hyalinejim

I had some free time today and so I went into the studio and did some tests. They aren't very proper and they aren't the best in the world...but hopefully this will help someone out there!
I used some of the EOSHD Canon picture profiles for the 1DC part so check that out!
I am by no means a professional colorist. I tried to balance the images best I could in Resolve. You will notice that some shots are a tad blurry....I'm sorry about that. I had continuous autofocus on.
Here are my findings:
Canon 1DC:
It's totally still relevant. The fact that this camera came out in 2012 and is competing with the new C300 mkii is incredible. 
Official Canon Log: Is great. It grades really nicely and is really clean and natural looking. Totally recommended. The 4k 4:2:2 8bit is much better than the 1080p 4:2:0 of the C100. 
EOSHD C-Log: Its good for sure but not as good as built in Canon Log on the 1DC. I need to play more with it but I had some troubles with it. 
Other EOSHD profiles: These are fun! I love the Monochrome one a lot!
C100:
Its done. Too old. Image is soft. Has terrible artifacts. Built in codec is total crap. Get this guy out of here. 
Wide DR if handled properly could be a good profile to shoot most things on. Its not too flat so the low bitrate doesn't fall apart as much.
C300 mkii:
This is the best camera of the three (as it should be) but not by much in relation to 1DC!
Canon Log and Canon Log 2 aren't very good. Canon Log 3 seems just about right as far as nailing the color science. Everything balanced really nicely and looked great. 
4K 10Bit really holds together nicely when grading. 
I thought 1080p 12bit would be stronger...but I really didn't notice much of a difference between it and the 4k footage. 
Slow motion: It's OK. There are other cameras coming out that have better slow motion abilities. To go past 60fps you have to crop in on the sensor by 2x which turns the crop from being 1.4x (Super35) to 2.8! That's more than micro four thirds.

The real life corollary is when you need to shoot something that moves significantly from frame to frame in low light.
In practice ghosting is a problem from 1250 ISO up. But aggressive noise reduction artifacts aren't limited to motion. Check out the image softening that occurs with static scenes going from 500 to 1000.

When they got to their vows... I nearly hurled

When they got to their vows... I nearly hurled

Most very low budget (under $10 million) features and indies shoot prores. What's more remarkable is the success of such an inexpensive movie.
The Alexa's prores looks 99.9% as good as its RAW and 10X better than most other cameras regardless of recoding format. The difference between prores 422 and 4444 is probably bigger than Alexa prores vs Codex. RAW is not a distribution format or a format that you can see without it first being processed. RAW must be processed eventually and the in-camera processing is very excellent on the Alexa. It's not that the 5D makes a better RAW file than a JPEG; it's that the 5D turns out a worse JPEG than a high end PC turns out a .TIFF from the RAW. The 5D's built in processing needs to be quick and dirty to stay fast and consume minimal power. And this carries over doubly to the 5D's terrible built in video. But an Alexa has that high end PC built in (why it's so big and heavy and battery hungry) and beyond that you're going to a high quality intermediate codec, which you'd go to anyway for vfx, same as you'd go to a TIFF to get to Photoshop. So you're getting the equivalent of a 16 bit TIFF processed with the best settings of the best RAW developer, and that's the best you can get from RAW anyway. It just happens to happen in camera with the Alexa.
RAW is not an image until it's processed, so what's being debated isn't even the superiority of the format but where the processing is done. It is done poorly in a 5D. It is done well on a high end PC. And it's done well in an Alexa.
Unfortunately, this issue became politicized when Red marketed a problem (you need to offload the image processing because the early Reds lacked the power to debayer properly in-camera) as a feature ("in camera RAW"). Unfortunately it's still politicized and people are ignoring that this is among the least important aspects of technical image quality.
The DIT discussion is also politicized. It's a contentious position from both sides. Decent rates ($1k/day is very low for wet hire) that take others years to earn and an attack from producers trying to devalue the position on low budget work. Most of these politics do not relate to enthusiasts (same as Arri raw vs prores) except to further largely unrelated business interests by changing how conventional wisdom perceives something's value.

