Canon XC10 4K camcorder

[Lamplighter55]

2 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Interesting! According to this theory, would you expect ghosting to worsen with ISO, as we have seen?

 

Here's the latest update from Canon:
 

I guess you could interpret this in a few different ways. I'm going with "they're fixing the firmware" for now.

... the artefacts are quite characteristic of 'Temporal aliasing' but obviously some processing has been done as it does not seem to be global to each frame and seems to to be more pronounced when there is a pronounced difference in contrast from the preceding frame onto an area with less contrast. There should be a firmware adjustment that can solve the problem. (There's an interesting page on 'Red's site that helps explain temporal aliasing and their solution (hardware) in using an lcd layer between lens and capture chip that controls the light levels at a pixel level across the exposure of each frame.) It is a tricky problem though, that all digital recording devices have to deal with - the question for Canon is were in the image pipeline, can be mitigated.

Assuming this is indeed the problem then in theory we can reduce it by capturing a flat but brightly lit image (reducing contrast but also pushing more of the pixel values towards the mid-point exposure value), running at a higher shutter speed and keeping camera nodal movement to a minimum (to reduce spatial aliasing). I'll also try some tests to see if I'm correct - at least in part ;-)

[Link to Temporal Aliasing on Red's site: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/cinema-temporal-aliasing]

[Tim Sewell]

Quote

Assuming this is indeed the problem then in theory we can reduce it by capturing a flat but brightly lit image (reducing contrast but also pushing more of the pixel values towards the mid-point exposure value), running at a higher shutter speed and keeping camera nodal movement to a minimum (to reduce spatial aliasing). I'll also try some tests to see if I'm correct - at least in part ;-)

Unfortunately, this is a camera marketed for handheld use in unpredictable shooting situations - so let's hope for a firmware solution!

[kidzrevil]

17 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

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:

 

Question how does the cinema eos profile on the xc10-xc15 match the canon c300 ii? I am trying to learn more about the cinema eos profile because it raises the black point of the camera but it looks really good. I really want to know the name of the profile kt correlates to on the c300ii so I can look up the white papers on it

[tomsemiterrific]

19 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Question how does the cinema eos profile on the xc10-xc15 match the canon c300 ii? I am trying to learn more about the cinema eos profile because it raises the black point of the camera but it looks really good. I really want to know the name of the profile kt correlates to on the c300ii so I can look up the white papers on it

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.

[hyalinejim]

I much prefer the colour rendition in the first clip - the second looks cooler and more green tinted. Have you tried doing a manual white balance on a grey card on both cameras? I'd be interested to see if the colours would match more closely.

[kidzrevil]

6 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

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.

yes just like how canon log raises the black point.

you can find the Canon white paper here http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/cinemaeos_white_papers.shtml

I did a low light test with the XC10 and Canon Log 

 

 

[Arikhan]

@ all XC10 enthusiasts: There is a very interesting comparison on IQ of the XC10 compared to the Sony AX100 (aka PXW X70). The Sonys are cameras nobody (addressing pros & enthusiasts) is talking about...But I think the comparison is without any doubt:

In my eyes detail, contrast, etc. is in Sony much more better. Looking at clouds definition in the sky, there is a considerable difference in dynamic range too. Other opinions?

[Tim Sewell]

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

yes just like how canon log raises the black point.

you can find the Canon white paper here http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/cinemaeos_white_papers.shtml

I did a low light test with the XC10 and Canon Log 

 

 

Those are, to me, very cinematic images. What ISO were you shooting at?

[tugela]

17 hours ago, Lamplighter55 said:

.. and from Wikipedia 'The XC10 uses a single DIGIC DV 5, while the C300 Mark II uses a dual DIGIC DV 5 implementation.' So less sampling/super-sampling no doubt. There is also now the DIGIC DV 5+ (faster by 3x - so possibly equivalent of the dual set up in the 300 MkII) - yet to find which camera platforms it's to be used for apart from the EOS 1D X ... maybe XC15?!  

