Jump to content
Andrew Reid

How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Eugenia said:

That is true. Just not for 24p. As I said above, it costs nothing to have 24p in there, it has always been a feature. The OS used is the same as in other cameras. The Digic8 can do 24p just fine too. You are trying to take Canon's side with a very generic argument that does not apply  in the specific problem we are trying to address.

As I mentioned above, they've done things like that before, and I described that in detail. And I forgot to mention above how around 2014-2015 they started offering 1080p at 32mbps instead of their usual 48mbps they had at that point (same exact encoder btw) for their dslr line. Little by little, they started stripping interesting features away from video, after their initial success with the 5D MkII. No conspiracy here, just facts. The most obvious conclusion here is that they're protecting their pro video line. For better or worse. And it's their right to do so if they want to. But let's not be blind to the fact that their competitors offer more video features at this time and age for the same price. As a Canon consumer, I've simply jumped ship. It was a simple move + the cost of an EF adapter.

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. 

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
18 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

 

how long since those crazy reduser times, without mention dvxuser and the Chris Hurd's corner...

 

Wow. dvxuser -that just reminds me of the last time we had fanboy debates over 24P... and to think, I thought that was settled when everyone saw the success of the DVX100 and put it into their cameras... Even Canon added it to the XL-line 🙂

Share this post


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

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.

As a person that has a degree in computer science and experience in the industry (now left) good software is developed to share as much code base as possible.

So your argument is that Canon tested 29.97 FPS to make sure it works flawlessly in their latest cameras but couldn’t put forth the pitiful amount of effort it would take to test and record 23.97 FPS? Especially when they’ve included 23.97 FPS in the past with the same models?

How did canon pull off 24fps in the 6d mark ii and the original M6? It has a lessor processor, the DIGIC 7, in the same form factors.

You are saying somehow canon can’t develop and test 24fps with their DIGIC 8 processor, which by the way is built on the same foundational knowledge as it’s successor the DIGIC 7, in the M6 ii ?

The same DIGIC 8 processor in the M50 that SOMEHOW included 4k24p recording.

You’re just trolling at this point.

Please show me or find someone that can confirm your license theory. It doesn’t add up. There has been no evidence for it.

Somehow every other camera manufacturer can manage to “afford” 24fps codec licensing terms. Canon can’t? They must really be fucked as a company then if they can’t afford the single frame rate every single person wants in their camera as a base.

Its Canon playing shenanigans with brain dead feature segmentation.

Share this post


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

Not only that there has been no evidence posted  whatsoever that their is a substantial cost in having 24p AVC codec available in a camera. None.

There's actual documentation citing the exact opposite! 

28 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

I wish he would shut up already. This thing has already been debunked and he is still going off. 

It's beating a dead horse at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

There's actual documentation citing the exact opposite! 

It's beating a dead horse at this point. 

someone call peta, even beating a dead horse, its still cruelty to animals😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH the video crowd market is not that big IMHO, I guess that why Sony just keep 4K30P with 8bit  and choose not to compete with Panasonic on video mirrorless.  A9 probably sold a boat lot more than A7SII enough to have successor coming much more sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in a Canon household (Canon A-1), went on to own a couple of PowerShot digital cameras and when I decided that I wanted a DSLR, naturally I started looking at Canon first and foremost. Then I started seeing that Canon was stuck in a world that existed about 20 years ago, but does no longer. Discovered Magic Lantern and looked at Canon again...until I decided I shouldn't have to hack a camera to get it to do things that Panasonic, Sony and others were either doing or beginning to do on their own.

Fast forward five years and Canon still looks like they are stuck in mud...the market is collapsing around them and the one thing that might make them relevant again (4K video) is still being ignored. I cannot tell if it's the inability to change, to recognize that this is no longer 1950, 1970, 1990 or even 2010. It's frustrating seeing them wander around like a scared dinosaur dodging meteors while lava keeps pushing them towards the cliff and they cannot seem to grab onto a branch or a vine because they have tiny arms. Until management or their corporate culture changes to recognize that their relevance is going to disappear in the next 5-7 years unless they change, Canon DSLR sales are going to continue to plunge off of a cliff. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 1:36 AM, Eugenia said:

These were great times back then, reporting on cameras etc. 

I sometimes miss the simplicity of shooting with a P&S. AEL and AFL allowed such artistic freedom where the frame was all that mattered. The XC10 built upon that a little with gorgeous Canon Log 1080p. The Panasonic FZ2500 was almost better. But once I got bit by the ML Raw bug, it was hard turning back to any compressed codec.

On 9/4/2019 at 1:36 AM, Eugenia said:

personally use the M and the M50 for small short films like this (M50 below, with the nifty fifty). So despite some people saying that 24p is not needed, I actually need it, and I rather use such a small package camera rather than a larger or more expensive camera for these smaller film projects.

I love that short piece you did. The color was gorgeous and the DR was more than enough. I particularly liked the detail on the shed door.

If Canon would release a sub-$1000 camera that has IBIS and Canon Log (and obviously 24p) they would end up selling more of their higher end cameras, IMO. I understand the point of holding back some features... all of the companies do it, but no 24p... it’s just nonsensical. 

On 9/4/2019 at 1:36 AM, Eugenia said:

 I tried ML a few times, but the aliasing and overheating keeps me from using it further.

The 5D3 has an OLPF and a faster buffer so aliasing and overheating aren’t an issue, but I love ML Raw from the 5D2. Some of my favorite ML videos were shot with that camera. I don’t know if you’ve seen any of this guy’s work, but he makes 5D2 Raw shine...

Everything except the drone shots is 5D2 ML Raw...

He has a bunch of videos that I highly recommend.

