Jump to content
Andrew Reid

NOPE! Canon did NOT remove 24p from the 90D and EOS M6 II to save H.264 licensing fees

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Yes, POLITICS. . . marketing. . .

But technically. . .
There is a HUGE quality difference between what the sensor record and what you monitor on the LCD / Viewfinder camera's screen.
So huge, that you did not need much processing power "locally" (on the camera) just to view what the sensor (camera) is doing.

I am "hardware" (PCs) and I can cram in less than a 1/2 (of a small) camera's battery size a "storage module" which can record at 24+ GB/s, meaning that you can record the direct output of each pixel (cell) from a large sensor to high FPS, and into a big size of few GB (I can cram easily 8GB as now commercially available).
The SoC of the older Samsung NX1 had 2 PCIe bus channels not used (2x or 4x), and they could write - year 2014 - at least 5-6 GB/s, or even double in RAID 0.
And you can have "pure" sensor output, 12-14-16 bits, at sensor pixels (cells), or down-sampled (aka some processing) to a "normal video" format (2k-8k. . .).

SO, if you DO NOT WANT any of the "HDMI Clean output" or the "8-10 bits JPG or x264 / x265" inside camera, you can have easy INTERNAL RAW at its most basic level, with no any "fancy" processing, except a little for your camera's display.


Any PC's software will do a post-processing of this RAW data to acheive what you want:  that color science now included in camera's BIOS (so maibe each manufacture will do a "conversion" soft) and a video file type for any NLE software.

It is true that some want only JPG / MP4 (sure, local processing, slower), some want only RAW, but some want both, now this is the easy way to choose what you want.

When I went for stills RAWs instead of JPG - meaning post-processing - I lost interest for JPG.
With this processing choice in mind, I prefer RAW for video too, so no x264/x265 or what-ever else codec.
Sure Samsung could make a MOD from NX1 - theoretically, but financial (I'm retiring this year) I cannot "push" it.

Just my 2 pennies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that some cameras use different clocks for the 25/50p and 30p/60p, which is why you have to restart the camera when you change that setting. I don't know if these Canon cameras do though. It's possible that 24p would need another clock circuit, and leaving that out might save some space on the board and reduce the cost slightly. If that is the case, I could see there being an argument for there being a real ( but minor ) cost saving to leaving out 24p, but also happens to be a "total coincidence" that it forces some people to buy the more expensive camera 😉

I also suspect that there is a real technical reason for no over sampled 4k from full frame, Canon do seem to be struggling to keep up with Sony on sensor technology and perhaps their sensors get too hot or read out too slowly to do it, or their processors aren't fast enough. I think the CEO would rather people thought they were segmenting products rather than being really far behind with technology, that would look bad to their share holders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Otago said:

I think that some cameras use different clocks for the 25/50p and 30p/60p, which is why you have to restart the camera when you change that setting. I don't know if these Canon cameras do though. It's possible that 24p would need another clock circuit, and leaving that out might save some space on the board and reduce the cost slightly. If that is the case, I could see there being an argument for there being a real ( but minor ) cost saving to leaving out 24p, but also happens to be a "total coincidence" that it forces some people to buy the more expensive camera 😉

You would need a separate clock circuit for true 24.00p. However, the 23.976p that's more commonly used in consumer cameras is derived from a 60Hz base clock - in 60Hz mode my FZ2000 gives the option of "24p", 30p or 60p, but in 50Hz mode it's 25p or 50p only - so if a camera can do 30/60p, there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be able to do 23.976p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, David Bowgett said:

You would need a separate clock circuit for true 24.00p. However, the 23.976p that's more commonly used in consumer cameras is derived from a 60Hz base clock - in 60Hz mode my FZ2000 gives the option of "24p", 30p or 60p, but in 50Hz mode it's 25p or 50p only - so if a camera can do 30/60p, there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be able to do 23.976p.

Does the camera do the 3:2 pull down internally then or is there something happening to the clock signal itself ? Do you know if it's just the sensor and driving electronics for it that change frequency between 50Hz and 60Hz or does that whole camera get a frequency change ? 

 Anyway, that's that theory debunked 😀

Share this post


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

Canon should just shoot in 480i and really save everyone some money!

Unfortunately canon has already been using 480i in the canon t2i through the canon 80d. This has been “interpolated” to full hd. To truly save money canon could very well perform a 240p sensor readout and then upscale to 1080p. Fortunately, this leaves enough money for the encoder to process 24 frames per second in h264 compression, but moire and aliasing is generated as a result of canon not paying for the high quality h264 license and so they have to use a low quality codec. This however is the only way they can afford 24fps. 

Share this post


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

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.

If they have a license that cover h.264 at any other frame rate on the camera, surely that covers 24p as well ?? 

So the only reason it wouldn't be on there is to simply cripple the camera(S).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Shell64

A codec is a set of rules, I do not think you can have high-quality or low-quality codec licenses.
Once you have to apply these rules (which are mathematical calculs), it should be irrelevant if 720p or 8k, if 12fps or 240fps...

Finally, you have it or not.

Share this post


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

Be careful not to confuse product segmentation & tech limitations.

The 4K crop is because Canon likes to do 1:1 read-out for 4K. That is why the 1DX2 has 1.3x crop, 5D/EOS R 1.74x/1.8x & EOS RP 1.6x.

It isn't some kind of on purpose crippling. Sad truth is Canon are lazy & slow to adapt.

That is why they recycled the old 5D4 sensor inside EOS R and still haven't implemented IBIS anywhere.

By the way, EOS R may be top of the line MILC for now but it isn't actual flagship status as they've hinted towards upcoming pro model.

 

So are you telling me they don’t cripple products by purpose? And the 24p they do it because « Canon likes 30p » ? I mean come on. 

Maybe EOS R is not top of the line, but then at the price it came out it was clearly offering less than the competition for more $. 

They have no excuse. Like Sony doesn’t have excuse for the APSC garbage they just released. 

Not after what Samsung has done 5 years ago and Fuji a year ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, PabloB said:

If they have a license that cover h.264 at any other frame rate on the camera, surely that covers 24p as well ?? 

So the only reason it wouldn't be on there is to simply cripple the camera(S).

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.

44 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

So are you telling me they don’t cripple products by purpose? And the 24p they do it because « Canon likes 30p » ? I mean come on. 

Maybe EOS R is not top of the line, but then at the price it came out it was clearly offering less than the competition for more $. 

They have no excuse. Like Sony doesn’t have excuse for the APSC garbage they just released. 

Not after what Samsung has done 5 years ago and Fuji a year ago.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mokara said:

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.

Mokara is your real name Colin Robinson?..

 

57DC6E50-E1EE-4D77-8439-035BAB0B2366.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GiM_6x said:

@ Shell64

A codec is a set of rules, I do not think you can have high-quality or low-quality codec licenses.
Once you have to apply these rules (which are mathematical calculs), it should be irrelevant if 720p or 8k, if 12fps or 240fps...

Finally, you have it or not.

I was being sarcastic lol. I really don’t buy your guys’ license agreement explanation. Canon crippled this deliberately. Clear as day this is the answer. 

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

What a hill to die on. 

Paid canon representatives trying to change EOSHD viewers opinions!  A hill to die in indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shell64 said:

I was being sarcastic lol. I really don’t buy your guys’ license agreement explanation. Canon crippled this deliberately. Clear as day this is the answer. 

Paid canon representatives trying to change EOSHD viewers opinions!  A hill to die in indeed!

I have my doubts about the licensing argument, too. I suspect this is multifactorial and other factors include available hardware and support costs. Whether DPAF is on or off, for instance, alters the rolling shutter timings on the C200. Who would have guessed? None of us but engineers under NDA know the full story here, but the willful crippling narrative reads as most delusional to me. (Someone mentioned something about sensor temp and that sounds crazy, too, but much less crazy.)

Regardless, I can nevertheless see a coherent argument for crippling (market segmentation) and heat (lining up some timing on multiple chips with the sensor) at least existing in the realm of coherent possibility, and even for licensing fees–even if I don't think any of the three tells the full story. But the idea that paid Canon reps are visiting this forum anonymously to spin their decision to cripple the camera is borderline Pizzagate-level delusion. This is a stills camera; it's not a hybrid like the GH5 or newer Fujis and it's not even being marketed to videographers except incidentally.

I like the DIY ethos of this forum and the articles on unusual lenses and focus on image quality on the cheap, but thinking Canon cares enough to mess with you like that is tin foil hat-level delusional narcissism and I'm surprised to find it has a place here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

and it's not even being marketed to videographers except incidentally.

The EOS R was heavily marketed by influencers on YouTube who were sent free cameras. It was marketed as the ultimate YouTube vlogging camera. Which, I guess, it is considering it’s image and the total lack of power features.

It was uniformly touted as “good enough”.

Im not sure if this was a feedback loop or just plain old “here’s some marketing points. We told you nothing *wink*”.

I don’t see why this is such a big deal. The camera doesn’t do what you want. It doesn’t have 24p. IF that is important to you then Canon doesn’t offer something in your price range. Look to other brands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

thinking Canon cares enough to mess with you like that is tin foil hat-level delusional narcissism

It's tin foil hat delusional narcissism that keeps you posting, isn't it?

I read a good book recently.

It said the main reason you should ignore criticism is because people's criticism is a reflection of themselves.

Thank you for proving the book right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's tin foil hat delusional narcissism that keeps you posting, isn't it?

I read a good book recently.

It said the main reason you should ignore criticism is because people's criticism is a reflection of themselves.

Thank you for proving the book right!

I think I spun the same logic back on you in the last thread, so I won't bother again except to take it as encouragement I was doing something right.

But I'm genuinely curious what you think is delusional or narcissistic about my posting.

(Also, do you actually think there are undercover Canon reps here posting surreptitiously?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mokara said:

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.

 

via GIPHY

8 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I think I spun the same logic back on you in the last thread, so I won't bother again. 

But I'm genuinely curious what you think is delusional narcissistic about my posting. 

Well, because it's delusional.

 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...