Mokara

Oh. I see. So Apple have "invented" bracketing now?

Anything with the word "Leica" in its name

The opposite of "produce" is "consume".

They are not all the same (Bionz X is actually 2 - 3 chips), the exact configuration varies based on the type of camera. The insides are largely the same, just different configurations of the same parts. Bionz X uses the CXD90027GF SoC in combination with various image signal processors, based off the CXD4236-1GG ISP (sometimes single, sometimes dual). Generally the dual ISPs are used in the high megapixel cameras and single ISPs in the low megapixel cameras. The hardware encoder used in the system however is the same in all of them. So, other than the ISPs, the processor itself is indeed unchanged since 2013. That is what the problem is.

That is not the reason. They will have to ditch Bionz X if they want to make a competitive a7S III. There is no point to a a7S III if Bionz X is the only option available. It would not offer enough over the other cameras it would need to compete against. Remember, the S camera is very much a niche product, if it is to be commercially viable it has to have video specs well above the other versions and Bionz X can't do that. Anyway, if you were shooting video professionally, why would someone use a a7 over a PXW anyway?

I suspect that Canon's next processor, the Digic 9, may change that, based on what it's brother, the Digic DV7, can do. Sony needs to update their processor to current standards badly. It used to be cutting edge, but we are a long way from 2013 now.

The software package is not just for the processor, it is for all of the hardware in the camera. The current software package they are using for all of the current consumer cameras (which likely contain common hardware as well) is not the same as the one used in prosumer cameras. You will see the same stripped down specs in all of the latest consumer cameras. It is method for reducing costs overall, since you do not have to redevelop the software for every product made. Digic 8 obviously can do 24p, but if the code and associated hardware in the system to support it has left it out to reduce costs, then the system will not be able to do it. I have never at any point said that Digic 8 can't do 24p. What I am saying is that the feature was left out on consumer cameras in the current consumer OS in order to reduce costs. The frame rate options on those cameras is quite limited. The savings come in reduced costs associated with hardware/development/software/licensing in some combination. If they have made the decision to leave 24p out in these cameras, it will be left out in all those ways, and all those ways will reduce the cost to produce the camera. This is what the circuit board for a 5DIV looks like for example. You can see the Digic 6+, which is the primary processor, and the Digic 6 that handles focusing/exposure. Those are not the only chips however, there is a bunch of other circuitry to support image processing. Every shooting mode the camera does has to be supported in that hardware, or the camera cannot do it. I would guess that the current consumer hardware designs used stripped down support hardware, which does not support 24p. So there is no function to do it in the OS either. There is no point in adding it. By comparison, take a step down to the 6D mark II, and see what it's circuit board looks like: Quite a difference, no? See where the price and performance differential comes from? To see what a consumer camera circuit board looks like, go to about 5:46 in this video: And people wonder why their small consumer camera can't do what the expensive prosumer cameras can do, lol. Most people buy MILCs as still cameras primarily, those who buy them specifically for video are a relatively small minority. I imagine that a lot more a9 units were sold than a7S units. The a7S is a very specialized camera. So is the a9, but the a9's specialty appeals to a much larger sector of the market.

The pro version of EOS-R range will probably include the stills analog of the processor in this camera, which should be Digic 9. It will likely be capable of oversampled 4K, probably 60p as well, based on the specs for the DV7.

I think it is done with the LSI, not the sensor. That is the chip that processes the sensor output before it goes into the actual processor for compression. The sensor needs to do full readout without anything else because that is what is used for stills. So downscaling on sensor basically would make stills impossible.

One important point about this camera that people are not paying enough attention to: It has a new generation processor, the Digic DV7. That means that a Digic 9 is probably coming soon for stills/hybrid cameras. Based on the description for the C500, such a processor will be capable of oversampled 4K video. My guess is that we will see the Digic 9 being released when they announce their pro RF mount camera. That will likely be able to record full sensor oversampled 4K60 at 10 bits depth. After that it may filter down into lower end products. The C500 is going to be too expensive for most people here I think, but the processor hints at good things to come in the next set of prosumer cameras from Canon. hopefully they won't have limitations from overheating like the Digic 7/DV5 series.

