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

Mar 15, 2018
37
38
United States
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

EOS M50
Aug 29, 2018
32
38
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Memirsbrunnr

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
28
19
robertsonrep.com
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.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,252
680
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 :rolleyes:

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

crazyrunner33

EOS RP
Nov 4, 2011
262
80
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Memirsbrunnr

EOS 80D
Nov 19, 2017
109
60
54
Denmark
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

EOS T7i
Mar 22, 2014
98
40
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."
 

RickWagoner

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2014
145
20
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.
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
206
111
Calgary
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

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,139
380
I
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

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,474
712
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

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,139
380
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

EOS T7i
Sep 29, 2018
91
74
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
1,947
116
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

Batman6794

I'm New Here
Feb 26, 2015
24
16
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.




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?
 
Last edited:

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
525
501
Yeah? Like who?
The Salvation Army or Holy Wonderful Sony, I presume... :LOL: 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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder