Sekhar

​This looks great, I'll check it out. I wonder how it affects the rest of the image though. Your example is a silhouette, so can't quite tell.

I didn't know you could remove banding. The PHYX Cleaner is claiming to do a lot (and for $49), sounds too good to be true to me. Even the Sapphire seems OK at best for that price (see demo at https://youtu.be/yHZfPmgR_XY on YouTube). If you do find something reasonably priced that does remove at least some banding, do let us know! Hmcindie, how would you use Neat Video to remove banding? I have Neat Video, and it does an awesome job removing noise, but I thought noise actually helps hide banding? In fact, adding grain might help mask it.

Wow, thanks Cinegain for that reasoned response. Much appreciated. I guess in the end this is art, and appeal will be subjective.

How does it look in the EVF? I wonder if it's your screen that's showing it wrong...see if your display brightness got changed in the settings. If you did a factory reset, that should have reset that as well though. In any case, I'm not entirely clear on what you're experiencing, but if only the screen is displaying differently, it might be an issue with the screen.

​Didn't know the NAB piece had a broken loupe, that explains it. It was pretty easy to get on and off though, except that it wouldn't stay in place. Much easier than the Zacuto loupe I have with my Canon 6D to put on/off for sure, just don't know how it'll withstand the day/day grind. In terms of build quality, it just felt cheap. Kind of like how you'd feel with a t2i vs. even a 5d3, like a consumer product that's not meant to handle tough pro use. It might have had to do with it being a pre-release piece. Actually, if you check out the images on the web, you'll see what I mean. Anyway, I just found a report by a guy who also handled the piece at NAB, check it out at http://www.photographybay.com/2015/04/14/canon-xc10-hands-on/.

I wonder if it's your converter. Did you try playing back the original H.265 files? If you don't already have it, get Potplayer - it's fantastic in general and particularly great to play your NX1 files right away.

​Thanks. I just got NX1 and happened to immediately cover the MDA Muscle walk here in Los Angeles. I need to finish it this weekend and am looking at the post options. The footage (3840) is gorgeous and technically has very few flaws, and I cannot get myself to soften it or add grain to such clean images, but I will experiment. So far I was only considering grading options. Since it's doc work, I presume different choices apply anyway from narrative stuff? What would you recommend for doc finishing?

​All right, now you're being snarky. But you didn't answer my question (I didn't expect you to though, I was addressing the folks who liked the piece).

​OK guys, could someone explain to me why you're all loving this? I'm NOT trying to be snarky or contrarian...I really want to understand so I can improve my own work. I found Ed's video fuzzy and grainy (clearly done on purpose) and cut rapidly with no clear purpose that I could discern. Since it appealed to you guys, clearly I'm not getting it, so would appreciate if you could explain. From a fluidity of motion perspective (the focus of this thread), I can see it's pleasing. But I don't get the other basic stuff. E.g., are we still expected to add lots of grain and try to mimic film? I thought that was passe. Again, I'm really trying to get this.

​Yes, I did. It was on display at NAB in the Canon booth (might have been elsewhere too at NAB). As I wrote earlier, the build felt cheap and plasticky; the lens was really dim; the varying aperture changed the exposure quite a bit so it was clear it would be a pain to do video while zooming in/out; and the add-on hood (loupe) was quite flimsy and would come off easily. On the plus side, it was reasonably light; and it felt fine to hold.

​Thanks, I'll check it out. Looks like there are some entries under looks and color that will give the info I'm looking for.

Pleasing video, you captured the happy and idyllic nature of these folks very well.

Guys, I'm looking for some really good training material for advanced color grading that focuses on the creative aspects rather than technical stuff (how to use Resolve, etc.) and on color grading rather than color correction. I looked around and found some promising videos on lynda.com, but wanted to check here before signing up. Suggestions?

On-camera storage is not cheap: XC10 is requiring expensive CFast cards for its codec and 4:2:2 4K, so there is absolutely a tradeoff worth discussing when considering XC10. Agreed though that 10 bit is more important, I'm sure it will become mainstream once Rec 2020 kicks in and 10 bit displays become commonplace.

Is 4:2:2 worth the extra cost/storage/etc. over 4:2:0 for 4K, especially if you're going to down-res to 1080p? Except for specific situations like green screen work, seems to be more a marketing/headlline feature.

Either they must have been joking or were talking of a different pre-release version. I handled it at NAB (at the Canon booth, I think there was only one location where they had it on display), and it felt surprisingly cheap and plasticky to me. To be honest, I was really taken aback. The worst part of it was the clip-on hood.

Do we know XC10 really has 12 stops? I don't think anyone actually tested this since the camera isn't out, it's just Canon saying so at this point.

Sure, every product appeals to somebody. The problem here is that Canon says XC10 is a mainstream pro camera (for both creative and ENG folks, per their PR and XC10 product page) rather than niche as many here see it. When Leica prices its monochrome M rangefinder at $8K, sure it appeals to some. Nobody will bash it for being B&W and compare it to a $200 P&S like folks are doing with XC10 because Leica is not positioning it as mainstream.

Yep. I got the NX1 a week back and immediately happened to cover the LA MDA Muscle Walk. Lot of footage, but it was pretty simple/easy to transcode to ProRes on my Windows machine. I used FFmpeg, which was fast (the app was Rocky Mountains, check it out especially if you want to easily do H.265->ProRes on Windows). The nice thing with this workflow is that once you're done with your edit, you can delete all the large ProRes files and archive the H.265 files, which are really small. Besides, even with H.264 you'd want to transcode to something that's more edit friendly anyway, so it isn't that different with H.265.

​If you're going to use the XC10 set at wide, the fixed slow and heavy zoom is a liability for drone use, wouldn't you say? An interchangeable lens camera with a prime would be preferable in that scenario.

​That's some great looking footage, wow. The most impressive thing for me was that most of the shots seemed to make meaningful use of the drone rather than just produce eye candy like typical drone footage does.

​A lot of the negative reaction IMO is coming from the way XC10 was introduced. E.g., through the DP Review "Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal" intro that extolled the mere ability to shoot both pictures and video, something cameras have been able to do for a while now. Then this (what I see as a puff piece) interview. Stuff like this ticked off a lot of people (me included) because it kind of insulted people's intelligence. Not because of the limitations of the camera itself (or even its price). Then you have no clear indication from Canon on who is being targeted. Both their PR and product page position this as targeted at both creative folks (vocal folks hanging on forums like this, DP Review, etc. that make the most noise) as well as ENG pros. You also have Canon releasing shorts like Battle of the Ages and talking at NAB at behind the scenes stuff on shorts (I was there, it was clear they were attracting indie film makers). Naturally these creative folks, who are savvy and well versed with the latest tech and are value conscious (read: price sensitive) are going to compare with the FZ1000's of the world on the features they tend to care about. Compound that with inconsistencies in the product features that have you scratching your head. E.g., on one hand Canon suggests drone use, but the lens is slow and not operable remotely; it's supposed to be for journalists, but it is low res and there's no RAW and it's not great in low light; it's meant to make things simple for shooters with only JPG, but then Canon tries differentiating with internal 4:2:2 and there are massive video files on XFast that demand expertise in post handing.

May be it will be down to $1,999, but that's per PC World citing an anonymous source. Till then we'll have to go with the Canon's official figure of $2,499, both from the press release (http://goo.gl/Asz6sI) and the XC10 product page (http://goo.gl/LC42Ym).