Canon EOS M6 Mark II

[Mokara]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Are you shooting all your stuff in 30p at the moment or 24/25p?

I shoot everything in 30p or 60p, since those framerates do not have stuttering problems on 60Hz displays like 24p does. Unless you have a output device that matches your 24p footage you are going to have issues. 

[Andrew Reid]

Stuttering problems

?

[PolarStarArts]

2 hours ago, Lars Steenhoff said:

 

32.5mp APS-C Sensor

DIGIC 8

14fps

RAW burst to 30fps

Up to ISO 26500

Eye detect AF

AF capable down to -5 EV

4K video

FullHD at 120fps

Removeable OLED viewfinder

Read more: https://photorumors.com/2019/08/19/canon-eos-m6-mark-ii-and-canon-eos-90d-promo-videos-leaked-online/#ixzz5x552VOdJ

What does 4k though image processing mean canon?

 

Interesting, although as always, the devil is in the details. What kind of crop will the 4K feature have? And if the only 4K mode is 30p, then I'll be giving this a miss, even though the camera otherwise looks like a potentially good upgrade to my existing M6.

I think what Canon could mean by 'image processing' is that the 4K files are processed via the Digic 8 processor. I wonder too, if this could mean that the camera will not have a clean HDMI output?

[ntblowz]

2 minutes ago, PolarStarArts said:

Interesting, although as always, the devil is in the details. What kind of crop will the 4K feature have? And if the only 4K mode is 30p, then I'll be giving this a miss, even though the camera otherwise looks like a potentially good upgrade to my existing M6.

I think what Canon could mean by 'image processing' is that the 4K files are processed via the Digic 8 processor. I wonder too, if this could mean that the camera will not have a clean HDMI output?

4K is uncropped, now just waiting to see if 4K is also DPAF or CDAF like m50/rp

[Michael Steiner]

2 minutes ago, PolarStarArts said:

I think what Canon could mean by 'image processing' is that the 4K files are processed via the Digic 8 processor.

I'd say it either means pixel binning or line skipping...

[HockeyFan12]

19 minutes ago, Mokara said:

I shoot everything in 30p or 60p, since those framerates do not have stuttering problems on 60Hz displays like 24p does. Unless you have a output device that matches your 24p footage you are going to have issues. 

Even if this is true, it's sort of like saying film as a "grain" problem. That's not stopping Pfister from shooting it (at 24fps).

I don't take issue with your preference for 60p, though. There's a good reasons sports and most video games run at that speed. VR even higher.

I do take issue with your statement that "almost everything" is shot at 30p or 60p. As I wrote before, I've worked on hundreds of (mostly professional) productions in the past few years. Every single on of them, so far as I can remember, was finished at 23.976p or 24p. "Almost everything" of what?

Granted that's a small sample size relative to the glut of content that's produced overall, but I am curious what variety of content you're referring to. For YouTube I could get shooting 60p. If you're counting Snapchat and Instagram then I think most content wouldn't be 24p, you're right. And while this camera might be targeted at people toward the high end of Instagram influencers, I still see this as an odd omission.

Regardless, this is to an extent a forum of "cinema wannabes" so... I'm not sure why you'd be surprised about the preference for 24p here.

[Mokara]

21 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Do you work in sports or are you just picking apart semantics and mean drop frame is more common than non-drop frame? Literally every project I've worked on in the past few years (granted 98% of them I've been primarily in post) has been 23.976 or 24p, but I'm not sure what I work on is representative of the rest of the world. Or are you in a PAL country?

Not trying to be difficult, genuinely curious.

If you shoot for content that is to be primarily viewed on or through a computer, you want to be shooting at framerates that match the refresh rates of those devices. If you don't, you will have stuttering issues when the device inserts additional frames, but with different intervals. For example, your 24 fps will be displayed as a series of 2 or 3 duplicated frames on a 60 fps device. Because those effective frames are now of different duration it will cause the appearance of a stutter in any scene that has motion. On a native 24 fps device you will not see stutter. That is why you NEVER shoot 24 fps unless that is your display media. If you are shooting for cinema, or a device that will match it's frame rate to your frame rate then you are ok. But if you don't have that then your footage looks shit.

