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

[Andrew Reid]

A particularly strange virus has spread across the internet, which seems to infect people defending Canon's latest cameras, shorn of the cinema frame rate 24p.

Read the full article

[Avenger 2.0]

In photography they do the same. Just look at an old 1D from 15 years ago. It has features the 5D4 still doesn't have like specify the exact fps value in custom options, etc...

[Andrew Reid]

Sure that wasn't because of JPEG licensing fees? ?

[Mokara]

It was dropped to save money. They did not just forget to put it in. No one else has a reasonable explanation outside conspiracy theories. I prefer a more conventional and rational explanation.

The cap mentioned in that pdf is per product, not per company. It also refers to royalties that the end user normally would pay, it is not a license fee as such. That is something else. Who knows what the manufacturer has to pay to actually implement the codec, that is not covered by that pdf.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

18 minutes ago, Mokara said:

It was dropped to save money. They did not just forget to put it in. No one else has a reasonable explanation outside conspiracy theories. I prefer a more conventional and rational explanation.

And just so you know, the license fee cap is per product, not per company.

Which license are you even talking about? The h.264 license?

EDIT: As a good netizen, I commented before I read the article. Having now read the article I noticed that at least the article is about the h.264 license. Whether Mokara is referring to a different license is another matter.

[Cinegain]

Ah... trolls rejoice. ? Maybe put them on a diet!

(Ooh, maybe that's the explanation, Canon's put their cameras on a diet. Less features = less 1's and 0's = less weight)

[Mokara]

9 minutes ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Which license are you even talking about? The h.264 license?

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.

[Andrew Reid]

He's still going...

Holy fuck.

[Michael Steiner]

I tended to be benevolent to Canon because I still think they have great lenses and IQ, great Cinema-Cameras and great Customer Services. 

But this release is just very disappointing for anybody that isn't solely interested in stills... And the lack of 24p for me isn't even the major letdown. I find the 30 minute recording cap and the lack of C-Log (or any other Picture Profile for filmmakers) even more frustrating. 

For what I need, Canon doesn't even have an alternative that earns them more money. Maybe I'm an exception, but I have lots of EF-S glass and no intention to go Fullframe anytime soon. I'd love to replace my M50 as a B-Cam to the C200 with something that has better battery life, doesn't have the need to press stopp and start every 30 minutes and doesn't turn an 18mm lens into a 50mm lens when shooting UHD. I was sure the 90D would be that replacement, but they messed it. 

Disappointing, just very disappointing...

[Avenger 2.0]

The thing I don't understand is, why with the new camera's (90D, M6II, 250D, etc), do they offer clean 4k HDMI out??? Did Atomos pay them big money to do so?

[Cinegain]

2 hours ago, Mokara said:

It was dropped to save money. They did not just forget to put it in. No one else has a reasonable explanation outside conspiracy theories. I prefer a more conventional and rational explanation. [..]

You damn right, they didn't. It was a deliberate act to cripple the camera as part of their increasingly aggressive segmentation game (forcing certain people looking for certain features to look at more expensive options; which is a very business oriented strategy which of course isn't a very good sign of goodwill and might alienate more people than it attracts). Which is a very reasonable and rational explanation. A much better one than including 24p because implementing so would make the camera too costly (again, we've seen cameras getting 24p added through a firmware update, long after it was sold to the customer!). The entry level Rebel T7 does 1080p24. You know which Canon camera does 4K24p? The Canon PowerShot SX740 HS, lol. A consumer budget compactcamera. So stop all this nonsense about costs or technical implementation, it's all bogus. They did it on purpose and it was not to cut down on costs of the camera itself, it was in the hopes that due to leaving it out it would generate more camera sales in higher tier products. Which is a shame, because no other camera company is leaving out something basic as 24p!

Canon blew up after the 5DmkII and 550D/T2i. Then the whole Magic Lantern years trying to make them more into what Panasonic was doing as a company themselves with the GH-range, unlocking more potential, giving its users more quality and features. Yet Canon as a company? It's swinging that 'cripple hammer'. Why do you do it?

What good have they really done after the 5DmkII? They started the whole HDSLR revolution if you will and now they're the ones least eager to keep up with it (it's like they managed to pull the Excalibur sword out... and then sold it for its precious metals). Just makes me puke. ?

[Shell64]

Mokora, how do you keep doing this argument when ALL of the evidence is against you?  Canon really must’ve lost a ton of money on the t2i. 

[David Bowgett]

Even if the licencing fees argument were true, it would actually make Canon look worse, not better. Because if Pentax, who have a far smaller share of the market and whose video quality has consistently been an absolute joke since the day they added it, are willing to shell out the fees to enable their DSLRs to support 24p, what possible excuse could Canon have for not doing the same?

