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.
...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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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).
