24p. Of course the Canon Rebel series has 24p...which are used also in very low or no budget films out here. The 90D would kill it out here for indie films if it had 24p. Oh well. I was going to order one, but most likely not now.



Not even remotely likely when we know that Magic Lantern most likely will provide the feature for those who care.

Canon knows this.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 31, 2019)

cpreston said:


> 30p in a 24p timeline looks terrible, It doesn't work. Luckily, 30p in a 30p and 24p in a 30p timeline looks just fine.
> 
> This whole argument about 24p in these cameras is ridiculous. If Canon added 24p back to these cameras, would anybody complaining here actually buy the camera to shoot video? No. Canon doesn't care about the DSLR video enthusiast market. They are marketing these cameras to people who don't pretend to know anything about video but might want to use the camera to try to capture their kid scoring a goal in video mode. These people don't need 23.98p, much less 24p. And they don't want to be going through a page full of options of video modes that they don't understand.



The intended buyer is probably clogging support departments at the dealers and Canon complaining about the 24p video quality and thinking that there is something wrong with the camera.

Easy fix : remove 24p

Enthusiast will most likely add that feature through Magic Lantern.

I would have preferred that the 24p mode could have been enabled in settings, but people might enable it and not know the consequences. And then complain to Canon.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 31, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Glad you pointed that out, Don - I was just about to post that I'm heartily sick of discussions about _cameras _being hijacked by habitually malcontent wannabe videographers...



Apparantly there are industry rumours that some vendors pays to have people spread propaganda in Canon discussion forums.

It is not hard to belive since all we see is the advantages of the opposition, and none of any down sides.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

tarjei99 said:


> Not even remotely likely when we know that Magic Lantern most likely will provide the feature for those who care.
> 
> Canon knows this.



I thought magic lantern wound down around the 70D time?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> Just reading the 90D Manual and one thing I’ve not seen mentioned anywhere is if you use SDXC cards with a 90D it formats them as exFat and the 4GB video clip limit is removed. Nice. That’s incredibly useful.


I know that is also true of my 6D2. There is a warning in the manual about how to transfer the files to your computer, but file size is not the limit on shooting. The 30-minute ceiling still applies.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> EosHD is a Euro guy?



Yes. Manchester, England. I recall one of his venomous rants specifically about a press call in Manchester ‘streets away’ that he wasn’t invited to.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I know that is also true of my 6D2. There is a warning in the manual about how to transfer the files to your computer, but file size is not the limit on shooting. The 30-minute ceiling still applies.



Yes. Same warming in the 90D manual. But great news not having to stitch together files especially at 4K bitrates.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 31, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> younger people starting out with Canon for stills won't discover the magic of that frame rate, which is the basis for most of the history of cinema.



And what is 'the magic' of that frame rate? Other than it is what people have got used to.
I used to hear the same when CD was released - some people in the early days claimed to be able to hear the 'gaps between the digital bits' when all it was was that people were used to the distortions in vinyl. Now people have rapidly got used to CD and other digital media people accept vinyl or what it was.
I suspect the same thing is happening with non-24p frame rates: it is no inherent superiority but is what people are used to. 
And any tech-savvy youngster will realise the benefits of (as others have mentioned previously) shooting at higher rates and adjusting to 24p in post processing. To take the megapixel analogy, why not maximise data and process it from there.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 31, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I'm astounded by the arrogant photographers in this thread trying to tell video makers what they need and don't need.
> 
> Here's an idea: instead of asking those of us arguing in favor of 23.98 and 24p video options to justify ourselves, why don't you go and find a statistic about how many Hollywood movies are shot at 30p and converted to 24p?



How much of that is because they don't want so shoot at 30p, 60p, 120p and how much is because they have a workflow and in many industries changes in workflow creates a very major expense in new technology, licensing and training.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I thought magic lantern wound down around the 70D time?



I thought Magic Lantern had problems with the dualpixel technology. Any one any idea is this was the case?


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I thought Magic Lantern had problems with the dualpixel technology. Any one any idea is this was the case?



Someone mentioned on a forum they kind of ended with the 70D. It was the last released canon camera magic lantern ran on in any meaningful way.


----------



## Sharpening Iron (Aug 31, 2019)

Please forgive the ignorance, but can anyone think of a good reason Canon decided to omit 24p and use 25p instead? Is there a new standard on the horizon or something? I don't shoot video..at all...but I can't for the life of me think of a reason a company as large and as experienced as Canon would sabotage a new product by omitting such a necessary feature. I use the word "necessary" based on the vitriol found on this thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2019)

Sharpening Iron said:


> I use the word "necessary" based on the vitriol found on this thread.


This forum in no way represents the ILC market. Case in point, there was similar vitriol here for years about Canon not delivering more low ISO DR compared to Sony and Nikon – Canon continued their market dominance, even gaining a bit of market share.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Aug 31, 2019)

Sharpening Iron said:


> ...Canon decided to omit 24p and use 25p instead? Is there a new standard on the horizon or something?



There is no 24 or 25p. There's 30p, 60p, and 120p in HD, and 30p in 4k.

No one has any idea why 24p was removed when it was available in the M6 Mark I, for example, and is now gone.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2019)

This has got to be one of the all-time worst threads in the history of Canon rumors. And, that's saying a lot. Page after page of people insulting one another just for the sake of being the alpha poster. Seventeen pages at the current count, just to say Canon did not provide a feature in two cameras that some people really wanted and others don't see the need for. Neither side is going to convince the other and the childish insults simply prove what we already knew -- there are quite a few jerks that participate in this forum.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 31, 2019)

Using the Eos 90D city footage posted to Youtube I made a 4K timeline and overlaid one on top of the other. Shooting in crop mode zooms in the image 18%. So added to the 1.6 crop of APSC that gives you a 1.78 crop shooting 'best quality' 4K.

For what its worth, even with youtube compression both crop and no crop look spectacular on my 55" Sony Master series OLED. Regardless of however Canon is getting to 4K, its a huge step up from 70D/ 80D footage.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> Yes. Manchester, England. I recall one of his venous rants specifically about a press call in Manchester ‘streets away’ that he wasn’t invited to.


he's a very angry individual.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 31, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I thought magic lantern wound down around the 70D time?



You may be right about that. The latest download file was created in December last year.

I don't use it, so I didn't notice.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2019)

JBfromEngland said:


> In an age where your smartphone can do everything, camera manufacturers need to be adding in more features to keep sales going and, businesses and media teams are requesting both stills and video from the same shooter more often.


I have a brand new iPhone 8 Plus (Nearly $850.00 because I don't like contracts for cell service). That's the only thing I personally take video with and shoot in 60p 4K. Clips of the grandson tearing around. Comparing video from a cell phone to that of a DSLR or MILC camera is silly, in my opinion. Even with my wife's micro 4/3 camera I can watch the video on my 27" monitor and it looks great. The cell phone footage is all but unwatchable at that size when the video is shot indoors. So for me, and only for me, cellphone video is nearly worthless except for social media clips viewed on a cell phone. Obviously, cell phone video does not compete. Comparisons of what a cell phone can do often leave out what a cell phone absolutely cannot do. Would I watch cell phone footage on my 65" television. I could, but it would really suck. Not so with a DSLR or MILC footage... even crop sensors do far better than any cell phone (which is a minuscule crop sensor).

Personally, I like clarity and detail far more than the "Hollywood" look people keep wishing for... whatever that is. Ask the average Joe walking down the street, and I'll bet they don't know what we are even talking about and couldn't care less. These cameras were made for the average Joe or Josephine. The target is not film makers. Neither is the iPhone.


----------



## JBfromEngland (Aug 31, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have a brand new iPhone 8 Plus (Nearly $850.00 because I don't like contracts for cell service). That's the only thing I personally take video with and shoot in 60p 4K. Clips of the grandson tearing around. Comparing video from a cell phone to that of a DSLR or MILC camera is silly, in my opinion. Even with my wife's micro 4/3 camera I can watch the video on my 27" monitor and it looks great. The cell phone footage is all but unwatchable at that size. So for me, and only for me, cellphone video is nearly worthless except for social media clips. Obviously, cell phone video does not compete. Comparisons of what a cell phone can do often leave out what a cell phone absolutely cannot do. Would I watch cell phone footage on my 65" television. I could, but it would really suck. Not so with a DSLR or MILC footage... even crop sensors do far better than any cell phone (which is a minuscule crop sensor).
> 
> Personally, I like clarity and detail far more than the "Hollywood" look people keep wishing for. Ask the average Joe walking down the street, and I'll bet they don't know what we are even talking about and couldn't care less. These cameras were made for the average Joe or Josephine. The target is not film makers. Neither is the iPhone.



I completely agree. The quality out of DSLRs or mirrorless cameras is much better than anything a phone could produce or achieve. But like you say, for the average joe who doesn't know... why would they spend £1k on an iPhone that shoots 4k and then buy a dedicated camera separately if they don't see similar specs.

My point is, if camera manufacturers aren't pushing 4k and advertising both video and photography specs then why would average joe be interested? They will just think, well my phone does 4k and super slow mo and this dedicated camera doesn't, that's crazy.

That's what I meant when I said camera manufacturers need to keep up to some extent even though it's much harder to process their higher quality image when compared to smartphone video, which to my eye is digitally sharpened beyond return.

And I also agree these cameras aren't made for pros. But surely it's only a good thing if people can produce high quality, stunning video with some of Canon's mid-tier cameras.


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 1, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> And what is 'the magic' of that frame rate? Other than it is what people have got used to.
> I used to hear the same when CD was released - some people in the early days claimed to be able to hear the 'gaps between the digital bits' when all it was was that people were used to the distortions in vinyl. Now people have rapidly got used to CD and other digital media people accept vinyl or what it was.
> I suspect the same thing is happening with non-24p frame rates: it is no inherent superiority but is what people are used to.
> And any tech-savvy youngster will realise the benefits of (as others have mentioned previously) shooting at higher rates and adjusting to 24p in post processing. To take the megapixel analogy, why not maximise data and process it from there.



---

Since our parent company has numerous scientists as part of the workforce, at one point I actually got around to asking one of our Optical Physicists AND a Computational Neurobiologist about motion blur and low video frame rates, and it was explained to me that 24 fps (and SIMILAR low frame rates) that have long shutter-open times create MOTION BLUR on a directional axis which "Calms Down" down the human visual cortex so it does not have to assign much processing power for hard edge detection. It already KNOWS to ignore the blurred area and simply skips over to the sharper areas of a video frame for advanced edge detection and object recognition.

On a computational basis this makes sense BUT there is an ADDED EMOTIONAL EFFECT in that our thinking mind is "Not So Edgy" and "Irritated" at areas of an image that are considered an amorphous region, are motion blurred or have soft focus. This gives a "pleasing" feeling to one's mind. The HOW and the WHY of that workload reduction in the brain's edge detection circuitry within any given visual field, causing that pleasing effect on actual human emotional circuitry is as of yet unknown!

All we know is that object recognition workload reduction makes us calmer. We ALSO KNOW that there is a specific pleasing effect present when the blur on edges is NOT in the direction of the motion path of in-scene objects. This means that objects moving on any given direction SHOULD have a blurred edge on the OPPOSITE side of the direction of movement. Ergo, objects moving leftwards SHOULD have motion blur on the right side of their edges.

The amount of motion blur present at 24 fps when shutter open times are about between 20 to 41 milliseconds is enough to make the video look PLEASING to the human mind. At higher frames rate from about 50 fps into the 1000's of fps, motion blur-based emotional impact is such that all frames are nearly fully sharp and require the human visual cortex to do a LOT of hard edge detection and object recognition tasks which kinda makes our mind TIRED and less pleased at all the extra work. This means cinematographers MUST use other techniques such as colour desaturation, lowering of contrast ratios and edge softening to reduce visual cortex workloads which will affect subsequent emotional state in a more positive manner.

So again, even IF you shoot at higher frames rates from 50 or 60 fps up to 120 fps or even 1000 fps, you NEED to read what 1950's to 1990's era cinematographers did with REAL Film in terms of making their imagery look more Hollywood and less Soap Opera. By reading the SCIENCE behind the human visual cortex, you can apply the ART of FILMMAKING to ensure your high frame rate videos LOOK like a REAL Cinema production.

This also means that the WHY of any camera maker LEAVING the 24 fps cinema frame rate has more to do with letting the typical shutter-open time of that 24 fps frame rate CAUSE that pleasing-looking motion blur which so enhances video into that desired Hollywood Cinema Look!

Why SHOULD Canon leave that effortless, easy-out 24 fps frame rate on these new DSLR/Mirrorless camera when they can MAKE YOU PAY FOR THAT Easy-Way-Out by forcing you the buyer into a HIGHER END camera in order to get that easy-to-use method of making video look like cinema! So at LOWER frame rates, it is MOTION BLUR that is the deciding factor for a cinema look. At HIGHER frames rates of 50/60 fps, it's a lowered contrast ratio, mild colour desaturation and SMOOTH rolloff of shadows and highlights that make your video look like Hollywood! 

AND since GOOD LIGHTING can let you highlight the area of interest but blur object edges on areas of the frame that are periphery (aka outside) of the area of interest, you can give the appearance of motion blur thus reducing human visual field workload, therefore making your video look PLEASING and more Hollywood CInema-like! This means get a decent budget for GOOD lighting and LEARN HOW and WHEN to use Colour Correction Gels, Diffusion, Spun, Key Lighting Positions to FORCE the human mind to focus on a specific subject area within any given video frame. Reduce the mind's visual workload! Use ANALOGUE FILMMAKING TECHNIQUES to enhance your all-digital productions for a more Hollywood Cinema Look !!!


.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 1, 2019)

Sharpening Iron said:


> Please forgive the ignorance, but can anyone think of a good reason Canon decided to omit 24p and use 25p instead? Is there a new standard on the horizon or something? I don't shoot video..at all...but I can't for the life of me think of a reason a company as large and as experienced as Canon would sabotage a new product by omitting such a necessary feature. I use the word "necessary" based on the vitriol found on this thread.


I'll somewhat oversimplify things with a complex history. In countries that use 60 Hz alternating current, the standard for black-and-white television was set in the '40s for 30 frames a second. Tube TVs interlaced half of the lines every sixty seconds to be in sync with the house current. By current terminology, we might think of it as 30i. When color standards were set in the '50s, they adopted something that would be compatible with existing TVs, so black-and-white sets would just ignore the color information. That's were the 29.97 came in. If you set your camera for NTSC video, that will be the frame rate you get, and multiples thereof.

In countries that have 50 cycle current, they adopted a different standard, not surprisingly using interlaced 25 frames a second. If you set your camera for PAL, you get that instead of 29.97. Canon didn't substitute 25p for 24p in recent cameras. The 25p has been there all along. You just don't see it listed if you set your camera for the North America, Japan, et. al. standard. Likewise, if you set it for PAL, you are not presented a 29.97 option.

Silent movies were shot on film, hand cranked at 16 or 18 fps. The real rate depended upon the mood of the cameraman or his artistic instincts. When they added sound, that was too slow for decent sound from the optical soundtrack on the film. So they adopted a standard of 24 frames per second. They didn't have to interlace it or make it into some funny decimal, as on TV. They did project it at twice or three times that rate, repeating each frame accordingly, to minimize flicker.

Several people have suggested that since 25p is already on our cameras, people wanting the look of 24p could just switch to 25p, and the difference would be too subtle to see. In certain workflows there are situations for 24p is needed, apparently.

