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

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
1,970
125
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

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
747
95
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: hazydave

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
747
95
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,227
415
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.
 

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
354
204
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)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF and stevelee

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
454
49
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

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
113
149
---

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!
Sooooo what is it you do?
 

Scenes

Filmmaker
Jun 12, 2014
62
43
UK
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.

 

Photorex

EOS RP
Nov 19, 2016
248
37
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
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,110
1,655
Irving, Texas
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. ;)
 

Attachments

Last edited:

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
747
95
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):



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.
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

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
454
49
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?

.
 

Attachments

  • Haha
Reactions: YuengLinger

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,153
1,688
Canada
America and the rest of the world rely on Harryfilm for defense?:eek:
We are superdoomed!:cry:
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

I'm New Here
Feb 4, 2016
18
23
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee