Lintelfilm

Think of the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Oh the usual internet stuff: I'm right, you're wrong. I need to make sure you and all the other users here know that. I will not give up responding to your responses until it is clear to everyone here that you are an awful human being and my powers of intellect are superior to yours. This conversation is so important it'll occupy a good portion of my day. There are children getting bombed in Syria right now but someone with a random name on a very specialist hobbyist forum about something completely meaningless has a different opinion to me about it and he dared to answer back when I pointed out he was WRONG. Oh so wrong. Everyone is wrong. Listen to me I'm the best. My camera is best. No wait actually let's make this personal - your films are rubbish mine are great. Your existence is less valid than mine. Give up filmmaking! You know nothing! Hang your head in shame, fiend! Be gone! Actually no please stay I regret my outburst you are lovely. I love you. I love everyone here. I love everything. I love pretend film grain. I even love video without grain!

I believe there's a thing called Instagram that's quite popular with one or two iPhone users. It's popularity is partly due to the "film look" it allows.

I have no scientific backup for this but I'm convinced adding grain/dithering also intensifies perceived colour depth.

UPDATE: According to Cinema5D it's the MA-400 unit designed for the C300MkII that is intended to be used with the XC15. No top handle but smaller size. Also new (and of more interest for me) - waveform monitor and shutter angle option.

My XC10 with my C100MkII top handle (pretending to be) attached. In reality it'd be more flush and low profile as I've had to add an additional hotshoe to put it in place. I imagine Canon will go for something smaller but using the same unit doesn't seem outside the realms of possibility. Considering the XC10 compliments the C100 so well it'd make some sense. A unit like Sony's for the A7 cameras would be much more compact but wouldn't integrate a handle.. I made my own top handle for my XC10 - using a Smallrig hotshoe handle and Beachtek MMC-2 - which works great as an audio unit. No XLR but with a radio mic and VMP it offers v good sound, audio controls and the top handle works great with the 5-axis for stadicam like shots. Also it can be added, detached quickly just like the C100:

The XC10 is an out and out pro camera. It looks a bit consumer but that's part of its appeal. It's for ENG and doc work where small, light and inconspicuous is desirable. The images it delivers are for pro use, not just because of the broadcast approved codec but the superb IS, the log profile, the low noise, the good if not perfect AF, the ND, the colour space, the 10 bit output, etc, etc. None of that is consumer targeted.

You do realise the same has been said about every Canon camera ever, and always by people who look at spec sheets first and never by people who shoot professionally day in day out? Canon charge a premium for their cameras based on their ability to deliver where it really matters for real world shooting. They're intentionally conservative on paper but no one produces solid all-round cameras like Canon. The XC10 was not created to please EOSHD readers. It's a pro tool for when a small inconspicuous shot grabber is needed. It delivers beautiful, true professional image quality with minimum fuss. There's room for improvement but coming from a BMPCC and GH4 it's ridiculous how little work I have to do and how much better and more useable the shots are.

Because dual pixel is a physical property of the sensor. If the XC10 sensor was made as dual pixel it would be in use. Wouldn't make sense to equip it but not to implement it.

Highly doubt it. The fixed lens doesn't make the sensor very accessible. The low price of the camera would make sensor replacement proportionally expensive.

Films are just stories and stories are the way humans are programmed to make sense of/give structure/meaning to the chaos of life. Zodiac is based on real events. Fincher chose the story he wanted to tell about the chaotic real events within the time constraints of a feature. The incredible thing is that the thread in question read like a true crime doc as it unfolded. The odds of it tying up neatly were minuscule. Stories are created in the retelling. Like Rashomon we'd all tell it a bit differently. Some might wait for a resolution in real life, some may tell it now, open-ended as Fincher chose to. Some may see resolution/ending in the excommunication of ES. Stories are, like all art, representation. How a person or community make sense of an event or experience. Life itself is just chaos death murder etc (adopt Herzog voice to taste).