These cameras are designed for every day consumer users. They have zero need for 24p. Pretty much every viewing device will support 60 fps (or even fractions of that) but not every device will support 24 fps. If you want to shoot for as wide an audience as possible, irrespective of what they are gong to use to view the content, you need to shoot at the most appropriate frame rate, which is some even multiple or fraction of 60 fps. Granted, the device they have may be capable of adjusting frame rate, but if the software/hardware they are using to generate the video stream doesn't, and produces a 60 fps output instead, they will still get stuttering.

Why do people shoot at 24 fps at all? The reason is because that was a historically convenient way of shooting movies, and because movies were historically shot that way, people who want to mimic that "look" shoot that way as well, even though there is no good reason for them to do so. It is an affection, people do it, especially those who have been to film school and what not, because that is how they have been taught to do it. For them it is the "proper" way because some old guy they respected said so. Unless you are shooting an actual movie where you know that the display is going to be 24 fps, there is no reason to use 24 fps at all. And if you do, you had better be damned certain that whatever is being used to display your footage is actually fully able to match frame rates.

[Video Hummus]

10 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Granted that's a small sample size relative to the glut of content that's produced overall

I mean if we want to get technical probably the vast majority of video is not shot on 24p. I doubt my grandma cares or even knows what frames per second are. My wife doesn’t care. She just wants moving pictures. Every cellphone video I ever shot has been at 30/60/120p.

That being said I shoot all my mirrorless at 24 and edit for a 24p timeline because it just looks better period. 

[HockeyFan12]

20 minutes ago, Mokara said:

If you shoot for content that is to be primarily viewed on or through a computer, you want to be shooting at framerates that match the refresh rates of those devices. If you don't, you will have stuttering issues when the device inserts additional frames, but with different intervals. For example, your 24 fps will be displayed as a series of 2 or 3 duplicated frames on a 60 fps device. Because those effective frames are now of different duration it will cause the appearance of a stutter in any scene that has motion. On a native 24 fps device you will not see stutter. That is why you NEVER shoot 24 fps unless that is your display media. If you are shooting for cinema, or a device that will match it's frame rate to your frame rate then you are ok. But if you don't have that then your footage looks shit.

These cameras are designed for every day consumer users. They have zero need for 24p. Pretty much every viewing device will support 60 fps (or even fractions of that) but not every device will support 24 fps. If you want to shoot for as wide an audience as possible, irrespective of what they are gong to use to view the content, you need to shoot at the most appropriate frame rate, which is some even multiple or fraction of 60 fps. Granted, the device they have may be capable of adjusting frame rate, but if the software/hardware they are using to generate the video stream doesn't, and produces a 60 fps output instead, they will still get stuttering.

Why do people shoot at 24 fps at all? The reason is because that was a historically convenient way of shooting movies, and because movies were historically shot that way, people who want to mimic that "look" shoot that way as well, even though there is no good reason for them to do so. It is an affection, people do it, especially those who have been to film school and what not, because that is how they have been taught to do it. For them it is the "proper" way because some old guy they respected said so. Unless you are shooting an actual movie where you know that the display is going to be 24 fps, there is no reason to use 24 fps at all. And if you do, you had better be damned certain that whatever is being used to display your footage is actually fully able to match frame rates.

That's a fair answer, and as regards these cameras, I basically agree. This forum caters to a relatively small group of consumers who want to shoot cinematic video without paying many thousands of dollars. That market is big enough that the GH5S and other cameras are marketed specifically (or at least primarily) toward it, but this camera isn't. It doesn't need to shoot 24p. It would be really nice if it did, but it doesn't have to.

On the other hand, every Netflix series I can think of (not that they're particularly well shot) is shot at 24p for consumption on 60hz displays. Do you think the DPs here are objectively wrong to do that? Do you think they're stylistically wrong? 

[Andrew Reid]

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

If you shoot for content that is to be primarily viewed on or through a computer, you want to be shooting at framerates that match the refresh rates of those devices. If you don't, you will have stuttering issues when the device inserts additional frames, but with different intervals.

