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

[privatebydesign]

Steady on - you sound dangerously as if you actually know what you're talking about...

I made a similar comment to bhf3737's about importing to a different frame rate timeline in a recent thread and got ripped to shreds for it. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about! I haven't seen a negative impact of 25p footage imported to a 24p timeline, I'd love to see an example of where it dissent work, but I have yet to see one.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

There is a distinct possibility that this is a stills camera and not a video camera.......

Glad you pointed that out, Don - I was just about to post that I'm heartily sick of discussions about cameras being hijacked by habitually malcontent wannabe videographers...

 

[navastronia]

Steady on - you sound dangerously as if you actually know what you're talking about...

No, no he does not, for the reasons I state above.

 

[MayaTlab]

Because Canon is well known for making random, arbitrary, illogical decisions about the stuff it sells, right?

Canon is in no position to not have to take arbitrary decisions at times. Canon executives obviously don't randomly select the features they will or won't implement in a camera. There's obviously a thought process at play. But it's delusional to think that this thought process is based on accurate enough market research to not have to imply at some point a risk / arbitrary decision taken, and it's all but granted that this thought process is particularly well, thoughtful.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I made a similar comment to bhf3737's about importing to a different frame rate timeline in a recent thread and got ripped to shreds for it. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about! I haven't seen a negative impact of 25p footage imported to a 24p timeline, I'd love to see an example of where it dissent work, but I have yet to see one.

Welcome to Canon Rumours...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

No, no he does not, for the reasons I state above.

You saying it doesn't make it so...

 

[navastronia]

You saying it doesn't make it so...

Top comment on the second video is a perfect explanation:

"hey man... as a professional media engineer for MTV Networks.. i've learned quite a bit about cameras and gear from watching your videos. i was a little surprised that you were editing like this. that is always a 100% rule. never ever edit in a 23.98 timeline unless ALL of the media was captured/shot at 23.98 ("24p"). in the case of documentaries that contain new modern 29.97 interview footage and older 23.98 film based footage...the 23.98 footage will have a telecine conversion run on it to make it 29.97. in 1 second...it will take 3 progressive frames...then it will have 2 interlaced frames (combining frames 1 and 2....and the other combining frames 2 and 3 of the sequence.) this is called 3:2 pulldown. this is done so that if you needed to...you can actually run an INVERSE telecine and bring the file back to the native 23.98. so the rule is that you can always go from 23.98 to 29.97...but never the other way around. another note.. while the term 24P is what we all call it...there actually is a difference between 23.98 and true 24p. 24p is only achieved using very high end cameras like professional Sony cameras used in the film industry. this is so that they are able to transfer the content to film if that is the plan. all available pro and prosumer cameras shoot in 23.98. same with 29.97...although there is no 30P. it's all 29.97 fps"

Believe it or a not, a simple YouTube comment explains the issue better than most anything else I've seen. Why this source and not something that looks more reputable? Because professional videographers and filmmakers don't spend their time arguing on forums - because even DSLRs have been capable of capturing 23.98 for over 10 years, there's nothing to argue over. With access to the proper capture format, the debate never even occurs.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Canon is in no position to not have to take arbitrary decisions at times. Canon executives obviously don't randomly select the features they will or won't implement in a camera. There's obviously a thought process at play. But it's delusional to think that this thought process is based on accurate enough market research to not have to imply at some point a risk / arbitrary decision taken, and it's all but granted that this thought process is particularly well, thoughtful.

Oh, just stop.

Canon is not putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera - there's simply no way on God's green earth that any such decision will not have been analysed and rationalised.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

So you’ve now revised your earlier claim that they removed it for no apparent reason other than being petty and arrogant and to show distain for their customers, to claiming that there is, in fact, a legitimate business case for doing so.

Of course, now that you have come around to that viewpoint you’ve constructed a strawman in your head that you get why they did it (or at least, you’ve acknowledged one among several plausible possibilities), but nobody else does. Nice.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I'm always swayed by randomly-posted YouTube videos by people about whose opinions I have no reason to care...

 

[MayaTlab]

Oh, just stop.

Canon is not putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera

You obviously didn't bother to read what I just wrote.