[Jrsisson]

1 hour ago, Cinegain said:

You damn right, they didn't. It was a deliberate act to cripple the camera as part of their increasingly aggressive segmentation game (forcing certain people looking for certain features to look at more expensive options; which is a very business oriented strategy which of course isn't a very good sign of goodwill and might alienate more people than it attracts). Which is a very reasonable and rational explanation. A much better one than including 24p because implementing so would make the camera too costly (again, we've seen cameras getting 24p added through a firmware update, long after it was sold to the customer!). The entry level Rebel T7 does 1080p24. You know which Canon camera does 4K24p? The Canon PowerShot SX740 HS, lol. A consumer budget compactcamera. So stop all this nonsense about costs or technical implementation, it's all bogus. They did it on purpose and it was not to cut down on costs of the camera itself, it was in the hopes that due to leaving it out it would generate more camera sales in higher tier products. Which is a shame, because no other camera company is leaving out something basic as 24p!

Canon blew up after the 5DmkII and 550D/T2i. Then the whole Magic Lantern years trying to make them more into what Panasonic was doing as a company themselves with the GH-range, unlocking more potential, giving its users more quality and features. Yet Canon as a company? It's swinging that 'cripple hammer'. Why do you do it?

What good have they really done after the 5DmkII? They started the whole HDSLR revolution if you will and now they're the ones least eager to keep up with it (it's like they managed to pull the Excalibur sword out... and then sold it for its precious metals). Just makes me puke. ?

Canon have always tried for extreme segmentation, I remember this daft situation from a few years ago.. https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/eos-800d-vs-eos-77d-vs-eos-80d-which-camera-to-get

 

Its clear they still have this mindset only now instead of having too many competing cameras, they have too few. 

 

Hence the large gap from the 90d etc to Eos R just for 24p... its a ridiculous situation. Made much worse by the fact they have removed a basic spec to create a difference rather than a genuine technical advance.

[Cinegain]

Yeah, even VTech has 24p in the Kidizoom Duo 5.0...

There's no real reason for a Canon camera not to have it, other than their ulterior motives. And they do the crippling by anything... framerates, extreme crops, no allowing dualpixel AF in certain resolutions and so on. And sure, doesn't every camera company leave certain specs to certain cameras? Sure. But not at the extreme level Canon is doing it. They just try to minimize their efforts and maximize the profits. Which is perhaps understandable in a black and white world focusing on just numbers. As a philosophy... long-term strategy and moral obligation... maybe not the best thing to do here. We've got Sony and Panasonic leading the way. Fujifilm and Nikon making some efforts even as well. That deserves a certain respect from me. Canon... deserves none.

I mean, they just spit in your face and laugh at you. I ain't having any of that. The biggest joke ever was the step from the 650D to 700D. There was a dial that could now be turned both clock- and counterclockwise rather than in just one direction. Creative filters could now be previewed in liveview. And there was a different rubberized coating on there. Though, atleast I guess they didn't cripple it/left something out that was in there before back then. But that pretty much was it. Canon is the king of regurgitation. They might as well been Stevie Starr...

 

[wolf33d]

Wait, it’s 2019. Who needs another proof Canon is crippling every bit of product they have to protect the next one in line ..? 

The worst is they also do that with their top of the line FF ! 5D or EOS R same crippled crap. 

Well not really top of the line, I forgot the 1DX, a very good product from canon. But you have to put 6000$ to get a non crippled product from canon which is a shame. Considering they were capable of doing that camera years ago I would love to see a 2500$ non crippled full frame camera from them! Too bad.

[thebrothersthre3]

Canon doesn't care about delivering products to people in our line of work anymore. I have a feeling its because they believe these types of cameras are going to start becoming a very niche and non profitable market. I don't see any other reason for them to deliver such crappy products.

[Django]

28 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Wait, it’s 2019. Who needs another proof Canon is crippling every bit of product they have to protect the next one in line ..? 

The worst is they also do that with their top of the line FF ! 5D or EOS R same crippled crap. 

Well not really top of the line, I forgot the 1DX, a very good product from canon. But you have to put 6000$ to get a non crippled product from canon which is a shame. Considering they were capable of doing that camera years ago I would love to see a 2500$ non crippled full frame camera from them! Too bad.

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.

 

[Entrop]

Doesn't the 90d have 25p in pal mode? For me 25p was always preferable to 24p. Visually there is no difference to me and 25p is just more compatible to TV standards

[Sanka]

Might be a good time to change the website name from "eoshd.com" to "anythingelse4K6K8K.com"