tomsemiterrific

Exactly on point. I know, because I paid that RIDICULOUS upgrade to 4k from Sony---and what's more, the upgrade was only 60 mbps----not 100, which a less expensive 4k Sony camera already had. Infuriating. Plus, these massive features in the G5 at this price level ---is unprecedented. The only thing that gives me pause is the MFT sensor, though some of that can be overcome with the Metabones speed booster for Canon EF lenses. I understand it works quite well. My only question is whether makes who make APS-C sensors will take the challenge and put similar features in a future model. Fujifilm--??? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

Andrew, speaking of SLOG2, you mentioned some video on SLOG2. You have put me back in the Sony business with these settings--but I have to say Sony color made me crazy before I switched to Canon--which is both wonderful and EASY with color. CLOG was child's play. My point is exposing SLOG2 was impossible for me. I attended workshops with Alister Chapman, tried to get the best information about proper exposure for SLOG, and it still drove me crazy. I did shoot one clip with your SLOG settings and used one of your LUTS and love how it turned out. BUT, that could have just been a fluke. I'm still at a loss of how to get the best exposure results for SLOG. I've heard Chapman on the matter. I'd like your take because I'd like to shoot a lot more with your SLOG because I like the LUTS you provided.

Seeing such a difference I thought I would just do the needed white balance and shoot some short footage of these two signs. When I did in filming them they looked exactly accurate in the camera to what I was seeing on yours shots on the computer screen. Reviewing the footage it looks color accurate to these two shots of the traffic signs. So, I'm wondering it there isn't some difference between the A7S and the A7Sii that is causing this. If anything is off a bit in my footage for the blue in the Cine I in-camera profile. The EOSHD PRO COLOR seems to have a bit less red---and colors are punchier. Duh!

I really like the results--better than any I've ever got from standard Sony color. And the LUTS in his LUT package are the best I've ever used. Here's the out of the camera footage, and at the end a clip of his S-log 2 ungraded, and then graded with one of his LUTS. I was happier with this footage than anything I ever got on an FS100, FS700, and FS5.

Thanks. The light was pretty varied. All these shots were hand held using the old war horse 24-105 f4 L lens. I shot off the histogram and mainly tried to keep my highs below 70-80 IRE. On the exposure gauge that usually meant I was shooting -3, or below 0. But I've also shot standard exposure, putting my F-stop where I want it and using auto ISO---and the footage came out fine. I only changed to manual ISO when my highs were pushing over 80 IRE--and that has worked very well. The key as far as I can tell are the LUTS. Reid's three LUTS vary in how they adjust exposure, and one of the three is mostly likely to work well. I used a Canon LUT that they produced for the C300 Mk II---lots of punchy and beautiful color there. Reid's C-Log works a treat, as they say on the other side of our pond.

Latest video--shot with 1DXii in EOSHD C-log, graded in FCPX with Color Finale

My profession has been music--performance. There are products for my instrument you MUST test one by one---because consistent cannot be found--mail order won't work. You might be able to get more than one to test from B&H. At one point I owned 2 XC10s, and never had an issue with ghosting that I ever noticed. But I think I missed something in the exchanges on this thread. Am I to understand that EOS standard doesn't have issues with ghosting--or that ghosting is significantly reduced???

If it is possible you might go somewhere you can try more than one and test the ghosting in the store--just BYOMedia...like picking through avocados to find the ripe ones.???

I guess I'm just lucky--it's about time---but I don''t recall any problems with my XC10, and I can't reproduce the ghosting effect in my XC15--which I believe has a better image quality than my XC10--but both are excellent. What's funny is in all the reviews I've seen, of very good and competent, picky reviewers I can't recall anyone has ever mentioned the problem. Absolutely it looks terrible---the ghosting is so bad and actually seems to be omnipresent.

Well, I am happy to buy it. The X70 is a pretty darn good camcorder, and it could really benefit from Canon Color. The X70 is the only Sony I own. I switched to Canon about 2 years ago after 10 years of shooting Sony. I switched because the Sony color drove me NUTS---and I owned them all: FS100, FS700, FS5---and never bought an FS7 because I saw several FS7 videos, including Phillip Bloom's, and did not like the color at all--especially skin tone (sound familiar). My point is that your Sony color profiles intrigue me, because Sony has so many bells and whistles---if the color were tolerable I would consider reinvesting in some of their mirrorless cams. But the price of Sony lenses gives me pause. Also, I feel by Sony like Michael Corleone felt about the Mafia: "Just when I get myself free they drag me back in again." Also, I'm VERY HAPPY with Canon image and color. I only regret I spent so many years tearing my hair out trying to fix Sony color. The skin tone color is FUBB! Anyway, I'd be happy to test the profiles----I've loaded in your C-Log to my 1DX ii, and plan to put some videos I shot with EOSHD C-Log up on Vimeo pretty soon. (As Morpheus says, "Time is always against us.") Anyway, I've never loaded in anything into the X70--and I'm not sure it's possible. Do you think it can be done?

