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

[RayValdez360]

Greedy Canon putting profits above people. I wish they would go out of business and let some other benevolent company take over.

/s

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.

 

[jolyonralph]

24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed.

Exactly this.

 

[VORON]

The answer is more than obvious. For regular user there's no difference between 24p, 25p and 30p, so he won't care about omission of 24p. 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)

 

[BrightTiger]

A quick look up shows this - a bit outdated but it makes the license issue a non-starter. Canon is simply forcing consumers upmarket.
Under the terms in place for 2011-2015, the royalty rates are the same regardless of whether a product is part of an OS. There's no royalty for the first 100,000 units of a licensed product; sublicensees pay 20 cents per unit up to 5 million and 10 cents per unit above 5 million. The current agreement includes an annual limit: “The maximum annual royalty (‘cap’) for an Enterprise [is] $6.5 million per year in 2011-2015.”

 

[overniven]

Any comparisons out there of something shot in 24 vs 30, same exact scene?

 

[scottw]

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.

While I'm just guessing, I did look into it a bit before my tweet. There is a link in the wikipedia page that goes to the MPEG LA organization that does collect fees for use of MP4/AVC and other encoding formats. Canon is on the list of licensees ( https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/licensees/ ). Now, I do kinda doubt there are fees per mode like 24p/120p/etc, but we are all likely paying a few cents per camera for that format based on was I saw on the site.

 

[Drcampbellicu]

Good point on the licensing side. I hadn't considered that, but was just as confused as everyone else here.

Again, I really don't buy segmentation here because there are no other upstream products to push people to at the moment that don't have their own sacrifices. Maybe there is another product coming that ticks all those boxes for the few interested and that is what people will be pushed to.

The 2nd paragraph is segmentation

 

[planetMitch]

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.

Geezus that's a very stupid comment. You must not be a business owner.

By the way, I have found Canon to be one of the best companies I've ever dealt with. Upstanding and respectable and very very smart about their business.

Grow up. Canon is a business, not a charity.

AMEN Keith! Amen!

 

[planetMitch]

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.

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.

 

[Drcampbellicu]

There's a long list of companies that "care about their customers" right into bankruptcy. Would you rather Canon give you everything you want at the price you want for the next few years...and then go out of business, or produce imperfect-but-competitive cameras (and exceptional lenses) for the next 50-75 years?

Consumers think short view. Successful businesses think long view. There are often instances where one comes at the expense of the other. Finding the right balance is what leads to succeeding in a competitive marketplace, which Canon is doing.

It's also helpful to remember that if a company doesn't make products demanded by the market, they won't sell any and will go out of business. Canon has no interest in that scenario, and releasing the occasional head-scratcher or flop isn't proof otherwise.

This line of thinking sounds like corporate trolling. I understand what you’re saying but we should stop shaming consumers for wanting what they want. Consumers think websites like this are to give canon praise when deserved and criticism when warranted. Otw a website like this is just a silly echo chamber. Healthy disagreement and discussion should be the norm here... if this site is about real canon consumers.

I also don’t think canon will go out of business over something that would come from user feedback. It’s a billion dollar titan.

My 2 cents

 

[FredEOS]

Come on ... my $500 m50 does 24fps with the same digic 8, my EOS R doesn’t do 4K full frame neither 120fps in FHD. Also the m50 doesn’t have DP AF in 4K. And now the m6ii and 90D do full frame 4K with DP AF but not 24fps with the same digic 8...
I love my Canon gear, but they really shizzle on us now sorry to say that

 

[Batman6794]

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.

Those who think that the because the hobbit was shot in 48p means the version we all saw was 48p should do some research. Very few theaters presented it in 48p, (it was 24p almost everywhere.) and in the reaction was so negative in the places it was actually shown in 48p, I don't think they even released the third film in 48 anywhere.

Despite ‘The Hobbit,’ Hollywood Isn’t Adopting 48 Frames Per Second

Peter Jackson loves the controversial high-frame-rate format, but no other filmmaker has adopted it as Warners adds screens for "Desolation of Smaug." Says Bryan Singer, "I had concerns."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

To get twice the frame rate, you end up with half the maximum shutter speed per frame. This cuts your motion blur in half, which makes it look more like a series of stills than a consistently moving subject. As you mentioned, when your frame rate is too low, and you get choppy motion. (Though you're wrong that 24p was chosen because its the slowest you can get away with realistic motion. Early movies were shot at 16-18 fps and made a mint. It wasn't until the sound era that 24 became the standard.)

Anyone that says more is better is as uninformed as someone that says less is better. You make a trade-off when you go to either extreme, and you want to live in the sweet spot. Almost everyone making a living from narrative story telling agrees that sweet spot is at 24p, and Canon wants to sell them some more expensive tools.

 

[Richard-CN]

24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed.

the point was licensing of the h.265 codec is per framerate so if canon has to fork out royalties, they may want to drop one that isn't used as much.

 

[Ale_F]

As reported by FredEOS it's a sort of cutting functions in a middle level photo oriented - camera.

 

[Franklyok]

Off to topic.

I cant find, what is the HDMI output specs for this camera?

10 bit 4:2:2 or what?

 

[Ale_F]

Positive psychology.
Why all forumers are talking about the lack of one function and not talking about positive specs?
Are all a sony users :-D

 

[bhf3737]

I think that licensing is not an issue here. I guess we are talking about "capturing", "producing" and "delivering" video contents to our audience. Some of the debate is also because of confusion related to "shutter speed" and "frame rate".
The target users of these cameras are average amateurs and 30p matches their needs for capturing, producing and viewing the contents they create and the results can be viewed on any available 60Hz TV set produced since 2006 without any trouble and jitters.
Even advanced users who may want to use the 24p production workflow for editing and delivering contents (e.g. those who still produce DVDs or Blu-rays for their clients) are ok because 24p is the least denominator of the frame rates and any scene recorded in 30, 60 or 120p can be added to the timeline automatically in most common NLEs (Premiere, Resolve, etc.), either with its actual or stretched (slow motion) timeline without loss in quality. However, the opposite is not true, e.g. if you record 24p and want to add to a 30p timeline you will get additional artifacts and jitters. The conclusion is that 30p does not really affect the capturing and producing steps.
As for shutter speed, people care about it (i.e. faster shutter speed reduces motion blur) and we are good at noticing it and picking it up but we usually don't notice the frame-rate that well. The remaining issue is that the 24p frame rate's "feel and look" is different than 25p, 30p or 60p. That is a matter of taste, tradition or even the bragging rights, something similar to the Bokeh debate, I guess. Average users don't know or care.

 

[amorse]

The 2nd paragraph is segmentation

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point in that paragraph was segmentation doesn't make sense as things stand right now, but if they're releasing something to segment to, then maybe it is segmentation.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

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.

 

[amorse]

the point was licensing of the h.265 codec is per framerate so if canon has to fork out royalties, they may want to drop one that isn't used as much.

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. I suspect (with absolutely no evidence) that someone filming with an M6II is more likely to combine their footage with that from a cell phone than a cinema camera. Just a thought and I could be off base!