The part of the discussion I have no clue about is when people say that they want their videos to look cinematic without their looking like movies.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 1, 2019)

Hi Folks. 
Whatever happened to the knowledge that I was taught in ‘o’ level biology that it is the persistence of vision that led to 24fps movie, 24fps being the slowest frame rate that would enable the majority of people to see a flicker free moving image?
Whilst I’m certain that scientific studies like HarryFilm gave us could be true, I’m almost certain that the early film makers had absolutely no interest in or knowledge of these things. Film was expensive and bulky, I’m betting it was mostly cost driven, possibly followed by some engineering constraints, like ‘what is the fastest we can sync the shutter’ or ‘what is the longest reel of film’, but I’m still going with ‘you want to spend how much on film?’ Being the main question!

Cheers, Graham. 
Ps I got bored  at page 4 and skipped to the end so if I missed this please forgive me!


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 1, 2019)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> Whatever happened to the knowledge that I was taught in ‘o’ level biology that it is the persistence of vision that led to 24fps movie, 24fps being the slowest frame rate that would enable the majority of people to see a flicker free moving image?
> Whilst I’m certain that scientific studies like HarryFilm gave us could be true, I’m almost certain that the early film makers had absolutely no interest in or knowledge of these things. Film was expensive and bulky, I’m betting it was mostly cost driven, possibly followed by some engineering constraints, like ‘what is the fastest we can sync the shutter’ or ‘what is the longest reel of film’, but I’m still going with ‘you want to spend how much on film?’ Being the main question!
> 
> ...




---

I should note that our Computational Neurobiologist's explanation for the EMOTIONAL impact for 24fps vs 60 fps is due to the differences in the presence of motion blur at low to high frames rates. This WAS NOT the reason for 24 fps being chosen as the preferred rate. In those early days 24 fps was CHOSEN due to the cost of film being the primary factor because human eyes persistence of vision allowed for 24 fps being the most ideal for 90% of humanity's eyesight capabilities for intepreting smooth motion at that frame rate for 16mm and 35mm film frame sizes. 24 fps was ALSO the fastest stable speed able to be met by the motors of that time which drove film through a camera!

The LARGER the displayed frame size, the HIGHER that the frame rate and higher the overall frame resolution MUST BE in order to prevent perceived flicker and aliasing due to the way the human eyes scans across imagery. What our scientists said is just ONE aspect of how and WHY the human eye and visual cortex sees imagery and assigns emotional impact to the perceived imagery. These are just after-effects of the basic limitations of the human eye's hardware. 

The term Cinematic-looking is a hodge-podge of ideas within the filmmaking community which TENDS to agree amongst itself that certain technical aspects of video frame size, frame rate, colour saturation, small-detail retention, focus, camera movement ALL conspire together to make a LASTING and MEANINGFUL EMOTIONAL IMPACT on viewers. This general silent agreement amongst filmmakers worldwide over the last 100 years are merely SUGGESTIONS to the rest of us that we should simply ACCEPT their standards for the technical and artistic portions of filmmaking.

Only RECENTLY within the last 10 years has there been ACTUAL PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY of the human visual processing system and basic underlying optical and neural hardware that compares and MEASURES FILMMAKING TECHNICAL STANDARDS and accepted practices against perceived or actual emotional and/or physical impact on humans.

It has been FOUND that larger sensor pixel resolution and faster frame rates ARE REQUIRED to be processional and linear in magnitude in order to keep the original emotional impact that 24 fps imagery has at lower resolutions. At our modern 4K/8K sensor and display resolutions, we SHOULD be doing 120 fps at 16-bits per colour channel to ENSURE emotional impact remains the same. By using 60 fps and lower colour depths we are "Shocking" the human visual system into adverse effects that make such imagery look and FEEL very "Soap Opera"-like and "Corny". This emotional dissonance BREAKS most filmmakers original intent on their projects. We are using the HARDWARE-based CRUTCH of heavily motion-blurred 24 fps to make 24 fps and 8 or 10-bit colour sampled 4k/8k high resolution imagery look like earlier films! At such high resolutions, we MUST be filming and displaying imagery at uncompressed 120 fps and 48-bit RGB colour in order to keep the original emotional impact intent of directors and cinematographers!

Today, we are so much crushing the blacks and clipping the highlights at 8-bit/10-bit 4k/8k resolutions that details are lost and oversaturation of colour results which BREAKS the pleasing nature of an analogue process by compressing it to death into a digital mess. That causes actual physical reactions in the human body and mind which affects our overall perception of video imagery.

24 fps being chosen for cinema is mostly an economic one that JUST HAPPENED to coincide with human limits of flicker free motion perception, and the practical technical capabilities AND SIZE of motors used in film cameras and projectors during the 1920's to late 1990's era of analogue FILM systems. Today, in order to get past the "Soap Opera Effect" we MUST transition to 120 fps and 48 bit colour (16 bits per RGB channel) at 4k/8k/16k sensor and display resolutions!

.
.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2019)

cpreston said:


> No, what they wanted was the S1H, which has just been announced. Admittedly, if it was Canon they would be complaining that at was $1000 overpriced, but the S1H is the camera that DSLR video enthusiasts have been demanding.



Exactly this^^. This is a camera type Canon should be producing. The Alphas have not cut into the F line of Sony, and a real cinema/video MILC body from Canon wouldnt cut into EOS Cinema either. As of this moment, there is nothing up line between the EOS R to the C200 for video. And apart from the build and the greater feature set, the EOS R with an external recorder performs almost as well as the C200. So there’s a huge gap between $2200 and $7500. Now we are thinking a new C100 is coming but where in the spec realm does it fall??? That’s the real oddity right now. You can’t get much more basic in 2019-2020 than what the C200 offers. This is what makes me hope Canon uses a robust MILC body as the new C100 of sorts, right in that $3500-$4000 price range, smack in the middle of the R and C200. 

And $4000 for a FF camera that does what this new Panasonic does is outstanding. Even if Canon created this same device with the Canon look/color science and eco system and billed $5K for it, it would be a great seller for them.


----------



## Rezen73 (Sep 1, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> India for 1 is a country where mathematical formulations or algorithms or softwares cannot be patented.



Sorry, but I disagree. I live in India (Pune), and personally have 4 patents filed in India just this year alone (2019) - *all* *software* based. The bar may be a bit higher than in other countries, however it is not impossible to file patents in India for such things.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 1, 2019)

Rezen73 said:


> Sorry, but I disagree. I live in India (Pune), and personally have 4 patents filed in India just this year alone (2019) - *all* *software* based. The bar may be a bit higher than in other countries, however it is not impossible to file patents in India for such things.


My Patent lawyer must have been bad but when I had tried to file for a patent(for data sync. method in software tools we had developed) we were told software along with algorithms are two things for which patents cannot be awarded. That was about 7 years back since then I changed my field from software development to information and network security and I am out of touch with software development these days(currently busy with network security projects of 2 DC-DR).


----------



## jvillain (Sep 1, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Unless I've missed the release of Canon's modular "_build yourself your own perfect camera_" range, Canon executroids are already making many of those decisions for you.
> 
> The fact that (I assume) you _are _a Canon user, suggests they're doing a pretty good job.



I have been a dedicated Canon shooter for most of my life but just picked up the BMPCC6K. I am still rigging it out but I am thrilled with what I am getting out of it. I can't imagine ever shooting video again on my Canon bodies. I bought my R for 4K because Canon claimed it had it and then felt cheated when I discovered it didn't. Customers feeling cheeted is never a good thing.

