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

Trey T

EOS 90D
Feb 6, 2019
199
112
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shutterbug

hoodlum

EOS 90D
Jul 11, 2012
155
34
www.flickr.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazyrunner33

MayaTlab

EOS 90D
Oct 6, 2015
193
81
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

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2013
332
44
39
Czech Republic
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

EOS 90D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
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? :ROFLMAO:

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).
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
733
880
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

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,270
2,056
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottw

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,166
1,509
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

Batman6794

I'm New Here
Feb 26, 2015
24
16
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

EOS 90D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
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:

*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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

cpreston

EOS 90D
Mar 22, 2014
125
64
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

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
61
Blyth, NE England
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin and scyrene

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,123
825
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,824
4,273
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

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
61
Blyth, NE England
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

EOS 90D
Oct 6, 2015
193
81
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).

 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
733
880
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
 
Last edited:

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
61
Blyth, NE England
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...