I think he was joking..... or I hope he was haha.Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.
Upvote
0
I think he was joking..... or I hope he was haha.Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.
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.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.
Off to topic.
I cant find, what is the HDMI output specs for this camera?
10 bit 4:2:2 or what?
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.
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 themJust 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 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.
Yeah, I thought the inherent sarcasm was obvious. My bad.I think he was joking..... or I hope he was haha.
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.
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.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.
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.Errr.... tell that to Hollywood, which I believe is still shooting 24 fps.
Well, we all have the right to make silly statements whenever we want to.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.
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.
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.
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 .Yeah? Like who?