I no longer consider Canon DSLRs and MILCs to be hybrid cameras. They are grossly over priced stills only cameras now. Welcome back to 2008. What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video. When your hiking up a mountain carrying 2 separate rigs isn't an option. I doesn't appear that Canon intends to fulfill my crop needs going forward either. I probably have a couple of years before I have to buy my next body so I have some time to decide where I am headed. But stills work is decreasing while video work is increasing so it will be interesting.

For those who want to know more about film rates I highly recommend this video.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 1, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> Since our parent company has numerous scientists as part of the workforce, at one point I actually got around to asking one of our Optical Physicists AND a Computational Neurobiologist about motion blur and low video frame rates, and it was explained to me that 24 fps (and SIMILAR low frame rates) that have long shutter-open times create MOTION BLUR on a directional axis which "Calms Down" down the human visual cortex so it does not have to assign much processing power for hard edge detection. It already KNOWS to ignore the blurred area and simply skips over to the sharper areas of a video frame for advanced edge detection and object recognition.
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting that, Harry I found it very interesting.
However, I doubt that when 24 fps was decided on as the frame rate the film producers had absolutely no idea this 'reasoning' even existed. Which begs the question I asked in my post is whether 24fps really does have a 'magic' or if it was simply what we are used to seeing in film. But I am sure what you CANNOT do is apply 24fps processing techniques to 30fps frame rates.
When Jackson released the 48fps version of The Hobbit, it is clear that not everyone found it unnerving, but I also read a very cogent article about the way that 48 fps has to considered in every single stage from shooting to projection but unfortunately this is continuity is rarely possible when a new format is introduced. 

I also recall that the comments about 24p relate to film cameras using frame rate + rotary shutters and digital cameras using simple frame rate which muddies the waters still further. However I do recall that when Panasonic released their cameras, there was a hack on YouTube about settings that would mimic the shutter angle and produce a more pleasing result.

So I still ask what is inherently 'magic' about 24fps unrelated to any technology.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 1, 2019)

jvillain said:


> What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video.



Good luck shooting stills on the Black Magic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2019)

jvillain said:


> I no longer consider Canon DSLRs and MILCs to be hybrid cameras. They are grossly over priced stills only cameras now. Welcome back to 2008. What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video.


You’re welcome to your opinion, of course. I suspect Canon has considered your point of view, and chosen to disregard it based on a lack of bottom-line relevance


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2019)

jvillain said:


> I have been a dedicated Canon shooter for most of my life but just picked up the BMPCC6K. I am still rigging it out but I am thrilled with what I am getting out of it. I can't imagine ever shooting video again on my Canon bodies. I bought my R for 4K because Canon claimed it had it and then felt cheated when I discovered it didn't. Customers feeling cheeted is never a good thing.
> 
> I no longer consider Canon DSLRs and MILCs to be hybrid cameras. They are grossly over priced stills only cameras now. Welcome back to 2008. What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video. When your hiking up a mountain carrying 2 separate rigs isn't an option. I doesn't appear that Canon intends to fulfill my crop needs going forward either. I probably have a couple of years before I have to buy my next body so I have some time to decide where I am headed. But stills work is decreasing while video work is increasing so it will be interesting.
> 
> For those who want to know more about film rates I highly recommend this video.


So how is the stills performance on your new Black Magic?


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 2, 2019)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> He's the worst part about CR.



He’s rude, and I don’t like the way he delivers his message, but he’s not the worst part of CR. He’s consistent in his views, takes care to only present facts, or call out when it’s his opinion. Since he only bases his arguments on verified history, he’s proven to be more right than wrong. He just gets so annoyed every time someone presents personal opinion as fact or the now decade old classic of ‘canon doesn’t know what they’re doing and will lose market share’ that he’ll pour petroleum up your @SS and throw a dozen matches after it.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 2, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> He’s rude, and I don’t like the way he delivers his message, but he’s not the worst part of CR. He’s consistent in his views, takes care to only present facts, or call out when it’s his opinion. Since he only bases his arguments on verified history, he’s proven to be more right than wrong. He just gets so annoyed every time someone presents personal opinion as fact or the now decade old classic of ‘canon doesn’t know what they’re doing and will lose market share’ that he’ll pour petroleum up your @SS and throw a dozen matches after it.


Neuro is a very accomplished guy, but even he would find it easier to pour down rather than up. And, I am sure he wouldn't use a fossil fuel but a more eco-friendly one.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> He’s rude, and I don’t like the way he delivers his message, but he’s not the worst part of CR. He’s consistent in his views, takes care to only present facts, or call out when it’s his opinion. Since he only bases his arguments on verified history, he’s proven to be more right than wrong. He just gets so annoyed every time someone presents personal opinion as fact or the now decade old classic of ‘canon doesn’t know what they’re doing and will lose market share’ that he’ll pour petroleum up your @SS and throw a dozen matches after it.


Honestly, the incessant, predatory bullying gets a bit tiresome. Weaker individuals have been driven from the site and while they were often annoying, they were not always incorrect ("Dilbert" being the classic example). I don't have any patience with those who equate their personal wants with the success of Canon and generally, their childish petulance deserves all the disdain they receive. Still, there are too many instances of an "attack first, ask questions later" attitude.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 2, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> . Fuji's manual focus tools are much better than Canon's so I can usually get something using MF but it's not quite the same.



Have you tried the MF on the r/RP? I’m finding it easier to do manual focus on my RP than I do with my x-e3.

And the R focus triangles look like they’d be brilliant, but I’ve only tried that in a store.

Disclaimer: I don’t use MF much, so take what I say with a healthy dose of salt


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 2, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Crap! Neuro, he’s on to you! Better be careful or he will find out that you are also Mt Spokane, unfocused, click, myself, and Harry Film!



Wait. Neuro is HARRY FILM??????


----------



## AlanF (Sep 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Honestly, the incessant, predatory bullying gets a bit tiresome. Weaker individuals have been driven from the site and while they were often annoying, they were not always incorrect ("Dilbert" being the classic example). I don't have any patience with those who equate their personal wants with the success of Canon and generally, their childish petulance deserves all the disdain they receive. Still, there are too many instances of an "attack first, ask questions later" attitude.


Dilbert "weaker"? He is as tough and resilient as old boots and he wasn't driven away by Neuro - his identity was, quite out of order, outed on the site. Dilbert gave as good as he got and I would presume not like being labelled "weaker".


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Dilbert "weaker"? He is as tough and resilient as old boots and he wasn't driven away by Neuro - his identity was, quite out of order, outed on the site. Dilbert gave as good as he got and I would presume not like being labelled "weaker".


Sorry, wasn't clear in my writing. You are correct, he wasn't weaker. But, in his case, he wasn't always wrong. If you dug deeper, he _sometimes_ had a point.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Sorry, wasn't clear in my writing. You are correct, he wasn't weaker. But, in his case, he wasn't always wrong. If you dug deeper, he _sometimes_ had a point.



I found he often had a point. Sometimes I agreed with him, sometimes not.... but no way could I imagine anyone driving him away.


----------



## PVCC (Sep 3, 2019)

Marine626 said:


> Those who think 24p is for cinematic look need to realize "The Hobbit" series was shot in 48p.



Yep, but ask the Director the amount of considerations, precautions and post-processing they had to take to look cinematic...

24p is still a great option on digital, and it has higher image quality than higher frame rates because the bitrate is divided on just 24 frames. That's another reason why lot of people shoot 24p


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 3, 2019)

PVCC said:


> Yep, but ask the Director the amount of considerations, precautions and post-processing they had to take to look cinematic...



You are caught in that loop again - apparently it has to 'look cinematic'. And what do people mean by 'cinematic? They mean it looks like 24 because that is what is traditionally shown at the cinema. In other words there is no inherent superiority to 24p other than it is what people are used to. That is like saying 'CD is not superior to vinyl because it does not sound like vinyl'.

So your comment would be re-worded as:



> Yep, but ask the Director the amount of considerations, precautions and post-processing they had to take to make it look like what they were used to...



