Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lars Steenhoff

Canon EOS M6 Mark II

Recommended Posts

So when they released the M100 or the GX7 Mark ii or even the a1200 years ago, they were willing to pay these millions in licensing fees for 24p and obviously all a1200 users were no budget indie filmmakers requiring 24p per Canon’s market research.

Now I am kind of a Canon fanboy but this is just ridiculous now and explaining away the desire for 30p is just silly. And I think you’re wrong, people love the idea that they can shoot their home movies in a similar way the professional Hollywood films are shot... in fact, Canon used that as a marketing tool for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Just as an FYI in terms of costs, these are the license fees for products incorporating AVC/H.264 

https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/license-agreement/

This is from their FAQs

Q: Do the same licensing terms apply to all profiles of the AVC/H.264 Standard?
A: Yes, the same terms apply whether one or more profiles is used.

 

 

* There is an interesting quirk involved in the licensing but I'm not going to aid and abet the transition of EOSHD into the internet's pre-eminent camera and patent law fusion forum so you can research that one yourselves ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Olympus E-M1 at launch only did 30p.

You know what they did years later? Firmware update release notes:

Quote

Image quality mode for movies were changed.
Frame rates 24p (23.98p)/25p were added.

That's a camera that had already long been sold by then. You really think they paid 5 million bucks after the fact just to please some beggars?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it is is literally a sensor readout change to shoot 24fps. The codec used stays IDENTICAL otherwise. Why could licensing be the reason then?  The canon t2i has 24fps. Did canon have to pay 5 million bucks?  If so, why did they do so on their cheap plastic dslr?!  Someone tell me the logic here lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People forget that they did this on a quote unquote cinema camera when they released the xc10. In the PAL variant you couldn't get 24p. You were locked into 25p. That camera was marketed as a sort of B camera to the c300 which could do 24p. Can someone please tell me the rationale for that??

This sort of segmentation is unforgivable to me in a time when they are losing market share to phones at a rapid rate.

My only guess is that they might think that most consumers could care less about 24p. And they may be right.  

I did a Europe tour recently and went to all the big tourist spots across a lot of countires. 95 percent of people used phones. Of the people who had DSLR/mirrorless cameras, 80 percent were Canon, 15 percent were Nikon and the remaining 5 percent was a combination of Sony, Fuji and Olympus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yurolov said:

I did a Europe tour recently and went to all the big tourist spots across a lot of countires. 95 percent of people used phones. Of the people who had DSLR/mirrorless cameras, 80 percent were Canon, 15 percent were Nikon and the remaining 5 percent was a combination of Sony, Fuji and Olympus. 

No Pentax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shell64 said:

All it is is literally a sensor readout change to shoot 24fps. The codec used stays IDENTICAL otherwise. Why could licensing be the reason then?  The canon t2i has 24fps. Did canon have to pay 5 million bucks?  If so, why did they do so on their cheap plastic dslr?!  Someone tell me the logic here lol

It just the typical Canon Apologist Bullshit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Yurolov said:

I did a Europe tour recently and went to all the big tourist spots across a lot of countires. 95 percent of people used phones. Of the people who had DSLR/mirrorless cameras, 80 percent were Canon, 15 percent were Nikon and the remaining 5 percent was a combination of Sony, Fuji and Olympus. 

If we are using anecdotal evidence here... I went to Center Island (here in Toronto) about 2 weeks ago... and I saw zero Canon or Nikon, but I did see 2 Sony a7 cameras and 1 olympus... about 1 month ago when I visited Niagara Falls, Ontario with the family.... I saw 2 Canons, 1 Nikon and 1 Fuji.... with those kind of evidences, I predict that given that these are high traffic tourist areas, people are dumping their Canons/Nikons/Fujis for Sonys and olympus camera within a 2 week period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shell64 said:

How does 24p h264 require a license when you can encode it for free with FFMPEG, which is open source?

I don't think MPEG LA (the licensing company) have ever seriously 'gone after' open-source/freeware codec producers - what's the point in trying to extract money from people who (as they are giving away just a specific *implementation* of the technology) basically don't have any? Also open-source encourages the take-up of the technology, which will ultimately benefit the patent holders that MPEG LA represent - quite a lot of those FFMPEG encoded files will be played on devices and software that are licensed.

It's the sellers of products including that technology who need the license i.e. if I used FFMPEG H264 in a product I was selling, it's me that needs a license from MPEG LA and would have to pay a per-product shipped license fee.

In any event, the license fees are not very high, there are some MPEG and HEVC costs here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA (for MPEG-2 it's $2 per unit, for HEVC it's $0.20 per unit). Also there are sometimes 'royalty caps' for big users, so you don't pay more than a fixed amount per year irrespective of volume.

(Incidentally, the biggest single contributor of patents to the MPEG-4/H.264 portfolio is Panasonic...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I'm guessing that's a typo, a 2 instead of a 3.

Could be, did not think about that. 

Ok I will wait for the canon announcement before any conclusions.

I do want canon to make a nice 4k camera, because the autofocus is so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I've seen a lot of Canon apologists but this 24p stuff might take the cake. 

“I just don’t need it.”  Then buy a cheap camera that doesn’t have those features and save a bunch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lars Steenhoff said:

I do want canon to make a nice 4k camera, because the autofocus is so good.

It’s called the C200. If it’s too expensive or too big then Canon doesn’t offer what you need.

EOS R has 1.7x crop in 4K. If that doesn’t work for you then Canon doesn’t offer what you need.

Its pretty simple. We can debate about 24p all day until the last breath out of our mouths are “No 24p” (this would make a hilarious comedy short film about canon btw 🤔)

I really don’t care why 24p is not there or why there is a 1.7x crop on the EOS R in 4K. They are there so I move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...