He'd also need the old version of the Image App as Panastoopid disabled the "hack" with a new version of that too, soon after it was spotted. Regardless, V-Log was a travesty from start to finish. The wait. The cost. The wait. The hack. The wait. The box with a code in it. Then V-Log itself, which makes any flat surface look like the stained bedsheet of an incontinent pixel person with purple pee. And no, shooting in 10 bit doesn't clean things up the stains are still there they just look a bit less like pixel pee and more like real organic pee.

Because although the camera is doing 25p it sends it over a 50/60i hdmi signal. I have no idea why but it's quite common. Perhaps to cater for displaying footage on a TV. The Ninja deals with it though I believe.

"It’s the first 4K camera Canon have released for a prosumer price" XC10 ??? :P

I don't use the star with the top handle the whole handheld thing would go out the window a bit I think. I have the star on a manfrotto hotshoe ball head and a couple of screw in hotshoes on the stars plate that can take the mic etc just fine. You loose the ability to hold with the top handle but because of the rotating grip i don't miss it.

I was doing a little panning and the lens was at mid/wide length I think. I love that the XC10's HD mode is so good and I use it a lot, especially for the 5 axis stabilisation but also for the low bitrate and of course 50p/slowmo. However the 305mbps UHD is unquestionably superior not just for detail but more importantly to me for colour (4:2:2), for motion cadence (high bitrate intra-frame) and for grading. It's just a very, very robust professional image that also fills a few holes my C100MkII doesn't cover - 4K for detailed wide shots, small size, timelapse, basic stills, superb IS/IBIS. Also a big deal for me is that it automatically down-samples the 10bit 4.2.2 UHD HDMI signal to HD to my Ninja Star, so I'm not missing 10bit ProRes from my BMPCC (which I just sold. *sob*). I too use the Rode VideoMic Pro with Beachtec MCC-2 setup, but on the end of a SmallRig hotshoe top handle. This makes the whole package function much more like a traditional camcorder or mini C100. The MCC-2 allows running a wireless mic to the XC10 simultaneously too. The top handle is also great for using with the 5-axis for glidecam like shots. iPhone lens is making the Rode mic seem much larger than it really is. Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but another really useful trick with this camera gets around the lack of custom buttons: Set the top dial to ISO, then use the mode dial to switch from Manual to Aperture Priority and/or Shutter Priority - select the aperture and/or shutter speed you want - then go back to Manual. This saves digging into the menus. I set custom button 1 to toggle powered IS on and off, button 2 as the ND and leave button 3 as Magnify (I did have it as AF but didn't use it - if I want manual focus I just flick the lens MF/AF switch). Focus is still a little unreliable even after the firmware update so magnify is handy for checking as peaking isn't always visible). Point being it isn't a perfect camera and I'll be interested to see how Mark II turns out, but the issues it has can be worked around. The feature I'd like to see most in MkII would be DAF, as this camera is an incredible shot grabber that delivers almost 100% useable images for me, with the exception of it sometimes being hard to get accurate focus. Of the niggles I have with it: I'd love to see a constant aperture lens but not at the expense of size. The lens could be a little wider too. More custom buttons is a necessity in the next model as even with my workaround white balance has to be changed in menu (though I use Auto WB most of the time). An EVF would be nice - I don't mind the loupe at all but it's a faff to carry around and makes the camera a little less inconspicuous (i.e. it looks quite weird). Overall though it's a fantastic, hugely underrated little camera and a perfect complimentary camera to the C100.

Hey you can laugh but at least it's an original idea for a film. Evil birds plague man with romantic interest in beautiful blonde. Genius. I guess it had to wait for CGI to become available.

Has anyone else noticed weird ghosting/banding with the XC10? It's most visible in out of focus areas (hence blurred images below). I've noticed it most in 4K though not sure about HD. My best guess is it's something to do with IS but I really have no idea. I've never seen anything like it before. Images below (look at the skin/face in the first two, and to the right of the face in profile on the last image for a "ghost profile" in the shadow). Very weird.). The XC10 manual says "ghosting, artefacts and/or dark areas may appear when using Dynamic IS" --- however Dynamic IS isn't available in 4K mode (which the frame grabs above are from). I'll do some tests with/without IS but if anyone has experienced this too I'd like to hear about it.

Yeah I went for the C100 MKII. Couldn't be happier.I'd love it to be 10 bit 422 internal but the colour and codec is extraordinary for 24mbps 8bit 420. Internal ND's, Dual pixel AF, great audio, small camera, 60fps, amazing low light, good DR, ergonomics I love. It just works. I also bought an XC10 to compliment it and that provides 4K, 422 (& 10bit external). Incredible stabilization, excellent HD. The new firmware addresses the focusing niggles well. Together they make a massively reliable and painless all-round professional kit. They're built to be video workhorses and deliver beautiful images. I'd love an Ursa 4K but for the documentary-like work I do it'd be a luxury item. Canon hits the middle ground between cinematic image and use-ability very, very well. I haven't quite managed to sell my BMPCC yet though ... still love that image!

It amuses me that the C100 shooter on the left has gone to the trouble of rotating the grip backwards in the knowledge he'll be shooting over heads all night. He also needs a shorter XLR cable.

On the subject of Canon + RAW, etc ... It's only the first steps so far, but A1ex of ML fame has begun work on the 7D MkII. It'd be a great video camera with ML RAW. Arguably superior to the 5DIII. DAF, s35 sensor, native 60p. Burst rate is 10fps so clearly the buffer + CF card combo has good potential for RAW options. DAF + FHD RAW would be a first I believe. I'd suggest voicing interest & support on the ML forum if you're inclined - who knows how much motivation Canon ML coders have these days: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13746.225 (A1ex's breakthrough is halfway down page).

For f*cks sake! Of all the people in the EOSHD "community" I'm sure you'll agree I've been one of the most vociferously frustrated and exasperated. Why? Because there's so much that is good and unique about this site and so many unnecessary problems. It's infuriating. I litterally had to beg you to close my account because I got so frustrated but didn't trust myself not to keep coming back (clearly my issue), but here I am again. Why? I have no idea. Maybe just because there's nothing else out there that fills this space. I'm now a working filmmaker and so in a way no longer fit the profile for this site so that may have a lot to do with it (I recently bought a Canon C100 MkII and XC10 to replace my speed boosted GH4 and BMPCC - which I haven't quite been able to part with yet - and yes the Canons are not the greatest cameras on paper but boy does Canon know how to get their priorities right for professionals. For a working video producer the premium price pays for itself very quickly in terms of reliability and solid all-round performance). However I still see myself as an artist (10 years in art school playing with video cameras helps) and have a great personal distaste for corporate-centric content. I too still check your blog regularly and get disappointed by the lack of articles and the frankly rather tired anti-corporate rants. At its best EOSHD is an antidote for corporate bollocks, not a platform to moan about it. You probably don't give a toss what I think, but regardless here it is, my unsolicited opinion in my own inimitably frank and patronising manner: You're clearly very aware that the blog isn't working in it's current form. You're right - it's sinking. The forum may still be going strong but in my opinion there is a poisonous contingent here that is just supporting the sink. However, EOSHD is still one of the highest ranking video sites - in fact it's only really second to No Film School (which is ahead by some margin) in its category. My point is that you need to make a decision. Do you accept that EOSHD was built on the wave of the GH2 and is now largely irellevant (this is how you sound most of the time these days, though I don't believe it). Or do you acknowledge that you still have something valuable with a large audience, a unique perspective and a desire to see it grow before it's too late? What do I think needs to change? I think you need to put aside the chip on your shoulder and acknowledge to yourself that you are a professional blogger. Despite what you seem to think, that doesn't necessarily have to mean bowing to "the man", selling out or it not being fun anymore. It means not using it as a platform for complaining, having a clearer raison d'etre and setting up a system that means you don't have to work yourself into the ground just to keep things afloat. I envy you because you are in a unique position to do this. You really are. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there who would give their right arm to have the audience and status that you have, but you're too stubborn to make it happen. Its glaringly obvious that its your own pig-headedness that is stopping this from happening. What do I think you should do? Simple. One name: Brian Clark. Read and listen to everything he's ever said, done or been part of. Copyblogger, Rainmaker, etc, etc. I'd start with the Unemployable podcast. Even pay them to help you. Get on the Rainmaker platform even. It's exactly what you need to help you make the decisions you need to make. Fuck, with your audience you could probably get to talk with him or his team directly. I imagine that you'll shrug this off as the suggestion you monetise EOSHD, but it isn't. Really. I'm practically a f*cking communist, I would never suggest that. I'm saying that you need to decide whether you want a future doing this or not - and if you do, whether you want it to thrive and and grow leave you with time and space to pursue the things you want to pursue. Brian Clark can help you do that. He understands the kind of platform and content that you are about. As for getting other people writing for/with you, that doesn't have to be a problem. We live in a time when you don't have to live near the people you work with. Don't be resistant to that idea. OK patronising rant over. The final thing I'll say - and this is an aside (more a personal thought than anything) - if you do want to make substantial changes I'm sure rebranding would be an option. If you didn't want to stick with EOSHD (I have no idea how you feel about this) then I think your own name carries enough weight to do whatever you want. Needless to say this isn't intended as a trollish attack. I've put my time aside to write this because, although I've more or less given up on it, I do actually care about this website. Good luck whatever choices you decide to make.