Think of it this way: if you were able to rebuild the entire cinema chain an cinema experience at a stroke, would you choose 24p as your 'obvious' format?


----------



## Famateur (Sep 3, 2019)

All your frames are belong to us...


----------



## hazydave (Sep 3, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> I'd love if someone who actually knows about electronics could speculate if it could actually be a hardware issue with available timings or something.



Hi! Computer Engineer here. It's not a hardware issue. If you can handle 30p, you can handle 24p. In fact, if you recall, they updated the original Canon 5D Mark II in software to support 24p, after it was already out in the market. 

Now, is it technically possible to design a video subsystem that doesn't support 24p? I suppose, if that were your intention, you could have a go at it. The system SOC's image processor, system software, and image sensor have to cooperate in order to deliver video at all. But given that other cameras, specifically the aforementioned EOS R, use the same DIGIC 8 processor and do support 24p, it's not that. The hardware must be capable. 



Sharlin said:


> The other video issue, the removal of MOV and ALL-I encoding, might really be about transistor budget; perhaps the hardware just isn't there in DIGIC 8. Though it is a mystery to me why Canon even bothered to make a distinction between MOV and MP4; after all they're just container formats and the actual data is MPEG-4 anyway…



Nope. These are just software issues. MOV vs. MP4 is entirely a software issue. They're ultimately just different choices in a file wrapper. The DIGIC8 image processing hardware is encoding AVC streams, which are then packaged into file wrappers by the CPU. Since MOV is Apple's proprietary QuickTime file format, it could simply be that Canon didn't want to pay Apple for it, assuming they still do. In fact, the MP4 file format was derived from QuickTime's MOV -- they're not the same, but they are very similar. 

As for All-I, you can't create AVC without I-Frames. The SD card interface speed is probably the main limit on what they can do with All-I. As for the actual processing, it's dramatically more image processor intensive to create IPB streams than All-I. And from what I've read, the EOS R does All-I at 480Mb/s, a pretty respectible bitrate, particularly given that it's only 8-bit internal. It's the same DIGIC8, same UHS-II SD card, in these other models. Basically, if the camera can read the sensor at 30p, any of these other options (All-I, 24p, MOV, etc) should be nothing more than "a simple matter of software" as we hardware guys like to say (I know software as well, but my primary work these days is in computer system design).


----------



## cayenne (Sep 3, 2019)

Famateur said:


> Yep. The people complaining bitterly about a missing video feature in an amateur/enthusiast stills camera want Hollywood-like video results...without using the equipment Hollywood uses.



Well, to be fair, when the 5D2 came out with video good enough for a relatively cheap price, you DID see movie studios using them for specialized shots in movies, places too tight or dangerous for more $$$ cameras.

So, the DSLR cameras have to date been good enough for some theatrical productions, and that indicated to more amateurs and lower budget shooters that this was a good route to go,, and hence the popularity increase in the market share, of the 5Dx line, etc....so, high quality video at this price and format has been and still seems to be popular.

Honestly, I bought my 5D3 expressly for video originally. I saw a local low budget production here in town using them as primary camera and was blown away at the quality then, with interchangeable lenses, DOF and such at a reasonable price.

The 5D3 was my first DSLR. 

Since then, I've actually grown to do stills more and more and MORE. I really enjoy it. 

All my videos have been filmed in 24p.....I liked what I considered a more cinematic look.

I would hope that the 5D5 R type camera coming out, has at least the choices I have in the 5D3....I'd be very disappointed if it wasn't at least up to feature set as I have had with 5Dx series to date.

I"m not sure where I stand on the lower cameras...I have to say I can't think of a valid reason to cripple or omit it, since people have to jump in at some level and they're likely wanting to get all the feature bang for their buck that they can.

And once you start on a brand in cameras, well, i'd venture to guess most people stay with that line largely, especially after an investment in lenses.

So, seems it would make sense to keep a feature like 24fps on the newer lower end cameras. I can't think of a negative to keeping it a feature.

Seems a lot of people would want it too....

OH well.

C


----------



## stevelee (Sep 3, 2019)

hazydave said:


> As for All-I, you can't create AVC without I-Frames. The SD card interface speed is probably the main limit on what they can do with All-I. As for the actual processing, it's dramatically more image processor intensive to create IPB streams than All-I. And from what I've read, the EOS R does All-I at 480Mb/s, a pretty respectible bitrate, particularly given that it's only 8-bit internal. It's the same DIGIC8, same UHS-II SD card, in these other models. Basically, if the camera can read the sensor at 30p, any of these other options (All-I, 24p, MOV, etc) should be nothing more than "a simple matter of software" as we hardware guys like to say (I know software as well, but my primary work these days is in computer system design).


I'm no engineer, so I could easily be jumping to wrong conclusions. My impression is that All-I would be less work for the camera processor, and also less work for the computer upon which the video is edited. The main advantage of All-I then is for editing on slower computers. My almost four-year-old iMac chews right through 4K video with no sweat (or however you mix your metaphors). So I would expect IPB to be less of a problem these days than a few years ago.


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 4, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Thanks for posting that, Harry I found it very interesting.
> However, I doubt that when 24 fps was decided on as the frame rate the film producers had absolutely no idea this 'reasoning' even existed. Which begs the question I asked in my post is whether 24fps really does have a 'magic' or if it was simply what we are used to seeing in film. But I am sure what you CANNOT do is apply 24fps processing techniques to 30fps frame rates.
> When Jackson released the 48fps version of The Hobbit, it is clear that not everyone found it unnerving, but I also read a very cogent article about the way that 48 fps has to considered in every single stage from shooting to projection but unfortunately this is continuity is rarely possible when a new format is introduced.
> 
> ...




---

24 fps has a MAGIC ASPECT because of the 21 millisecond (1/48th of a second) to the maximum 42 milliseconds (1/24th of a second) that the shutter is open. That shutter-open time is enough to allow motion blur on subjects that are moving in a horizontal and vertical direction (or moving at an oblique angle!). Again, our corporate scientists (a PhD with a numerous peer-reviewed papers on the specialty of Computational Neurobiology) and an Optical Physicist (PhD) have given me biological and human anatomy reasons why 24 fps SEEMS to be more pleasing than 48 fps or 60 fps but those reason I am told were NOT the specific reasons why 24 fps was chosen as the standard. It was a economic film-cost reason AND a maximum-speed-of-available-camera-motors reason that 24 fps was chosen.

On a biological basis, it seems the human eye (and visual cortex) expends a lot of effort scanning across images in a Z-like pattern looking for HARD edges. Too much scanning over too short a period over images that are too sharp and/or too colour-saturated literally gives is a big headache! So, to get more PLEASING looking video imagery at high frame rates and high resolutions YOU MUST:

a) reduce overall sharpness (i.e. soften the video ever so slightly!)

b) Introduce motion blur on object/person edges that are moving in a specific direction

c) desaturate the colour by at least 10% to 20%

d) reduce the overall image contrast ratio

e) prevent hard and or solid colour regions that transition suddenly
into hard edges by introducing noise or extra patterns into your imagery.
This means stop crushing the blacks and clipping the highlights!
You MUST keep details in clouds and sky and keep fine details
in shadows such as the weave of dark clothing so that highlight
and shadow detail roll-off is smooth and analogue looking.

f) Use good lighting to HIGHLIGHT important subject matter and
use BOKEH to blur out unneeded/unwanted areas of an image

The key points are STOP making the human visual system work so hard
by using the ARTISTRY of common analogue cinematography techniques
within the digital realm to ensure your imagery LOOKS LIKE Hollywood Cinema
even IF it was shot with $1500 camera at 60 fps!

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 4, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Good luck shooting stills on the Black Magic.



