MaverickTRD Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 19 hours ago, Mokara said: 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. I’ve never had an account in here. Just lurked. But I finally had to sign up. Some of us grow so tired of reading your repetitive assumptions, theories, and misguided opinions. No one in their right mind thinks canon removed 24p to save a bit of money. Furthermore the license fees fees have an annual cap. Once a company hits that cap it can’t cost them more. I imagine big companies that manufacture video equipment using these codecs hit that cap regularly please stop repeating the same terrible excuse every page Thomas Hill, Andrew Reid, Mako Sports and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.