No, the reason is more likely they want to implement 4k60, and for that they need a new processor. That is probably what is delaying it. I think they had two options originally, a version based on the same tech as the a7RIV and a6600 which was to have been released in mid to late 2018, and a more advanced version based on a new processor, likely intended for 2020 or 2021. When it became apparent that Panasonic and others were going to be using 4K60 at about the same time the first camera was planned for, the first camera was scrapped and they have been rushing the second one.

Saying it costs nothing to include 24p is not true. The fact that Digic 8 and the sensor are capable of 24p is irrelevant. There may well be additional hardware logic required to make that possible, and it also requires development in the video modules of the Powershot OS used in these cameras to implement it.

All features, no matter how small, have hardware and development costs associated with them. Nothing is free. In this case what would have happened is that the Powershot team would have developed a functioning OS around the Digic 8 processor and used that for all of the consumer cameras using that processor. Every feature in that OS would have to be written and exhaustively tested. Every mode has to be tested no only in itself, but also in conjunction with every other subsystem in the OS to ensure that it works in all scenarios. To save time and cost (engineers do not work for free, contrary to what many here think) they opted for a limited video feature function. If you think it costs nothing, explain how you think it costs nothing. Short of the engineers coming in on weekends and working for free, I guarantee that the cost will be substantial, even for things that you think are trivial. And, as I have pointed out before, the terms of the licenses needed to implement video can be negotiated for a lower fee in return for reduced scope. There are lots of mechanism to save money as a consequence of not including 24p in the package.

Um....the "ABUNDANT evidence" you are talking about is just a series of conspiracy theory with zero evidence to back it up. None. At all. All that information, particularly regarding processors and what they do, has been out there for years as well. Why don't you do some basic research about what processors are actually in these things? Do you really think that the fact that a 1D has three processors while a 6D has one has no impact on their relative capability? That the differences are because stuff has been "switched off" just so people will buy the 1D? What exactly do you think those other processors are doing? Why do you think the 1D series has all those extra processors? I have been going on about the critical role processing power plays in capability for a long time now, especially in how it impacts Canon's ability to bring competitive products to the market and how it affects the DSLR v MILC scene. Nothing new there. The problem is that people have been ignoring all of that in favor of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories being popular however does not change that these limitations in cheaper cameras are primarily due to cost saving measures, such as stripping down the hardware to a bare minimum and simply not developing other things because the cost versus return did not warrant it. You get all the bells and whistles in flagship models because the margins allow it, but that is not the case in consumer models. Cheaper cameras are not just expensive cameras with stuff arbitrarily switched off.

Because people who use those products don't use 24p in any significant numbers. Canon would have done their market research, they will know what their customers are doing. If the cost of implementing 24p exceeds whatever additional money they might make by including it, why would they bother? It literally loses them money. Back when camera sales were good then the small loss was unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but now the market is contracting and every dollar saved counts. The fact that you personally want 24p is irrelevant to the calculation. You look at the market as a market of one, yourself. Canon however sees it as a market of many, and in that market of many, 24p probably loses them money according to their numbers. So it is no longer there. It is as simple as that. No conspiracy. Just the bottom line. As you well know (or should know) hardware encoding is done by the processor, not the sensor. The 4K done by cameras such as the 1D X and 5DIV was software encoding. It could only by done by high bandwidth codecs due to the inefficiency of the process, which imposed other resource costs on the camera so that alone was not practical in consumer cameras. High end cameras had the supporting hardware to deal with that, consumer models did not. Also, you forget that the 1D and 5D series have an additional processor besides their primary processors (two in the case of 1D and one in the case of 5D) to handle focussing and exposure control. Consumer cameras do NOT have this additional processor, the primary processor has to handle focussing/exposure AS WELL as any image processing. The additional load on the processor makes implementations such as those used in the more expensive cameras impractical. Just because the pro and prosumer cameras had the processing power by virtue of multiple processors to implement 4K in this way does not mean that consumer cameras did as well, even though they are using the same primary processor. The difference between Canon's full frame cameras? The 1D series have three processors, the 5D series have two processors, the 6D series has one processor. You might think that the sensors are not all that different, but it is the processing power inside the camera that is the distinction between the cameras and it is that processing power that determines their capabilities. This has an impact even now. Ever wonder why consumer cameras had a problem with using DPAF with 4K while the expensive models don't? It was that extra processor handling the focusing/exposure that made the difference. Not crippling to protect product lines. Just simply less supporting hardware to reduce costs in the low end models.