---

The 6K video frame on the BMPCC6K is about 18 megapixels which is about what the original Canon 5D mk2's did when you cropped them properly. AND at 24 fps to 60 fps, you're are basically getting a HIGH END Sports/Action/Wildlife Camera with Very High Burst Rate! Shoot at 24 fps+ and choose your BEST action shot from the captured video frames. Just remember to shoot Cinema Flat LOG OR FULL RAW at the highest colour sampling 12 to 14 bits per channel and use Blackmagic Resolve to colour correct that frame and send it to your editor as UNCOMPRESSED PNG 18 megapixels 12 or 14 bits per channel.

THEY will then crop and put it on the web! I've printed an 18 megapixel image as large as 36 by 24 inches on premium glossy photo paper using 600 dpi with error diffusion set to ON. If I use a FRACTAL IMAGE RESIZER, I've resampled 18 megapixel image to a large as 72 inches by 48 inches and they STILL look fantastic (usually printed at 300 ppi which is technically about 1200 dpi). Those sports/action photos were put on bus stop billboards all over the world in HK, London, Berlin, Moscow, New York, Toronto, etc and no-one complained! The editors didn't complain and the ad companies didn't complain!

This NEW Blackmagic 6K camera is PERFECT for Sports/Action/Wildlife IF you know how to ANTICIPATE action and press record JUST BEFORE you think the good stuff will happen! That does take experience and I've done that a LOT with the Canon C700-series cameras using a CINEMA camera as a 60 fps stills imager for the mostly online web content arena! When the C700 FF came out I could now do 15 megapixel+ imagery for high end sports companies (Ski, F1, Football aka soccer, Rugby, Hockey, Basketball, Sail/Powerboat Racing, etc) with NO ISSUE! The KEY POINT is to shoot RAW and at a high colour bit-depth! You do the colour correction afterwards! I've gotten a LOT of much better stills because I essentially have a 60 fps burst rate stills camera on the C700 FF!

--

I'm just waiting for the NEW Medium Format 60 fps 50.3 megapixel at 8192 by 6144 at 48 bit colour RAW camera to come out "Officially" so I can use it for my work in an official capacity! Shouldn't be too long now!

---

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 4, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Wait. Neuro is HARRY FILM??????



NO! NO! NO! I am HarryFilm --- NO ONE ELSE --- .... AND ..... 


--- I --- AM --- CANADIAN --- living in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada !!!!!!!!!

He is probably NOT !!!


..

BUT.... I do have friends and contacts VERY HIGH UP ON THE TOTEM POLES in the Aerospace, Intelligence (HumInt/SigInt) AND electronics engineering/design communities, so I get a LOT of "Inside Information" that Neuroanatomist SIMPLY WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO !!!! 

It ALSO HELPS to have family and personal friends in the SAME said industries! That helps too !!! I may not get paid for all of this (except for CODEC design!) BUT OMG! Do I EVER get access to a LOT of free ultra-cool imaging/computer gear and technology FIRST before ANYONE ELSE !!!!

.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2019)

What you have, Harry, is access to Google and a vivid imagination. That’s pretty much it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 4, 2019)

Try this for fun: Replace "FRBs" with "Canon's withholding of features." Then think about this thread, and sooooo many others like it. 

"Fact is, we simply don't know what causes FRBs. But here's my take: Almost every time astronomers turn up some unexpected new phenomenon in the sky, they're baffled. Quasars and pulsars were deeply puzzling when first discovered. So researchers adopt a Sherlock Holmes approach and collect clues — which is to say, they find as many examples of the new phenomenon as they can. These observations became grist for the theoreticians — wonky types who like nothing better than to solve nature's riddles.

The new, repeating FRBs...are likely game-changers because they're ripe to be pinpointed and studied in detail. The drama of the FRBs is about to enter its second act, and I dare say that two years from now FRBs will be just another critter in the cosmic zoo."

From: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...space-may-soon-have-an-explanation/ar-AAGKAyg


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 4, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> 24 fps has a MAGIC ASPECT because of the 21 millisecond (1/48th of a second) to the maximum 42 milliseconds (1/24th of a second) that the shutter is open. That shutter-open time is enough to allow motion blur on subjects that are moving in a horizontal and vertical direction (or moving at an oblique angle!). Again, our corporate scientists (a PhD with a numerous peer-reviewed papers on the specialty of Computational Neurobiology) and an Optical Physicist (PhD) have given me biological and human anatomy reasons why 24 fps SEEMS to be more pleasing than 48 fps or 60 fps but those reason I am told were NOT the specific reasons why 24 fps was chosen as the standard. It was a economic film-cost reason AND a maximum-speed-of-available-camera-motors reason that 24 fps was chosen.
> 
> ...



So in other words, you can shoot at 60fps for an acceptable result as long as you follow these guidelines you mention. 
In other words there is nothing 'magic' about 24fps - you just need to learn a new workflow. Exactly the same way you don't master digital music recordings the same way you master vinyl recordings.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 4, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Have you tried the MF on the r/RP? I’m finding it easier to do manual focus on my RP than I do with my x-e3.
> 
> And the R focus triangles look like they’d be brilliant, but I’ve only tried that in a store.
> 
> Disclaimer: I don’t use MF much, so take what I say with a healthy dose of salt


I haven't tried MF with the R's but I understand Canon has added some manual focusing aids to the R. I don't know how well they work. They are completely absent in the DSLR line so that is definitely a step in the right direction. The DSLR's are pretty much DPAF only in my experience.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 4, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> So in other words, you can shoot at 60fps for an acceptable result as long as you follow these guidelines you mention.
> In other words there is nothing 'magic' about 24fps - you just need to learn a new workflow. *Exactly the same way you don't master digital music recordings the same way you master vinyl recordings.*



Ooh...not a good comparison...ie, the 'compression wars' that have ruined most modern recordings put out, and often decimated classic recordings when they remix or remaster them, taking out all of the dynamics of the songs.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 4, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Ooh...not a good comparison...ie, the 'compression wars' that have ruined most modern recordings put out, and often decimated classic recordings when they remix or remaster them, taking out all of the dynamics of the songs.


Just because people do it badly for commercial reasons these days does not mean it can't be done well. The tools are better than ever.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 5, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Ooh...not a good comparison...ie, the 'compression wars' that have ruined most modern recordings put out, and often decimated classic recordings when they remix or remaster them, taking out all of the dynamics of the songs.



I made no reference to the compression wars, and had no intention to. 
The need to adapt process to match the technology is relevant - I meant what I wrote: 



> you don't master digital music recordings the same way you master vinyl recordings


----------



## PVCC (Sep 5, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> You are caught in that loop again - apparently it has to 'look cinematic'. And what do people mean by 'cinematic? They mean it looks like 24 because that is what is traditionally shown at the cinema. In other words there is no inherent superiority to 24p other than it is what people are used to. That is like saying 'CD is not superior to vinyl because it does not sound like vinyl'.
> 
> So your comment would be re-worded as:
> 
> ...



No, that's your opinion.

*Cinematic involves much more than just 24 fps.*

It's also related to what people are used to see on movies.

But making it at 48p required the Director, DoP and other crew members to take special cares to make it look as it's usually seen on movies, with the "dreamy" look, and so on.

You can achieve cinematic look with 30p if you know what you do, *but it's a step easier with 24p. *And on digital you even get better IQ, as I mentioned before.

Is that simple.

Shoot at 60p and PROJECT the footage at 60p on the screen, and you'll have terrible troubles to make it look "cinematic"

I won't keep writing about this. More important things to do.

Cheers


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 5, 2019)

PVCC said:


> No, that's your opinion.
> 
> *Cinematic involves much more than just 24 fps.*
> 
> ...




In other words you agree with me - I was talking only about shooting in 24p.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 5, 2019)

Well if nothing else...the ability to shoot 24fps has been prevalent, widespread among so many cameras of so many levels, that it is come to be expected as a feature to be included standard.