Share this post


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

Everything except the drone shots is 5D2 ML Raw...

Taking nothing away from the incredible talents of the production team on display in your link, and speaking only in regards to two specific IQ issues which were immediately noticeable to me on first viewing (with no intention of starting a war here)...

1. body halos which are most obvious in the outdoor snow scenes (looks like over sharpened up-rezzed footage to these eyes), 3:03, 3:55, 6:32 as examples...

2. line-skipped rainbow-ized sparks on the grinder wheel shots, 6:21...

...the latter of which (line-skipping) primarily kept me away from going down the ML path with my 5D2.

Considering all the affordable native 4K/UHD-shooting camera options available today those ML image flaws help make the argument that using a better camera for critical shots will make a product difference...case-in-point, the noticeable IQ differences (clarity and detail) with the 4K DNG RAW footage used elsewhere in that same video.

FWIW, to stay on topic here, back in 2015 my 5D2/7D (non-ML) footage was beginning to look as dated to my eyes (as compared to what I was getting from my FZ1000, a6300 and a7SII) as my VX2000 DV footage was looking to me when those two Canon's came out. Canon's subsequent (and late to the party, IMHO) DSLR/M-form offerings haven't made me regret my choices to abandon their ship in search of better IQ elsewhere.

This fella's 2-cents. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jimmy G said:

Taking nothing away from the incredible talents of the production team on display in your link, and speaking only in regards to two specific IQ issues which were immediately noticeable to me on first viewing (with no intention of starting a war here)...

1. body halos which are most obvious in the outdoor snow scenes (looks like over sharpened up-rezzed footage to these eyes), 3:03, 3:55, 6:32 as examples...

2. line-skipped rainbow-ized sparks on the grinder wheel shots, 6:21...

...the latter of which (line-skipping) primarily kept me away from going down the ML path with my 5D2.

Considering all the affordable native 4K/UHD-shooting camera options available today those ML image flaws help make the argument that using a better camera for critical shots will make a product difference...case-in-point, the noticeable IQ differences (clarity and detail) with the 4K DNG RAW footage used elsewhere in that same video.

FWIW, to stay on topic here, back in 2015 my 5D2/7D (non-ML) footage was beginning to look as dated to my eyes (as compared to what I was getting from my FZ1000, a6300 and a7SII) as my VX2000 DV footage was looking to me when those two Canon's came out. Canon's subsequent (and late to the party, IMHO) DSLR/M-form offerings haven't made me regret my choices to abandon their ship in search of better IQ elsewhere.

This fella's 2-cents. :)

It’s just a camera... no war necessary. 

I went down the 4K path with Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, and Canon and didn’t like my images until I started shooting 1080p Raw on the Micro. And then I preferred the ML Raw from the 50D I bought for the hell of it.

I was all set to preorder a GH5 until I stumbled upon some 5D3 ML Raw videos and I never looked back.

I thought the P4K would be my upgrade but I haven’t seen enough, knowing my skill set, to convince me.

I recently ended up buying another Micro for pretty cheap but I find myself reaching for my 5D3 every time I do a test, or plan to shoot something, so I may sell it to fund a short film.

As I said earlier in the thread... when one of the major manufacturers offer internal FF 4K Raw, for $2500 or less, I’ll upgrade. Until then, I’ll stick with my 5D3. If I can’t make a decent film on 14bit FF 1080p Raw... no amount of resolution or sharpness, will help me.

Share this post


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

As I said earlier in the thread... when one of the major manufacturers offer internal FF 4K Raw, for $2500 or less, I’ll upgrade. 

Should only be a week to go now before we find out if there might be a contender for that one.

My guy said he'll let me know a bit more when he gets home from work.

sm3.jpg.84c6e6bf7d3c9938d02c34476429fd73.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 6:30 PM, Video Hummus said:

As a person that has a degree in computer science and experience in the industry (now left) good software is developed to share as much code base as possible.

So your argument is that Canon tested 29.97 FPS to make sure it works flawlessly in their latest cameras but couldn’t put forth the pitiful amount of effort it would take to test and record 23.97 FPS? Especially when they’ve included 23.97 FPS in the past with the same models?

How did canon pull off 24fps in the 6d mark ii and the original M6? It has a lessor processor, the DIGIC 7, in the same form factors.

You are saying somehow canon can’t develop and test 24fps with their DIGIC 8 processor, which by the way is built on the same foundational knowledge as it’s successor the DIGIC 7, in the M6 ii ?

The same DIGIC 8 processor in the M50 that SOMEHOW included 4k24p recording.

You’re just trolling at this point.

Please show me or find someone that can confirm your license theory. It doesn’t add up. There has been no evidence for it.

Somehow every other camera manufacturer can manage to “afford” 24fps codec licensing terms. Canon can’t? They must really be fucked as a company then if they can’t afford the single frame rate every single person wants in their camera as a base.

Its Canon playing shenanigans with brain dead feature segmentation.

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. 

eos-5d-markiv-digic-6_plus?fmt=jpg&fmt.o

By comparison, take a step down to the 6D mark II, and see what it's circuit board looks like:

New-Main-circuit-Board-Motherboard-PCB-r

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.

On 9/4/2019 at 8:10 PM, ntblowz said:

TBH the video crowd market is not that big IMHO, I guess that why Sony just keep 4K30P with 8bit  and choose not to compete with Panasonic on video mirrorless.  A9 probably sold a boat lot more than A7SII enough to have successor coming much more sooner.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, just not with the 24p part. There certainly doesn't need to be any added or different hardware for 24p. Magic Lantern for example can do any framerate you want. It's just a commercial decision that they only included 25p and 30p. Why, nobody knows. 

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...