The technical term for these artefacts is 'Quantisation error'. Which could also hint at a way to mitigate them by spreading the pixel values over a wider range of bits - in other words shifting the luma and contrast with more light, assuming under really low light (higher ISO settings) the quantisation is lost/masked in the higher digital noise

The Digic DV5 is the same family as the Digic 7. The Digic 5+ is the same family as the Digic DV3. The processors used in stills cameras are not exactly the same as those used in the video camera, and they don't follow the same numbering convention. The XC15 uses the same processor as the XC10.

[hyalinejim]

59 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

 

In my eyes detail, contrast, etc. is in Sony much more better. Looking at clouds definition in the sky, there is a considerable difference in dynamic range too. Other opinions?

Yes, the Sony looks a lot better in that vid. But, something fishy is going on here or the user hasn't a clue what they're doing. I don't think the XC10 was set to its best picture style for that test. It looks like it could be the most contrasty one, which has much less DR than C-Log or WideDR. Also, there's something weird happening with compression that is destroying detail in the Canon but leaving the Sony untouched! There's an A/B comparison at about 53 seconds in. At 54 seconds the XC10 turns to total mush, but the Sony is fine. Don't trust this comparison.

4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

I did a low light test with the XC10 and Canon Log

Was this ISO500? Looks good!

20 minutes ago, tugela said:

The XC15 uses the same processor as the XC10.

Implying a firmware fix might be possible

[kidzrevil]

@Tim Sewell @hyalinejim Thanks ! Its shot between 1000-2000 !

[tugela]

10 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

 

Implying a firmware fix might be possible

Not necessarily. There is more to hardware than just the processor. There is the sensor as well as the circuits interfacing it with the processor.

Canon have a tendency of "fixing" issues like this in consumer lines through next years model (which would be the XC15), so don't hold your breath.

[kidzrevil]

55 minutes ago, tugela said:

Not necessarily. There is more to hardware than just the processor. There is the sensor as well as the circuits interfacing it with the processor.

Canon have a tendency of "fixing" issues like this in consumer lines through next years model (which would be the XC15), so don't hold your breath.

I have the feeling that is the case with the xc15...im hoping i am wrong 

[BenEricson]

My xc10 came in the mail yesterday. This camera has a really nice image and is really fun to shoot with. The image stabilizer seems to work very well, I also dig the touch screen, works fine in bright light as well. 

The biggest negative for me would be the lack of ND filters. It's impossible to properly expose 24p in bright sunlight when shooting 1/48. 

A lot of positives, currently on a 3 day trip in oregon. I'll post some stuff when I get back. Thanks everyone contributing to this topic, been a nice resource. 

Im assuming zebras at 75 is the norm? Any other tips/tricks I should know about? 

[Tim Sewell]

6 hours ago, BenEricson said:

My xc10 came in the mail yesterday. This camera has a really nice image and is really fun to shoot with. The image stabilizer seems to work very well, I also dig the touch screen, works fine in bright light as well. 

The biggest negative for me would be the lack of ND filters. It's impossible to properly expose 24p in bright sunlight when shooting 1/48. 

A lot of positives, currently on a 3 day trip in oregon. I'll post some stuff when I get back. Thanks everyone contributing to this topic, been a nice resource. 

Im assuming zebras at 75 is the norm? Any other tips/tricks I should know about? 

My vari-ND lives on the cam when using log. However, after reading @kidzrevil's posts I've recently been playing with EOS Cinema Standard, where the problem doesn't really occur much as you can shoot as low as 160 ISO - the results are actually really nice (and FilmConvert has the correct profile) - I'm starting to think that log should really only be used in the situations where that extra DR is needed. There's supposed to be a firmware update coming that will add Canon Log 2 & 3, so I guess we'll see what happens then!

My only other tip would be that if you're shooting scenes with lots of movement it's generally best to use push-to-focus in manual focus mode, as the focus tends to wander in auto as the camera picks up faces.

[hyalinejim]

I assume you know about the internal ND, and you're saying it's not enough in bright light. I agree with Tim that a vari ND is great outdoors, giving that elusive level of manual control. Here are my tips.

I like to ETTR  to avoid shadow noise. There are superwhites from 100 to 109 IRE. When shooting manually I set zebras to 100 and go around 2 clicks brighter in C Log and 5 in WideDR. If I'm shooting auto I set EC to plus 1 (but I wish there was an assignable exposure lock on/off button).

