Canon XC10 4K camcorder

[kidzrevil]

3 hours ago, raf702 said:

How does the xc10/xc15 image compare to the c100II? This could be an alternate cam from getting a C100mkii

Idk but coming from using other cameras like the gh4 & a7s the xc10 is surprisingly a very useful tool under the right conditions. The image quality is very good at iso 1000 and below and passable up to 3200

[hyalinejim]

OK, this might be a minor breakthrough in image quality. See you if you can swallow this load:

Don't shoot in C-Log, shoot in EOS Standard instead!

Am I insane? Hopefully not! I was messing about with picture styles as we all know that ghosting is dreadful in CLog but not as bad in the other styles. The problem is, many luts are designed to work with C-Log and it's just so nice in terms of delivering a range of tonality. And while the other profiles may be less mushy and have less ghosting they tend to be too contrasty with nasty highlight roll offs and the colours are different to C-Log. But, I think I've found a way to fairly closely match EOS Standard with C-Log by shooting 5 clicks down in ISO and dialling down contrast and saturation and sharpness (remember that?). Then, by messing around with the contrast a bit in post you get an image with similar colours and tonality to C-Log but it has LESS GHOSTING and a SHARPER IMAGE.

First of all here's a wide shot so you can see how they look similar:

C-Log, 1/25s, f4, ISO5000, Canon LUT.....

 

EOS Standard, (-4, -4, -4) 1/25s, f4, ISO1600, contrast and saturation adjustment, Canon LUT.....

 

Now, let's look at 100% views, C-Log on left EOS Standard on right:

Amazing right? Much more detail in the EOS Standard at 5 ISO clicks down (1.66 stops), as you'd expect. And the noise looks roughly similar (except for the subtle emergence of those fuckers, the little black dots) But the real advantage is in the effect on ghosting. We all know that the contrasty profiles have substantially better ghosting than C-Log even at the same ISO. Imagine how much better the ghosting is at a much lower ISO.

Example: According to my theory if I'm shooting an interview in a dimly lit interior and the meter tells me that C-Log wants to expose at ISO 5000 I would throw my hands up in despair as I know that the person's face will turn to mush and when they move I'll get lots of ghosting. However, I should be able to switch over to EOS Standard with sharpness, saturation and contrast turned down, knock the ISO back down to 1600 and, using my contrast adjustment, still get a comparable image to the C-Log but much sharper and much, much less ghosting.

I'm heading out now to get some more comparisons of the two picture styles. If you want to try this for yourself in the meantime, here's a work in progress LUT to get EOS Standard close-ish to C-Log. Just shoot EOS Standard 5 ISO clicks down, and bring down your superwhites before this lut:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFNGF0dUUtb2NjSTA

 

[nikos]

C-log resolution  and standard look noise have been discussed here ... http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/19271-canon-xc10-c-log-resolution/#comment-134321

[hyalinejim]

2 hours ago, nikos said:

C-log resolution  and standard look noise have been discussed here ... http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/19271-canon-xc10-c-log-resolution/#comment-134321

Hi nikos. That illustrates C-Log's softening quite well. I wish I'd seen your post before now as you had also spotted the black dots that are exacerbated by in-camera sharpening. It's barely noticeable at base ISO, but as ISO increases C-Log gets progressively softer. My guess is that it underexposes by 1.66 stops, pulls up the shadows and then goes to town on the noise reduction. This, then, is the cause of the image softening and ghosting.

I went out and took a series of clips in daylight, alternating C-Log at 500 and EOS Standard at 160. I fed both in to FilmConvert and, with a contrast and saturation adjustment the results are almost identical. There are slight colour shifts but I think EOS Standard is closest to C-Log.

Full gallery is here

https://postimg.org/gallery/2agvnxize/

Sample comparison:

The implication of this is huge for me, as it gives me the confidence to use EOS Standard in low light and get better results than C-Log. I'll test low light stuff with movement later this evening.

 

 

 

[kidzrevil]

@hyalinejim I tested this today and I figure eos standard compresses far better than C-LOG.The compression probably hates low contrast areas and kicks up the NR to compensate for it. I am currently looking for the max sharpness I can use with this before artifacting kicks in. 0 sharpness has been good to me but I am trying to get it up to 2-3 

my current settings are contrast 0 and saturation at -4. Testing the maximum amount of in camera sharpness that can be applied in 4k and HD is the last piece of the puzzle for me. 