If Canon could have rolled out a practical 4K consumer camera when Sony and the others did, they would have. The simple fact is that the processors they had at the time were not capable of it in the form factors and hardware configurations available at the time. It is only with Digic 8 that they had a processor capable of at least some form of 4K in consumer models. Magic is not a real thing, a company has to work with the tools available to them, and at the time Canon did not have the tools to do it in a practical manner. Wishful thinking does not make a real product.

I doubt they will lose many if any sales from the lack of 24p. Not in this class of camera. The number of people who buy these cameras who absolutely must have 24p are insignificant. What they are talking about is true resolution not sharpness. Oversampled footage is often criticized as "sharpened" but it is actually due to superior resolution. You can always make resolved footage softer, but you can't get create resolution that you don't have in the first place. Blackmagic are able to sell for a low price because (a) their cameras are for video only, and (b) they strip out just about all the bells and whistles, including hardware encoding (which requires more expensive processors). They can also press the envelope because their customers are more willing to swallow teething issues, issues that normally would result in something like a Canon or Sony being returned. The traditional companies have to be more conservative in their implementations otherwise their margin would be crushed by returns.

Not necessarily. They could have negotiated a license with limited rights for a lower fee. That is not unusual in the tech industry. You would do something like that if a particular feature was not necessary for your product, it is a means of managing costs and improving your margin. The license holder normally would not be interested in doing something like that since there would be no incentive for them, but you can get leverage through other means. In this case Canon could have offered some of their extensive patent portfolio to be included in the general encoder patent package in return for such a deal. Leaving some features out of the licence would be necessary otherwise other manufacturers could demand similar terms. So, conceivably a deal like that could be structured with give and take by both parties, but with a lower overall cost structure that benefits the licensee. Both parties would win in that sort of situation. The limitations of the latest Sony cameras are due to the fact that they are using the same processor. Until that gets upgraded video specs are not likely to change much. It is not crippling, it is lack of access to suitable technology. Samsung was able to do what they did because they had a far more capable processor in the camera. Panasonic are leading in video for small cameras for the same reason. Modern cameras are built around the computer inside them, the more capable that computer is, the more performance your camera will have.

There are two things, there will be a license to use the codec in the first place, then there are royalties due for producing content with the codec. That document refers to the latter, where the manufacturer in essence collects the royalty on behalf of the customer so they are not liable for it themselves. For example, I work in a high tech industry (pharmaceuticals, not imaging). Basically what we do is own a patent portfolio based on our own research. We then work with collaborators helping them develop products around that IP. We collect a license fee from them for the right to use that IP. That comes in the form of an upfront payment followed by milestone payments as the product proceeds through development. We provide our expertise to them during the development cycle and troubleshoot issues they might encounter along the way (they pay for this service separately, but it is part of the overall deal). Typically they would take out options to develop X number of products, any additional products would require renegotiation and likely a new fee structure. Over an above that, when they actually start to sell these products we also collect a royalty (which is a small percentage of what they sell the product for). The royalties themselves change depending on how much of the product is sold. So, for the first amount there might be a partial clawback based on the earlier milestone payments. After that royalties return a set value until some higher amount is reached, after which it may drop again. This is fairly normal practice in industry that deals with IP where one entity license out the IP to another.

It was dropped to save money. They did not just forget to put it in. No one else has a reasonable explanation outside conspiracy theories. I prefer a more conventional and rational explanation. The cap mentioned in that pdf is per product, not per company. It also refers to royalties that the end user normally would pay, it is not a license fee as such. That is something else. Who knows what the manufacturer has to pay to actually implement the codec, that is not covered by that pdf.