It gets noticed when it is removed for no good reason that anyone can see....and I think we can all agree, it isn't a shooting speed that has fallen out of use by a long shot so far....so, why do it?


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 5, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> And what is 'the magic' of that frame rate? Other than it is what people have got used to.
> I used to hear the same when CD was released - some people in the early days claimed to be able to hear the 'gaps between the digital bits' when all it was was that people were used to the distortions in vinyl. Now people have rapidly got used to CD and other digital media people accept vinyl or what it was.
> I suspect the same thing is happening with non-24p frame rates: it is no inherent superiority but is what people are used to.
> And any tech-savvy youngster will realise the benefits of (as others have mentioned previously) shooting at higher rates and adjusting to 24p in post processing. To take the megapixel analogy, why not maximise data and process it from there.



There *is* an inherent magic to it, and a few reasons the 24fps frame rate produces that magic. In fact, with the advent of digital, we find many people going back to vinyl for that analog quality, but I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. 

One of the biggest reasons that 24fps has that magic dreamlike quality to us is the motion blur:

_"The reason the standard film projection rate of 24 frames per second works so well, is that it's just a few frames faster than what the brain needs in order to be tricked into seeing what are effectively still images, appear to move on screen—it's called the "Persistence of Vision Theory." In tandem with that important theory, he motion blur you get by shooting at 24 fps and (on a standard 180 degree shutter) at 1/48th of a second, is just as important in making something look "cinematic" as the lack of depth of field we get by using larger sensors, and bright lenses at large apertures."_

In short, higher frame rates such as 48fps (as seen in "The Hobbit" begat what one might call a more "video-ish look." If you'd like to study the technical reasons why this is so, you can read more about it in the rest of the article--

https://gizmodo.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fai-5969817


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 5, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> In other words you agree with me - I was talking only about shooting in 24p.



To be clear, there is no technical superiority in 24p-- in fact, the reason it's easier to achieve a cinematic quality from this footage, as PVCC has said, is actually _because_ it is less technically superior, with more motion blur, and requires more effort from the viewer to fill in the frames in between. We end up perceiving higher frame rates negatively because they require less effort. This is all explained in the Gizmodo article I posted previously and Persistence of Vision Theory.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 5, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> To be clear, there is no technical superiority in 24p-- in fact, the reason it's easier to achieve a cinematic quality from this footage, as PVCC has said, is actually _because_ it is less technically superior, with more motion blur, and requires more effort from the viewer to fill in the frames in between. We end up perceiving higher frame rates negatively because they require less effort. This is all explained in the Gizmodo article I posted previously and Persistence of Vision Theory.



I have seen that article before and what I read into it is the following:
People are viewing the 3D HFR with the mindset of viewing a 24fps 2D shooting. The brain adapts how to discriminate and if this became a more often used technology they will (a) adapt shooting techniques to suit (somethign I said above) and (b) people will get used to it.
He complained about too much detail making it more obvious which parts of the set were 'factual' and which parts were artifical (including the make-up). This is not a problem of the technology but of the production values. In just the same way, I see some digital images (especially wildlife) that looks way too sharp to me and unpleasant to look at - not oversharpened with haloes etc but simply 'too sharp'.

Ask yourself - why is it that we can see the real world in all this detail and follow what we want, but in a film we seem unable to do so. It is (IMO) purely down to what we are used to. Having one showing of a film and claiming that the technology fails is ludicrous because the people do not have time to adjust to the new style. Yes, 24fps technology will be here for a while but it I equally confident it will go when people learn how to use higher frame rates.

As one sidebar, I was intrigued by the comment (my highlight in bold):



> Yet when I saw the exact same scene in 2D guess what? I loved the lighting. The depth of field wasn't there anymore. The image was cinematic. And this was with the exact same scenes...shot with the exact same lenses, camera moves, lighting, and f/stop. These were the IDENTICAL takes shown without the 3D HFR!
> And guess what else? I connected with the actors. I was left to let my eyes wander and tunnel vision if you will to the detail or actor that I wanted to "listen" to or see. I caught every joke and chuckled. I became immersed. And I found this absolutely fascinating—even stunning to the point that *I had to ask myself (even though I knew the answer) whether the same scene had been re-light and re-shot in 2D (it wasn't—they simply used only one of the 2 cameras they shot with.)*



So does that mean they shot with 2 HFR cameras to create 3D, which failed, but when the output of one of those (HFR) cameras was projected it was fine.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 5, 2019)

Oddly, complaints about lack of 24fps are coming from vloggers, who are just shooting a talking head. Somehow the stylistic subtlety of motion blur in the motion of their mouths is lost on me.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 5, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Oddly, complaints about lack of 24fps are coming from vloggers, who are just shooting a talking head. Somehow the stylistic subtlety of motion blur in the motion of their mouths is lost on me.



That's something I had difficulty understanding, especially when I had a slow connection as YouTube was getting popular. Someone would post a link to a 15 minute video on some subject I was interested in, and it was just a talking head. Often a talking ugly head. Why not just make an audio file (or better yet, text)?


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 6, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> So in other words, you can shoot at 60fps for an acceptable result as long as you follow these guidelines you mention.
> In other words there is nothing 'magic' about 24fps - you just need to learn a new workflow. Exactly the same way you don't master digital music recordings the same way you master vinyl recordings.




---

YES! If you follow COMMON and ACCEPTED Hollywood analogue cinematic techniques with regards to lighting, camera movement, focus/bokeh, colour saturation, contrast ratio, lens choice, etc. your 60 fps or even 1000 fps footage WILL LOOK CINEMATIC !!!

---

To get around that common pixel value destruction CAUSED by video compression algorithms, I almost ALWAYS shoot FULL RAW even at 60 fps which is one reason WHY the parent company bought so many 16 Terabyte Samsung SSDs at over $9000 PER DRIVE so we could store the data. It actually got so bad as to how much video and satellite image data we were processing per month that the parent company actually BOUGHT a smallish Flash/NAND/SRAM/DRAM maker and took storage media chips and disk production in-house! Now I can get as many 60 TB SSD's as I need just by filling in an internal requisition order!

Basically you SHOOT and EDIT in FULL RAW 14 or 16 bits per colour channel and apply your final LUTs and final 8 or 10 bit colour channel depths and final container file format (i.e.MEPG4/H.265, etc) ONLY at final render! You have to have an INSANE machine to edit that type of RAW uncompressed footage which is WHY i'm using a custom-built company supplied multi-board 8-WAY AMD EPYC cluster computer for editing and rendering. They won't give me during-the-day access to the super, so I have to make to with the hand-me-down AMD cluster.

---

Anyways! Shoot RAW and high bit depth! Edit and colour correct RAW at high bit depth! Render at desired output bit depth and resolution only at last steps!


----------



## Photo Hack (Sep 6, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> YES! If you follow COMMON and ACCEPTED Hollywood analogue cinematic techniques with regards to lighting, camera movement, focus/bokeh, colour saturation, contrast ratio, lens choice, etc. your 60 fps or even 1000 fps footage WILL LOOK CINEMATIC !!!
> 
> ...


Sooooo what is it you do?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 6, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Sooooo what is it you do?


Sit in his parent's basement, and google a lot.....


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 6, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Sit in his parent's basement, and google a lot.....


And flies a Bell Helicopter he spec'd in Flight Simulator 15.