Everybody stop, we have been wrong all along for 10 years since the 5D Mark II came out with that silly 24p firmware patch, why they bothered with that and didn't just stick to 30p I don't know.

All that stutter and judder from the cinema frame rate, damn my computer screen for not being a flickering 24hz scan rate, it's all the fault of those damned LCD panels!!

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

If you are shooting for cinema, or a device that will match it's frame rate to your frame rate then you are ok. But if you don't have that then your footage looks shit.

Yes I wondered why the Arri Alexa looks so shit on my LG OLED.

Bloody 24fps strikes again.

Tut tut tut.

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

These cameras are designed for every day consumer users. They have zero need for 24p.

*Checks notes* Canon are completely right to remove 24p and it has *checks notes* nothing to do with protecting the higher-end cameras.

Better warn all those C200 users shooting their silly mismatched 24p for Netflix.

They should all be shooting at 60p to avoid judder, and recommending people turn their TVs to Motion Smoothing mode, especially for those fancy daytime soap operas we used to call "films" like Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk.

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Pretty much every viewing device will support 60 fps (or even fractions of that) but not every device will support 24 fps. If you want to shoot for as wide an audience as possible, irrespective of what they are gong to use to view the content, you need to shoot at the most appropriate frame rate

Quick somebody tell Scorsese!

Why won't he get the 30p 60p memo??? Doesn't he know his scan lines are juddering and stuttering?

And damn that bloody Spielberg still living in 1984.

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

because movies were historically shot that way, people who want to mimic that "look" shoot that way as well, even though there is no good reason for them to do so.

It is an affection, people do it, especially those who have been to film school and what not

An affliction you mean? Yes, the look of cinema is the scourge of filmmakers everywhere.

They should really go to a doctor for that 24p disease.

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Unless you are shooting an actual movie where you know that the display is going to be 24 fps, there is no reason to use 24 fps at all

I don't know how much you guys in these PR offices get paid by companies like Canon but I am fascinated by the work and script writing you put in.

Should do a documentary about it...

Shot in 30p of course.

[Mokara]

14 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

That's a fair answer, and as regards these cameras, I basically agree. This forum caters to a relatively small group of consumers who want to shoot cinematic video without paying many thousands of dollars. That market is big enough that the GH5S and other cameras are marketed specifically (or at least primarily) toward it, but this camera isn't. It doesn't need to shoot 24p. It would be really nice if it did, but it doesn't have to.

On the other hand, every Netflix series I can think of (not that they're particularly well shot) is shot at 24p for consumption on 60hz displays. Do you think the DPs here are objectively wrong to do that? Do you think they're stylistically wrong? 

Keep in mind that the frame rate options may well affect the license fee Canon have to pay for using the codec. If the camera is being almost entirely used by amateurs who never use 24p, then they would have an incentive to not use that frame rate in order to cut costs. If people want to shoot 24p for professional reasons, there are other products that can do that.

Stuff shot at 24p is re-encoded for streaming. Footage that is re-encoded can be complied to any frame rate through interpolation of motion data in much the same way that TV panels extrapolate 60Hz to 120Hz or 240Hz. Just with a non even match it likely takes a bit more computation.

[Andrew Reid]

3 minutes ago, Mokara said:

If people want to shoot 24p for professional reasons, there are other products that can do that.

Hint hint. Keep checking your notes. You're doing a good job.

[HockeyFan12]

15 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Keep in mind that the frame rate options may well affect the license fee Canon have to pay for using the codec. If the camera is being almost entirely used by amateurs who never use 24p, then they would have an incentive to not use that frame rate in order to cut costs. If people want to shoot 24p for professional reasons, there are other products that can do that.

Stuff shot at 24p is re-encoded for streaming. Footage that is re-encoded can be complied to any frame rate through interpolation of motion data in much the same way that TV panels extrapolate 60Hz to 120Hz or 240Hz. Just with a non even match it likely takes a bit more computation.

I agree with you about this camera, even if I'd personally be more likely to buy one if it shot 24p.

Regarding Netflix, the footage is re-encoded but it's not interpolated. Netflix content is shot at 24p, finished at 24p, and transcoded and delivered at 24p. If the tv performs frame interpolation later, that's another story, but most people seem to hate that look. I personally don't care for it.