Andrew, Would your color work with say, the Sony X70? It has picture profiles galore--and 4k. I'm assuming it would not work with the Sony a6000, right?

Not familiar with this. What do you mean "raises the black point?" Do you mean like Canon Log raises the blacks/lows when you expose with it? Where would you find the White Paper? Beyond that I've not tried to match eos standard with these cameras. Since I don't own an XC10 any more I can't test that. I can say the Canon Log for each camera matches super well and easily--as long as you stay with Rec. 709. or use the same LUT. That's the easiest match, just use the same LUT, adjust one of the clips until you have it like you like it and then paste the changes to the other clip. Beyond that there might be some minor exposure. The only other problem could be white balance--but I try to shoot both at the same Kelvin setting, and that usually doesn't create a matching issue in power. The reason I did this comparison was I wanted to see how well the cameras would match with Production camera as the Color Matrix....and the reason I did that was because I like the look of Production Camera on the C300 Mk ii.---what a wonderful machine--actualy both are wonderful. I only wish the XC15 had a constant 2.8.

That's actually the point. I did VERY little from what came from the cameras. Looking back to back there are differences---but shooting B roll at different angles, with different shadows I think they will work well together pretty well. Here's a different shot I did at the same clips tonight:

Matching clips for the C300 Mk II and XC15

Maybe. I posted this discussion there...but, thus far, bupkis.

Here's a screenshot of the XC10 discussion on FB: waveform.tiff

There is a close XC10/15 discussion group on Facebook. It was mentioned there, and I think Andrew Reid's article that mentioned the new XC15 here on eoshd also mentioned the XC10 would also get the same custom profiles of the XC15 in a coming update. Read Andrew Reid's notification on this site and see if he doesn't mention it. The update is not available yet, but I'm pretty sure it's coming.

No. All that is provided is C-log. Personally, that is fine with me, because it does give you 12 stops of dynamic range--and is super easy to grade and looks beautiful. I have a C300 Mk 2, and use C-log on both and match them extremely well, colors are exact, and the only difference is DOF---which is really not a problem regarding image quality. The XLR audio is excellent on the XC15....very clean, with a low noise floor---IMO, worth every penny for the kind of shooting I do.

The new custom profiles include profiles that were previously only in the C300 Mk II...they are nice, and bring different color space content with them. I still tend to shoot in C-log, just because it gets such great results. But I have to admit C-log 2 has more dynamic range. C-log 3 has actually less than C-log 2, but more than C-log. It exists because it gives you close to as much dynamic range as C-log 2, but is easier to grade, similar to C-log. I really like the image. The HDR Custom profile is excellent as well.

Yes, this is the XC15. I sold my XC10 to purchase it---I never noticed any issue with the XC10, but perhaps I'm not as skilled or attentive to details as i should be. I do a lot of education videos and the new XLR attachment and audio processing offered on the XC15 is excellent--had to have it, and now the XC15 is complete, at least for my primary purposes. Note, that a firmware update is coming for the XC10 that will give it the Cps and color space of the XC15--and (I hope) the waveform as well. It is very, very helpful, especially shooting in Log. Could it not be possible that Canon knows about this issue, and has silently addressed the issue in the XC15, and plan to do the same for the XC10 in its next firmware update???

Kidzrevil--here's the video you wanted to see. Where do you find the kind of Ghosting shown in your original example. Shot in 4k, HDR CP, with sharpening....

I'll try to get it done this evening. Work today. In the flowerpot scene I can't see any ghosting; the ISO was 20,000 and sharpening was actually set about half way up the degrees---normally I shoot Clog so I haven't actually turned sharpening off--as it my habit with all CPs.

I did a couple of tests and didn't experience any thing like I see in the examples above. Next, I put a pot of flowers in low light and ran the ISO to 20,000---still, no ghosting. Disclaimer: I have an XC15--but I don't think that should really make any difference. Right?!? I'll keep testing and keep a look out for it in the future. Weird.

What would be the possible solution to this?

I wonder if they've addressed this issue with the XC15. Lots of professionals who are very critical love this image/color of the XC10/15 and there's never been any mention of any such problems in the past. You would think if it's common you'd hear lots of people talking about "ruined" footage. Any comments???