Nothing wrong with shooting an Alexa, but I do think that anyone in film production that truly believes technical superiority offers the best path to creative achievements has some goofy priorities.  I get why aspiring filmmaker folks want to do their best technically, but to prioritize it above the artistic craft is nuts.  It's there to support the thing you're trying to accomplish, not the thing itself.  There's no real way forward in being a filmmaker with that attitude.

Whack the ISO up to max and wave the camera around.

Interesting! I didn't know that other cameras showed the same problem. As many people have mentioned, the average viewer wouldn't spot it, but it seriously gets on my nerves every time I see it.
For anyone just popping into this thread who doesn't feel like trawling through pages of ghosting tests the bottom line is this:
To prevent ghosting, shoot in EOS Standard and don't go over 1250 ISO.
Explanation: the different camera profiles demonstrate differing amounts of ghosting. C-Log is the worst. EOS Standard is the best. But what about dynamic range? EOS Standard captures the same dynamic range as C-Log if you expose 1.66 ISO stops down (5 clicks). EOS Standard 160 = C-Log 500.
If you then want to get back to a C-Log gamma for whatever reason, just bring down your superwhites to below 100 IRE and use the attached lut. I'm kind of amazed that this works as I thought C-Log was some special voodoo. It's actually an evil voodoo as it's applying a hell of a lot of noise reduction which reduces image detail and increases temporal ghosting.
Every review I read said "Don't use EOS Standard - it's too contrasty!". I've learned a lesson about trusting the value of my own experience, based on my own tests.
 
XC10 EOS Standard to C-Log v02.cube

Interesting! I didn't know that other cameras showed the same problem. As many people have mentioned, the average viewer wouldn't spot it, but it seriously gets on my nerves every time I see it.
For anyone just popping into this thread who doesn't feel like trawling through pages of ghosting tests the bottom line is this:
To prevent ghosting, shoot in EOS Standard and don't go over 1250 ISO.
Explanation: the different camera profiles demonstrate differing amounts of ghosting. C-Log is the worst. EOS Standard is the best. But what about dynamic range? EOS Standard captures the same dynamic range as C-Log if you expose 1.66 ISO stops down (5 clicks). EOS Standard 160 = C-Log 500.
If you then want to get back to a C-Log gamma for whatever reason, just bring down your superwhites to below 100 IRE and use the attached lut. I'm kind of amazed that this works as I thought C-Log was some special voodoo. It's actually an evil voodoo as it's applying a hell of a lot of noise reduction which reduces image detail and increases temporal ghosting.
Every review I read said "Don't use EOS Standard - it's too contrasty!". I've learned a lesson about trusting the value of my own experience, based on my own tests.
 
XC10 EOS Standard to C-Log v02.cube

If anyone is interested in learning the hows and whys of grading then the Alexis Hurkman book is very good. Here's a sample chapter:
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780321929662/samplepages/0321929667.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjlgrruyq_RAhWCWhQKHUB2DhIQFghXMAk&usg=AFQjCNHuTeG-lmowcqdfRUZ8zworMOaAkw&sig2=YNPI28RQXi8sbr7FeOp61g
As with so many creative endeavours, for people starting out, learning how to hold back can be valuable. Usually, a grade should not call attention to itself.
In the past, I've found it useful to download frame grabs of iconic movies from (not a porn site, although it sounds like one):
http://www.blubeaver.ca
Bring a few of these into your grading software and check them out on the scopes. Will give you a concrete idea of what to aim for.
Some of the examples in this thread are very poor, as has already been pointed out - the visual equivalent of the "music" generated by someone who has never played an instrument picking up an electric guitar and thrashing around like a madman. Yes, it's fun and that's good. But don't expect your neighbours to like it!
So if you are a "tone deaf" fledgling colourist making a lot of noise,  it might be possible to improve with careful study.