You can get a slightly lower base ISO by switching to gain and fine tune.

Update to latest firmware to minimise RS in 4K. It's excellent . 

CLog has more banding in midtones than WideDr, especially in HD but total dynamic range captured is the same.

Consider 200mbps rather than 300 in 4K to give longer recording times. The quality difference is not huge.

Will check out cinema eos based on recommendations here.

[hyalinejim]

@kidzrevil did some very quick tests of Cinema EOS Standard. I found the colours very different to WideDR. Then I looked at Standard. Colours are closer to WideDR. The level of highlight and shadow detail that can be pulled back from both of these at ISO 160 is very similar to what WideDR offers at ISO500.

So if it helps to decrease ghosting, I'm all for one of these at 160 rather than WideDR or CLog at 500.

[kidzrevil]

@hyalinejim @Tim Sewell Glad you guys like the cinema eos profile I have now eliminated the other profiles as an option. Cinema EOS & C-LOG give the best image

for Cinema EOS what really needs to be tested is how far can we bump the sharpness up before the image get's oversharpened 

Shot this in C-LOG with a tiffen black satin 3. Im going to try a black satin 1 because I feel like the 3 took away too much detail 

 

[hyalinejim]

Looks great! You've been having some nice weather in NY. I'm heading to Belfast today and will try to get some shots there.

Why do you prefer CLog and Cinema EOS Standard to the others? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this as I'm slowly working my way through the various picture styles. I agree that CLog is best for recovering highlight and shadow detail, but I found a lot of banding compared to WideDR. But it does have compatibility with a huge selection of luts. 

WideDR looks similar to CLog but as sharper roll off into highlights and shadows and the colours are slightly different.

With Cinema EOS Standard and Standard you can drop the ISO to 160 - although I suspect the white clipping point is the same as CLog and WideDR at 500 and shadow noise looks around the same. But people say ghosting is decreased. However, both these profiles have a video-ish saturation burnout in the highlights compared to CLog and WideDR. This can be fixed, a bit, in post by gently desaturating highlights.

Now, they also differ greatly from each other in colour reproduction. Standard seems to me closer to WideDR and CLog. I'm not sure yet what to make of the colours in Cinema EOS Standard.

Basically, all four of those picture styles offer the same clipping points, but they differ in how usable different parts of the dynamic range are: CLog is best for shadows and highlights but suffers from banding if you push it too far. They all give (sometimes dramatically) different colour reproduction. And ghosting is worst on CLog, followed by WideDR, and better on the standard profiles.

Will continue testing!

PS: For sharpness, the EBU paper says 3 is the max before aliasing begins to hit IIRC

[UHDjohn]

On 11/11/2016 at 7:20 AM, hyalinejim said:

I assume you know about the internal ND, and you're saying it's not enough in bright light. I agree with Tim that a vari ND is great outdoors, giving that elusive level of manual control. Here are my tips.

I like to ETTR  to avoid shadow noise. There are superwhites from 100 to 109 IRE. When shooting manually I set zebras to 100 and go around 2 clicks brighter in C Log and 5 in WideDR. If I'm shooting auto I set EC to plus 1 (but I wish there was an assignable exposure lock on/off button).

You can get a slightly lower base ISO by switching to gain and fine tune.

Update to latest firmware to minimise RS in 4K. It's excellent . 

CLog has more banding in midtones than WideDr, especially in HD but total dynamic range captured is the same.

Consider 200mbps rather than 300 in 4K to give longer recording times. The quality difference is not huge.

Will check out cinema eos based on recommendations here.

I use a Tiffen Vari ND outdoors and combine it with the internal ND to keep it from creating uneven skies at strong settings. I know there are recoverable superwhites but the banding occurs with C-LOG when you pull back the exposure in post so I don't find ETTR to be that useful on this camera.I found C-LOG to have a wider DR than Wide DR  (as seen on my ext monitor scopes) but depending on the scene's contrast range C-LOG may not be ideal low contrast situations. It would be great if it had inbuilt scopes to see the brightness range of a scene and choose the profile which best fits it. I'll check out the gain settting and hope Canon issues a firmware update for some of the obvious issues like baked in NR and the ghosting but I predict they won't bother now the XC15 is out......