[hyalinejim]

I think it will vary by ISO @kidzrevil as the black dots will start to appear as ISO and sharpening increase. So you might get away with one or two notches of sharpening at low ISO.

The black dots are worst in Standard picture profile (Look 1) as @nikos has seen. They might not be so bad in EOS Standard. But do you think that in-camera sharpening makes such a big difference versus sharpening in post?

Last night I tested C-Log versus EOS Standard for ghosting at ISO 6400. It's hard to quantify but it looks like C-Log gives 4 ghost images that get progressively fainter whereas EOS Standard fades out after 2 ghost images. Camera is moving up and I used curves to match tonality. There should be no horizontal lines in the brown band. What look like guitar strings are ghost images of the black border between the brown and the green.

C-Log at 6400, four ghost images:

EOS Standard at 6400, two or three ghost images:

EOS Standard at 2000 (gives same dynamic range as C-Log at 6400), two ghost images that are much fainter than C-Logs four heavy traces at 6400. Noise looks similar:

From what I understand so far, the key to exposing with EOS Standard is trusting the meter and keeping note of 100% highlight clipping - it needs to be exposed 1 and 2/3 stops lower than C-Log to get the same tonal range. But it has an ugly chroma highlight rolloff so desaturate your highlights, or check out my LUT which does that for you while matching the tonal range to the equivalent C-Log exposure at which highlights clip at 109. Just bring down superwhites first.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFS21ZZy11M2ZxS2M

[kidzrevil]

@hyalinejim so its safe to say that eos standard is superior. 2 frames of ghosting will blend well with motion blur at slow shutters. EOS standadd Is tricky to expose for by eye so I just shoot 3/4 of a stop underexposed and it rarely clips in the shadows. 

Also I am shooting at 0 sharpening. The image looks way better and less "brittle" without it. I can see the subtle effects of the type of diffusion I am using.

I wonder how cinema eos standard compares to eos standard ?

[mercer]

I know most of the people who visit this post probably already own the XC10, but if there is anybody looking to purchase one, I am pretty sure I am going to sell mine. I'll be listing it on eBay in the next few days, but if there is some interest please pm me.

[hijodeibn]

21 minutes ago, mercer said:

I know most of the people who visit this post probably already own the XC10, but if there is anybody looking to purchase one, I am pretty sure I am going to sell mine. I'll be listing it on eBay in the next few days, but if there is some interest please pm me.

Mercer, are you upgrading to the XC15?

[mercer]

8 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Mercer, are you upgrading to the XC15?

No, a couple months ago, on a whim I bought a D5500 and I just fell in love with the image and the Flat profile. Every time I planned on taking the XC10 out to shoot, I ended up taking the D5500 out instead, so I am going to upgrade to the D500 while it's still on sale. With the extras I have for the XC10, I should get enough to get the D500. 

[Lintelfilm]

On 20/11/2016 at 3:04 PM, hyalinejim said:

OK, this might be a minor breakthrough in image quality. See you if you can swallow this load:

Don't shoot in C-Log, shoot in EOS Standard instead!

Am I insane? Hopefully not! I was messing about with picture styles as we all know that ghosting is dreadful in CLog but not as bad in the other styles. The problem is, many luts are designed to work with C-Log and it's just so nice in terms of delivering a range of tonality. And while the other profiles may be less mushy and have less ghosting they tend to be too contrasty with nasty highlight roll offs and the colours are different to C-Log. But, I think I've found a way to fairly closely match EOS Standard with C-Log by shooting 5 clicks down in ISO and dialling down contrast and saturation and sharpness (remember that?). Then, by messing around with the contrast a bit in post you get an image with similar colours and tonality to C-Log but it has LESS GHOSTING and a SHARPER IMAGE.

First of all here's a wide shot so you can see how they look similar:

C-Log, 1/25s, f4, ISO5000, Canon LUT.....

 

EOS Standard, (-4, -4, -4) 1/25s, f4, ISO1600, contrast and saturation adjustment, Canon LUT.....