----------



## Scenes (Sep 6, 2019)

In this videos comments this YouTuber said at the media event Canon told him the 4K is downsampled from 6K. That’s as close to an official word we have on the matter. However it turns out Canon is getting to 4K I thought it looked pretty darn good.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Sep 6, 2019)

I think Canon only wants to keep the "professional" videographers away from buying entry level/ Consumer oriented cameras for "professional" work.
They want to avoid the complains of very demanding customers. I think Canon never intended to support videographer working in productive environments but the ordinary family video consumer doing some video of the Kids or from vacations. This kind of customers are not creating footage with different cameras where one comon framerate of 24fps would be benefitial.
Once the demanding videograher would use these Tools for productive work they would expect from Canon to always deliver Video specs that are more than the normal consumer would expect from a (still) stills oriented camera with the capability to do some occasionaly Video Clips.
I guess this is the real message behind the 24p "crippling"
These are cameras meant for mainly still photography and some occasional Video stuff. Don't expect too much Video capabilities. There is more specialized stuff out there for videographers.

Frank


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 6, 2019)

Homeopathy: The idea that something with nothing has magical powers. Kinda like placebos and 24p.

When I drove truck for a while there were the old purists who said, "If you ain't double clutching or floating gears, you ain't a real truck driver." Then I climbed into a Freightliner Cascadia with a Detroit Diesel made automatic transmission. It had a switch: Neutral, Forward, and Reverse. That's it. I'd grab a load in St. George, Utah, set the cruise control to 68mph, and never touch a thing until I got to my destination in Denver. It was beautiful. The job became almost too easy. While everyone else was grinding gears and shifting... having to pay attention to RPMs... this new transmission took care of all of it. Up one side of the Rockies and down the other. Got 13mpg grossing 80,000 lbs. while the gear grinders were lucky to get 8mpg.

Point is this: People hate change. Sometimes they hate it so much they shoot themselves in the foot.

All this crap about a low end consumer camera not having 24p is nothing more than the old man down the block screaming at the younger set, "Get off my lawn!!!"

Here's what $180,000 in nickels looks like. Picked up at the Denver Mint and delivered to Las Vegas. Funny thing: The mint never sealed these loads of nickels. I asked why. "How the hell is anyone gonna steal that many nickels?" He had a point. A 5 gallon bucket full would have been impossible to carry. Then there's the problem of spending them all.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 6, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I have seen that article before and what I read into it is the following:
> People are viewing the 3D HFR with the mindset of viewing a 24fps 2D shooting. The brain adapts how to discriminate and if this became a more often used technology they will (a) adapt shooting techniques to suit (somethign I said above) and (b) people will get used to it.
> He complained about too much detail making it more obvious which parts of the set were 'factual' and which parts were artifical (including the make-up). This is not a problem of the technology but of the production values. In just the same way, I see some digital images (especially wildlife) that looks way too sharp to me and unpleasant to look at - not oversharpened with haloes etc but simply 'too sharp'.
> 
> ...



His paragraph is confusing but I believe what he's saying is that the scene was shot in 3D HFR but shot only in 2D HFR and *projected* in 2D _24fps_.

I disagree with the point that 24p will disappear- there is an ephemeral quality to 24fps that really comes down to what is _not_ present (meaning captured), what is omitted-- and this is why HFR seems _too_ real to us, and shows more detail in sets and costumes, revealing the artifice of production instead of masking it. Since to build the level of detail into sets that HFR would require and maintain production value, and also due to the aforementioned overall "magical" and dreamlike quality, I predict 24fps will be the standard for years to come. 

In other words, it's not just what we're used to, 24fps is "objectively" more magical and dreamlike, transporting us further into the story on screen. By leaving out some frames, our imaginations can fill in the rest and everything becomes more believable.


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Sooooo what is it you do?



--

We create custom 360 degree surround-view video recording software and hardware systems for portable and full-scale live touchscreen control of Tier-4 HALE (High Altitude, Long Endurance) surveillance and combat drones (300,000ft+), High orbit long-endurance Spacecraft and both remotely piloted Surface Craft and Subsea drone systems.

Here are some blurred-out photos of our sample systems. It means I write up-to-10,000 fps, up-to-16k resolution, 64-bit RGBA/YCbCrA Audio/Video CODECS and high-end 65,000 objects per second fully-autonomous vision recognition systems that can auto-recognize, find, hunt, target and do fire control on a database of over 200,000 air, ground, surface, subsea and space object/terrain/personnel/features without human intervention at all !!! 

It is fully capable of auto-targeting systems that have velocities up to 160,000 kmh (100,000 mph) which means i could OBLITERATE many thousands of simultaneous in-flight ICBMs, hypersonic cruise missiles and meteors if I attach it to our 4000 Degrees celcius aerodynamic heating resistant two-metre long ceramic-and-tungsten-coated, steel-core pulsed-coil rail-gun system which can fire up to hundreds and even thousands of rods per second when set in a metal storm configuration!

.
Basically, we defend North America (and the rest of Earth!) against Rocks and Missiles coming from Hostile Aliens, future peer-competitors Russia, China, North Korea, some errant space junk, a few long-abandoned space freighters, etc, etc.
.

Does that explanation work for you?

.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2019)




----------



## Del Paso (Sep 7, 2019)

America and the rest of the world rely on Harryfilm for defense?
We are superdoomed!


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 7, 2019)

Cheers and gratitude to CR Guy for knowing how to stir the pot! And for being brave enough to ask questions!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 7, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> America and the rest of the world rely on Harryfilm for defense?
> We are superdoomed!


You can pick on Harry all you want, but I intend to be his friend. That way, when the space invasion of earth happens, we can have escape in the Millennium Falcon.

Harry! I’ll bring the beer and Timbits! ( to all you non Canadians out there, Timbits are a grog bit)


----------



## hazydave (Sep 9, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I'm no engineer, so I could easily be jumping to wrong conclusions. My impression is that All-I would be less work for the camera processor, and also less work for the computer upon which the video is edited. The main advantage of All-I then is for editing on slower computers. My almost four-year-old iMac chews right through 4K video with no sweat (or however you mix your metaphors). So I would expect IPB to be less of a problem these days than a few years ago.


All-I serves at least two purposes. One is ease the editing burden, sure. And yeah, on my current PC, DCI-4K feels like DV used to. Not an issue if you have the budget. And of course, one could argue that All-I is too storage intense for consumers, too. 

The second is to support high motion video. IPB starts to fall apart once you're changing too much between individual frame. Going to a higher frame rate helps -- because of course, you're increasing the rate of I-Frames. The reason ESPN lobbied so hard to get 720p60 in as part of ATSC.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> You can pick on Harry all you want, but I intend to be his friend. That way, when the space invasion of earth happens, we can have escape in the Millennium Falcon.
> 
> Harry! I’ll bring the beer and Timbits! ( to all you non Canadians out there, Timbits are a grog bit)


The space invasion has already begun: Justin Bieber, Michael Buble and Celine Dion have landed in Canada (hope they don't cross the border...)


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 10, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> The space invasion has already begun: Justin Bieber, Michael Buble and Celine Dion have landed in Canada (hope they don't cross the border...)



At least Gotham City has alreay been lost, despite the brave heroics of the Arknam Defence Center.


----------



## Wsalopek (Sep 25, 2019)

This is the stupidest article I've ever read about why Canon purposefully omitts 24p from their lower-priced cameras...to save 10 cents (if that) on licensing fees? Good grief. Please delete this article.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2019)

Wsalopek said:


> This is the stupidest article I've ever read about why Canon purposefully omitts 24p from their lower-priced cameras...to save 10 cents (if that) on licensing fees? Good grief. Please delete this article.


Canon sold over 5,000,000 ILCs last year. If they’d saved 10¢ per camera, that would mean half a million dollars extra profit. 

It’s sort of like, “If I had a nickel for every stupid post on CR...”


----------



## cayenne (Sep 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon sold over 5,000,000 ILCs last year. If they’d saved 10¢ per camera, that would mean half a million dollars extra profit.
> 
> It’s sort of like, “If I had a nickel for every stupid post on CR...”



Didn't an earlier post in this now VERY long thread...find that using 24p is not licensing related?


----------