(I did used to have a tv that would perform 3:2 pulldown then run at 48hz... I miss it. It was preferable to 3:2 pulldown when you were in a dark room. But that had its own issues.) 

All I'm getting at is that shooting at 24fps is an aesthetic choice, not a technical one. Saying it's a bad technical choice is easy, but saying it's a bad aesthetic one is like criticizing an oil painting for being low res imo. That said I think shooting online content at 30fps or 60fps is perfectly viable if your clients like it and 5:5 pulldown (or whatever you would call it) is a good argument for 120hz panels.

[Andrew Reid]

I wonder if people who shoot 30p thinking it's better complain when they are at the cinema of stuttering and juddering?

Or if they have just been playing far too many Fortnite sessions at 120fps and their eyes are fucked.

6 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

That said I think shooting online content at 30fps or 60fps is perfectly viable if your clients like it.

It's only viable if you eat your clients afterwards.

[Michael Steiner]

3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's only viable if you eat your clients afterwards.

I had to laugh out loud reading this. 

But anyway, there's no reason to skip 24p in this camera when they had it in any other of their xxDs and even the M cameras. No argument. Licence fees? I don't buy that. 

[HockeyFan12]

20 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I wonder if people who shoot 30p thinking it's better complain when they are at the cinema of stuttering and juddering?

Or if they have just been playing far too many Fortnite sessions at 120fps and their eyes are fucked.

Film is projected with a different motion cadence (something like 3:3 pulldown rather than 3:2) and the projection is dim enough that your eyes are operating in mesopic mode, which smooths things out a bit. There's a legitimate technical argument to be made for 24fps projection being smoother than 24p video. 

On the other hand... by the same logic that technical superiority is all that matters, anyone using Cooke Speed Panchros is out of their mind.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes of course we all know the story with the M6 Mark II is that compared to earlier efforts such as the 60D or T2i, Canon finally had to drop 24p to save on the H.264 licensing fees which were really racking up a huge debt in their corporate bank account, and the other reason they had to drop 24p was that it takes just so much processing power to drop those 6 frames compared to 30p which is much easier, and the virtual garbage bin kept filling up with those frames and overflowing causing a memory leak and a security issue for people with smartphones connected, so 24p just had to go, and also the uncompressed 16bit 8K HDMI output could only run at 60hz for the screens on Atomos recorders so no 24p externally either, plus in Japanese the number 24 is associated with ghosts.

[hoodlum]

No 4k 24p based on these specs

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ELQFqaBQW4HwZC1hUOe7UpePtUDSVkBM/view

 

[Mako Sports]

Lool Canon Removing 24fps, let me just leave this here...

 

[Mattias Burling]

I  guess Im alone in shooting everything in 25p then. 
No production house or TV station Ive ever encountered would want me to shoot 24p.

I still don't get why this happen. As soon as a company, be it Canon or anyone else releases a product not aimed at "me".. the hole forum goes apeshit.
Are we really that bored or do we honestly believe that we are the only person left alive and that everything being made must be just for us and never for others.. Its just so weird to be upset imo. Just buy the camera that IS made for you instead of being upset that one never intended for you isn't.

And then we instead get the ooooold cryings "they don't inovate" etc. I guess not, I mean first 4K, first 4K 60p, first decent log, first decent AF, first proper ND adapter, first decent EIS plus a whole shit load of other really nice features that works for the people that don't care about some lame 6K pseudo codec or having the camera do everything in auto. Instead they get feature that can actually hep them in their work and are happy with that.

I have no intention of buying the M6ii, it simply isn't for me. But Im not crying about it, because Im sure it will suite others very well. 
 

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Should have got this one.

Samsung really are determined to get 8K into people's homes one way or another.

And yes, that is a real product

Awesome, to bad its a Samsung (had too many bad experiences with their quality). My TV is still a Samsung (had it for 10 years or so). When it finally dies my house will be Samsung free. But Im sure 8K washing machines will be "standard" in two years, just like people say about 4K broadcast (for the last 5-6 years..)