It is not "as soon as". The latest point and shoots don't have it either, which everyone seems to have forgotten. Or do you all seriously think that point and shoots were sucking business out of the cinema camera market? All of those cameras are using the same technology subsystem package, just in different bodies. Canon have a long history of using subsystem technology packages, and you can predict what sort of video specs a new camera has based on what processor it uses and what market class it belongs to (consumer/prosumer/pro). There is nothing mysterious about it. They are using a reduced set tech package in their consumer cameras to cut costs and improve their margins on those products. Most of these stupid arguments about "crippling" overlook the fact that the level of technology used in these different market classes is very different. For example, Canon pro cameras have dual main processors and a third older processor for focusing/exposure control. The prosumer cameras have one main processor and a second older processor again for focusing/exposure. Consumer cameras only have the main processor, which has to do everything. That is the main reason why consumer cameras are lacking a lot of the capabilities the high end cameras have, they are not being "crippled", they literally lack the hardware to cope. That extra hardware is left out to reduce costs and make the camera more affordable. In the case of the current consumer paradigm Canon have clearly built a video subsystem that has everything that is not going to generate a positive to their margin stripped out, and that includes 24p. Expect every consumer camera that is released with Digic 8 to be the same. It is predictable whether people here like it or not. It is not there for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with "crippling" to "protect" some product in a different market segment that would never buy these cameras in the first place.

It is not a G-master lens, those carry the GM designation. G series is a step down from there, it is their "mid-range" lens series. What would be the point of that? Sony uses older tech packages in their cameras, replacing individual components incrementally with each update. Otherwise the cameras use the same parts as earlier models. That is their business plan, why they can update their products so frequently. Removing 24p from the existing package would have required additional work and added to the cost. There won't be any significant update in video until they replace the CXD4236 ISP module in the SoC. Clearly that has not happened as of yet if the latest cameras are anything to go by. I would guess that might happen with the a7SIII, it could explain the delay for that camera, otherwise there is not a lot of reason to make it. They could still do the incremental update to bring the sensor up to current standards with respect to the sensor/LSI/processor though, but I suspect that would not generate a lot of enthusiasm.

M50 does not have DPAF in 4K because of processing limitations. If they could have implemented it they would have, because the cameras the M50 is competing against are the likes of Sony, not Canon's prosumers. The 6D series is a stripped down version of the 5D series, it has more basic hardware support. The 5D series have an additional processor in them to handle focusing/exposure for example, which the 6D lacks. That means the 6D has to handle those functions with it's primary processor, and that in turn affects performance when it comes to things the primary processor normally does. Presumably the codec options are one of those things impacted by that difference. That is in fact an example of how cost saving measures (one processor instead of two) has a direct impact on specs. There is no reason to remove manual mode because enough people use it to make it worthwhile. That is what it is all about. Cost and margins. Everything on a camera no matter how small has some sort of cost implication, and the decision to retain or remove it is made based on what market research shows people use the camera for. If your target market does not use a feature and it costs you money to add it, why spend the money to add it? You are just losing money doing so. For example, prosumer cameras generally don't include a whole bunch of "scene" modes because that costs money and the people who buy those cameras mostly don't use those functions. Do you think that is deliberate market segregation to induce people to buy consumer cameras then? To be valid, your argument would need to apply there as well. Anyway, my prediction is that the absence of 24p will have basically no impact on the sales of these cameras.

The terms of a license vary depending on what it is used for and how many units are sold. So yes, if you are going to sell a shit ton of units, with some feature very few people use, then negotiating a lower fee structure in return for excluding those features absolutely makes sense. And it is not just in video modes available, there will be all sorts of other compromises being made in the camera to save a small amount here, a small amount there. Using USB 2 instead of USB 3 - maybe there is a reason for that. It all adds up to a significant portion of your margin. When manufacturing a narrow margin product you cut anything you can reasonably get away with, even if the actual cost might seem trivial to the casual observer. That is how you make money in business, you are not a charity.

EOS-R is marketed primarily to stills photographers, with video as an extra. The only hybrids on the market that are video orientated are Panasonic's GH series. Prosumer cameras will still have 24p since people who buy those products might still want that. These new cameras are consumer market cameras. Two different types of products aimed at different types on consumers. If people in the consumer market don't use 24p the absence of 24p is not going to move them to prosumer cameras. I am not sure why you think it would. I highly doubt that Canon's marketing team thinks that. Do you buy more expensive stuff just because it includes some functionality you never use? I am pretty sure that most people have more sense than that.