 

Now, let's look at 100% views, C-Log on left EOS Standard on right:

Amazing right? Much more detail in the EOS Standard at 5 ISO clicks down (1.66 stops), as you'd expect. And the noise looks roughly similar (except for the subtle emergence of those fuckers, the little black dots) But the real advantage is in the effect on ghosting. We all know that the contrasty profiles have substantially better ghosting than C-Log even at the same ISO. Imagine how much better the ghosting is at a much lower ISO.

Example: According to my theory if I'm shooting an interview in a dimly lit interior and the meter tells me that C-Log wants to expose at ISO 5000 I would throw my hands up in despair as I know that the person's face will turn to mush and when they move I'll get lots of ghosting. However, I should be able to switch over to EOS Standard with sharpness, saturation and contrast turned down, knock the ISO back down to 1600 and, using my contrast adjustment, still get a comparable image to the C-Log but much sharper and much, much less ghosting.

I'm heading out now to get some more comparisons of the two picture styles. If you want to try this for yourself in the meantime, here's a work in progress LUT to get EOS Standard close-ish to C-Log. Just shoot EOS Standard 5 ISO clicks down, and bring down your superwhites before this lut:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFNGF0dUUtb2NjSTA

 

Look at how the blacks/shadow areas are rendered in the two images (the girl's hair in the photo, the squares between the crossed lines on the blanket). Then look at how the highlights are rendered (e.g. on the spiky ball). This is about contrast, not resolution. I don't know if in-camera sharpening is in the equation too (only Canon know that).

I made a post related to this on the other XC10 thread about C-Log:

C-Log is for grading - you can put that contrast and sharpness back in there (pretty much anyway - not perfectly with an 8-bit codec). The happy medium is Wide DR.

Resolution is the same though.

[hyalinejim]

We all know that with the XC10 the image gets softer as ISO increases due to increasing levels of noise reduction applied by the camera. My point above is that I can retain more detail while getting a similar exposure using the method described.

Whether C-Log applies more NR at the same ISO, leading to a mushier image is another issue and I suspect it might. FWIW, sharpness was at 0 in the samples above for EOS standard although of course Canon might apply a default level of sharpness.

[hyalinejim]

Here are some frames from a few shots I grabbed on the way to the shop, using EOS Standard > FilmConvert. @kidzrevil I think that Cinema EOS Standard at ISO160 is an even closer match to C-Log at IS0500 than EOS Standard is - it's way less contrasty with lifted shadows like you mentioned before. I think I might use EOS Standard for low contrast scenes and Cinema EOS for high contrast or highlight protection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've pulled the sky exposure on a few of these, emulating a graduated ND in post. The 422 codec holds up really well.

 

[mercer]

@hyalinejim, those look great, love the first grab and the fence. 

I can't really put my finger on it, but the XC10 has such a cool modern, yet vintage look to it's video. 

On 11/16/2016 at 2:22 PM, BenEricson said:

Ran off some more footage yesterday morning. Added grain to a few shots. Really love the color and image stabilizer, wish it could get more shallow. The lens really does seem to do best between F2.8 and F8. 

 

Ben, someone may have asked you this already, did you use manual exposure or shutter priority for this and the other video you posted?

[kidzrevil]

Experimenting with Canon EOS standard 

 

[hyalinejim]

Testing Cinema EOS Std. in a place full of dead animals. ISO from 500 to 1600 in HD. Some shots are mush at anything over 2000, some shots are still usable, like the 2 girls with the spooky skellingtons at ISO 5000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kidzrevil]

@hyalinejim looks really good! That black pro mist is kicking ass!

[hyalinejim]

I have you to thank for that one - it lives on the camera permanently now

[kidzrevil]

1 hour ago, hyalinejim said:

I have you to thank for that one - it lives on the camera permanently now

Dope! Notice any ghosting in this profile? How does it compare to eos standard?

[hyalinejim]

32 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Dope! Notice any ghosting in this profile? How does it compare to eos standard?

It's such a less contrasty profile that it's hard to know without doing an A/B comparison and normalising the contrast. But I'd guess that they're pretty much the same.