Thanks jimmy, very interesting points you make. I agree about the 270-degree fov. If VR tries to do away with a century of cinematic language it won't have a place in live action narrative. We have an IMAX nearby and I love seeing 3D epics there. Prometheus and Star Wars 7 were mind blowing. But on a smaller screen, even a cinema screen, 3D doesn't work imo. It needs that full fov element. So I agree with you , for me that's what VR offers narrative film - immersion. And only tasteful, appropriate use of viewer directed attention when the story calls for it. There is no doubt in my mind VR is here to stay. For games clearly, but also for certain factual stuff like fly on the wall docs there is huge potential. As the tech and language evolves and becomes widespread it will bleed into narrative fiction. I think the big unknown is wether people will actually want to wear headsets to watch TV drama etc. If not it may just become a parallel medium mainly used for games and big sci fi films, but personally I think there's huge potential for it to enhance and build upon existing cinematic language rather than turn it upside down. New tech is always met with suspicion and naysayers, but filmmakers of any sort would be foolish to remain in denial. VR is huge and will take a long time to grow in narrative cinema but only because it opens up such a huge new palette of possibilities. For the immediate future I think it's main benefit for films will be to make 3D a worthwhile experience in the home, but over time viewer interactivity will undoubtedly bleed into cinema and that can only happen successfully through trial and error and a kind of rebellious approach to, but respect for, the long established language of film. Right I'm off to buy a cardboard for my iPhone!

That's cool. I don't have time either as I'm currently juggling 3 jobs and a big pitch. Besides I want to be the one who guesses!

JCS, I challenge thee! I've been wanting to do this here for a while but haven't through fear it would devolve into silliness. However because I believe you're a stand-up guy and would do it properly, should you have the means and wish to accept my challenge: Post 5 pairs of full-resolution frame grabs (JPEGS are fine) of a subject with rich, deep and subtly varied colours. Plants, flowers, skin - natural stuff. Each image pair should be identical except for the fact that one is 8bit and the other 10bit or higher (i.e. either shot simultaneously internally and externally on the same camera, or consecutively in a reasonably controlled environment so no major light changes etc). They should have identical, conservative/neutral grades applied so that they have a level of contrast and saturation close to what it would be at the point of delivery but no stylistic adjustments (i.e correction but no grading other than conservative curves and sat). If you wish you can apply dithering/noise and the 8 bit image can be downsampled 4K. Post all 8 bit images on one side, and all higher bit-depth images on the other (or top/bottom) or put them in separate folders named A and B. I will tell you which are the 8 bit images. I will do this purely by eye - no analysis/scopes, etc. It will be plain as day.