Jump to content

Mokara

Members
  • Content Count

    568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from leeys in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.
    24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.
    I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.
  2. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Mako Sports in Good news to Canon lovers   
    Nope. 25p drops a frame and becomes 24p. The masses are happy and won't know the difference. Easy. 
    Other than that they need to add some menu items and pay a team to test that it works in the relevant cameras hardware without introducing any additional bugs. It is a LOT more than just setting a flag.
    That is probably because of how the ISP was designed. The whole sensor will get read but the data will not all be used in the same way. 50p is twice the amount of data as 25p, so they may not have had the bandwidth in the ISP to accommodate that.
  3. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in Good news to Canon lovers   
    Nope. 25p drops a frame and becomes 24p. The masses are happy and won't know the difference. Easy. 
    Other than that they need to add some menu items and pay a team to test that it works in the relevant cameras hardware without introducing any additional bugs. It is a LOT more than just setting a flag.
    That is probably because of how the ISP was designed. The whole sensor will get read but the data will not all be used in the same way. 50p is twice the amount of data as 25p, so they may not have had the bandwidth in the ISP to accommodate that.
  4. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in NOPE! Canon did NOT remove 24p from the 90D and EOS M6 II to save H.264 licensing fees   
    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.
  5. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from MurtlandPhoto in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.
    24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.
    I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.
  6. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Mako Sports in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.
    24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.
    I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.
  7. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from newfoundmass in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.
    24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.
    I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.
  8. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Andrew Reid in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.
    24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.
    I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.
  9. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    It was not included to cut costs. Every function on a camera has development cost associated with it as well as increased manufacturing costs from the associated hardware. The people who buy consumer cameras don't use 24p to any significant extent, so leaving it out made sense. You would include stuff like that in products where those functions would be used (high end cameras for example), but not where they are rarely being used. It is the same reason you don't see basic beginner modes in professional cameras. It costs money to implement and are highly unlikely to be used by the people who buy the product.
    24p is not extra strain on the processor (Digic 8 is quite capable of handling 24p, however the processor is not the only electronics needed), but those cameras will have basic stripped down image signal processors (in other words cheaper to make) that don't have a 24p mode in them, so it is irrelevant what the processor can or can't do. The function simply is not there to start with.
    I have never claimed that 24p was left out because of processing. Stop making stuff up. The cameras in question use Digic 8, which very clearly CAN do 24p. 24p was left out to reduce costs in consumer cameras.  In fact, new models that use older hardware, such as the M200, still have 24p in them, so your argument is complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy.
  10. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in LUMIX s1 - WIRD JIDDER in vertical lines (not moire)   
    The S1 is supposed to be oversampled. The problem at lower resolutions is the increased processing demands that places on the camera, so there are artifacts that result. Not necessarily pixel binning/line skipping as such, but rather crude approximations of the data which has a similar results.
  11. Like
    Mokara got a reaction from noone in A9 ii announced, nothing to see   
    I would buy one in a heartbeat if I could afford it.
  12. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Mako Sports in Canon EOS M6 Mark II 4K is "pixel binned 3K" and Sony A6600 old sensor debacle "due to internal politics"   
    It is the same as the M50. This camera is basically the M50 hardware repackaged into a different form factor. So of course it has the same specs. Why is anyone surprised by that?
    Really? Do people no longer pay attention before diving off the deep end of the conspiracy pool?
  13. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in Canon EOS M6 Mark II 4K is "pixel binned 3K" and Sony A6600 old sensor debacle "due to internal politics"   
    It is the same as the M50. This camera is basically the M50 hardware repackaged into a different form factor. So of course it has the same specs. Why is anyone surprised by that?
    Really? Do people no longer pay attention before diving off the deep end of the conspiracy pool?
  14. Like
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in Sony AF Cinema Glass Signifies A Changing Of The Guard   
    Youtubers are not going to buy these lenses, they cost about $7-8k. They are obviously for Sony's new pro video cameras, which have AF as one of their selling points.
  15. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in Canon EOS M6 Mark II   
    In order to use H.264 they have to get a license like everyone else. There is absolutely a license fee structure involved, it is NOT free. You are not going to find any link to it because that information obviously is confidential, but suggesting that there is no license is ridiculous. What you pay for a license depends on who your are, what you use the codec for and how you use it. It can range from nothing to a very large amount of money. The exact amount would be negotiated at the time the license is issued and having some restrictions in return for a lower fee is normal business practice.
    That is a reasonable and obvious explanation for why something like 24p is omitted. The suggestion that they left it out on purpose just to make their product less competitive is absurd, but that is essentially what most of you are arguing. It is not like 24p was not in their cameras before, so they were not protecting anything then and are not now. The reason for the omission has to be something else.
  16. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in Canon EOS M6 Mark II   
    Canon are not trying to protect anything. No one buys a consumer camera instead of a pro camera when they need a pro camera. Whether or not an M6 does or does not have 24p has no impact on EOS-C sales at all. Nothing. Zip. Zero.
    There is zero evidence that these features were left out to protect high end products. People speculating as such is not evidence. Features are left out to reduce costs. That is it.
    Think about it. If 24p was really in such high demand as most here think, do you think Canon would shoot themselves in the foot by leaving it out, when all that would accomplish is send customers to competitors consumers cameras, not the Cxxx cameras? They would gain absolutely nothing if that was true and instead would lose market share to the competition. Remember, people have been going on for ages how Canon are market savy, and look to what their customers really want while waiting for the technology to mature. People say that their superior sales speak for themselves. Now suddenly we are supposed to think that their engineers and marketing managers have no clue. Just like that, because they made a decision exactly on the basis that people have been saying they have for all these years. 
    They left it out because it costs money to implement and few people who buy these cameras actually use it. They counted the beans and went with the largest pile. So they cut it out in order to improve their margin. It will save them a million or two and have negligible impact on sales. Why wouldn't they do it? It is the smart thing to do.
    The vast majority of people who buy the M6 are buying it as a stills camera, and the vast majority of that minority who use it for video will shoot 30/60p anyway, not 24p. Canon know this, and they would rather have that extra million or two in margins in these times of shrinking markets. When sales are growing you can add fluff to improve your sales pitch, but when they are shrinking you are best served by cutting the fat.
  17. Thanks
    Mokara got a reaction from kaylee in What's the opposite of "produce"?   
    The opposite of "produce" is "consume".
  18. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from newfoundmass in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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.
  19. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Juank in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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. 
  20. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Jrsisson in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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. 
  21. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Jrsisson in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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. 
  22. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Jrsisson in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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.
  23. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from newfoundmass in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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.
  24. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from Video Hummus in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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.
  25. Downvote
    Mokara got a reaction from EthanAlexander in How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?   
    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. 
×
×
  • Create New...