 

[navastronia]

I'm always swayed by randomly-posted YouTube videos by people about whose opinions I have no reason to care...

k

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh, just stop.

Canon is not putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera - there's simply no way on God's green earth that any such decision will not have been analysed and rationalised.

Obviously not, but if you think that’s what @MayaTlab was suggesting, you had better go back and reread the post to which you replied (which is also quoted below).

Canon is in no position to not have to take arbitrary decisions at times. Canon executives obviously don't randomly select the features they will or won't implement in a camera. There's obviously a thought process at play. But it's delusional to think that this thought process is based on accurate enough market research to not have to imply at some point a risk / arbitrary decision taken, and it's all but granted that this thought process is particularly well, thoughtful.

I’m certainly not arguing that their market research is pinpoint accurate down to the level of individual features. But I would argue that in aggregate, their decisions on these sorts of things have been broadly effective. The evidence for that is their domination of the ILC market for 16 years and counting.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Originally movies were shot at 18 frames-per-second—with hand-cranked cameras. Search for persistence of vision—18 fps is where persistence of vision starts to produce smooth results.
When sound came along, 24 FPS was adopted because it was the slowest speed for sound projection of optical sound on-film. There is nothing magical or cinematic about 24 fps. The only reason for 24 fps is that producers wanted to maximize profits—simple as that. Today, non-pros show there movies digitally. Your family-and-friends watch on phones, not in movie theaters. Why does anyone miss 24 fps???
BTW Oklahoma! (1955) and Around the World in 80 Days (1956) were shot and projected at 30 fps. The Hobbit Trilogy at 48 fps.

 

[Stereodude]

So you’ve now revised your earlier claim that they removed it for no apparent reason other than being petty and arrogant and to show distain for their customers, to claiming that there is, in fact, a legitimate business case for doing so.

No, they are being petty and showing disdain for their customers. Their logic and reasoning is fundamentally flawed. I never said that they didn't believe that they had a good reason or a sound strategy for doing so. I firmly believe that the strategy is utterly baffling when considering actual market dynamics and will fail spectacularly at their goal, but that doesn't doesn't mean that they don't think the strategy is genious.

Of course, now that you have come around to that viewpoint you’ve constructed a strawman in your head that you get why they did it (or at least, you’ve acknowledged one among several plausible possibilities), but nobody else does. Nice.

Sorry, but I haven't changed my viewpoint.

 

[Stereodude]

I made a similar comment to bhf3737's about importing to a different frame rate timeline in a recent thread and got ripped to shreds for it. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about! I haven't seen a negative impact of 25p footage imported to a 24p timeline, I'd love to see an example of where it dissent work, but I have yet to see one.

Just because you don't accept reality doesn't make you right.

 

[navastronia]

Originally movies were shot at 18 frames-per-second—with hand-cranked cameras. Search for <b>persistence of vision</b>—18 fps is where persistence of vision starts to produce smooth results.

When sound came along, 24 FPS was adopted because it was the slowest speed for sound projection of <b>optical sound on-film</b>. There is nothing magical or cinematic about 24 fps. The only reason for 24 fps is that producers wanted to maximize profits—simple as that. Today, non-pros show there movies digitally. Your family-and-friends watch on phones, not in movie theaters. Why does anyone miss 24 fps???

BTW <i>Oklahoma!</i> (1955) and Around the World in 80 Days (1956) were shot and projected at 30 fps. The Hobbit Trilogy at 48 fps.

Here's a video with 24p and 60p footage shown side by side. Do you prefer 60p?

 

[privatebydesign]

Just because you don't accept reality doesn't make you right.

Thanks for the link to an example I asked for.

 

[Stereodude]

Oh, just stop.

Canon is not putting a list of features on little bits of paper, putting them in a hat and randomly pulling out the one that they're going to remove from/not add to a camera - there's simply no way on God's green earth that any such decision will not have been analysed and rationalised.

And yet big companies go bankrupt or fail spectacularly all the time due to bad decisions. Wait, I know... Those just must be the companies that didn't make their decisions as carefully as Canon.

 

[Stereodude]

I'm always swayed by randomly-posted YouTube videos by people about whose opinions I have no reason to care...

That's a rather ironic position for you to take given what you're doing here on this site. Do you think we should discard your posts with the same dismissive argument?