@kidzrevil that video above sums up for me how I feel about the XC10. In good light, like the outdoors shots, the camera gives a lovely image which can be pushed quite hard in grading. But when light is low, the image is not good - it's mushy, falls apart in the grade, colour rendition suffers and ghosting is a PITA. For what kidzrevil needs to do - fashion, music vids, etc. - image quality is paramount and the XC10 doesn't cut the mustard.
For more casual stuff like travel vids and documentation it's absolutely fine.
I promised to post a few frame grabs to show off what the camera can do when conditions are right. The weather was great the other day so we went for a walk. I brought along the XC10 as I wanted to check out how an X-Rite Colorchecker might improve colour separation using MBR Color Corrector 2 plugin for AE (it did help).
No look LUTs here. Everything is EOS Standard, corrected for colour using the X-Rite, and a simple white balance, contrast and saturation adjustment.
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

@kidzrevil that video above sums up for me how I feel about the XC10. In good light, like the outdoors shots, the camera gives a lovely image which can be pushed quite hard in grading. But when light is low, the image is not good - it's mushy, falls apart in the grade, colour rendition suffers and ghosting is a PITA. For what kidzrevil needs to do - fashion, music vids, etc. - image quality is paramount and the XC10 doesn't cut the mustard.
For more casual stuff like travel vids and documentation it's absolutely fine.
I promised to post a few frame grabs to show off what the camera can do when conditions are right. The weather was great the other day so we went for a walk. I brought along the XC10 as I wanted to check out how an X-Rite Colorchecker might improve colour separation using MBR Color Corrector 2 plugin for AE (it did help).
No look LUTs here. Everything is EOS Standard, corrected for colour using the X-Rite, and a simple white balance, contrast and saturation adjustment.
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

@kidzrevil that video above sums up for me how I feel about the XC10. In good light, like the outdoors shots, the camera gives a lovely image which can be pushed quite hard in grading. But when light is low, the image is not good - it's mushy, falls apart in the grade, colour rendition suffers and ghosting is a PITA. For what kidzrevil needs to do - fashion, music vids, etc. - image quality is paramount and the XC10 doesn't cut the mustard.
For more casual stuff like travel vids and documentation it's absolutely fine.
I promised to post a few frame grabs to show off what the camera can do when conditions are right. The weather was great the other day so we went for a walk. I brought along the XC10 as I wanted to check out how an X-Rite Colorchecker might improve colour separation using MBR Color Corrector 2 plugin for AE (it did help).
No look LUTs here. Everything is EOS Standard, corrected for colour using the X-Rite, and a simple white balance, contrast and saturation adjustment.
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:
Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin
Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Also, compression artifacts will affect our perception of motion.

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:
Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin
Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Also, compression artifacts will affect our perception of motion.

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:
Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin
Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:
Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin
Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:
Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin
Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Now I really need to know what camera was used because the camera used to shoot that video is obviously capable of making intelligent, respectable, young women look like a couple of tarts.

In the comments on that same vid:
(Although commenters don't seem to believe it's that camera either)
And when "Michelle" isn't exhaustively testing cameras, she's making gems such as this:
 

It can't be the XC10:
1. XC10 has 8 aperture blades. Video shows 10 sided bokeh
2. Video is supposed to be shot in 4k, yet it's in slow motion. There's no 4k slow motion on XC10.
3. In the mirror shot, the lcd screen is flipped horizontally. XC10 screen only tilts vertically. 
That's a bullshit account - here is the same vid on someone else's account:
Description:
Trying Out My New Canon EOS 1D 4K PROFESSIONAL CAMCORDER camera With 5 - 100 mm Lens

If you don't grade your footage, how do you get your thousands of hours of experience doing it?
There is a lot to be learned in grading your own footage, looking at the scopes, comparing and matching different shots made with different cameras, looking at gradients, noise and clipping...

OK let's play the ego game. I have a degree in Cognitive Science from UCSD with a specialization in artificial intelligence (and have written neural networks from scratch, worked on projects with GPU neural networks as well as machine vision). I've written complex real-time simulators including flight simulators using fluid dynamics to model airflow, custom energy-accurate integrators, and 100% custom from scratch impulse-based rigid-body physics. For the driving simulator I modeled the ground using cubic polynomials with a Newton gradient solver to intersect rays to compute tire-surface interaction with C1 continuity, allowing for very high speed accurate collision modeling (including physical bump mapping to simulate roughness when needed). The engine sound simulation was modeled on my Z06 Corvette (recorded from actual engine then modeled in real-time). The tire simulation is completely custom (a very hard problem to model realistically due to the nonlinear behavior of the elastic rotating tire), the network protocol is a custom UDP design which incorporates TCP design elements (reliable) with UDP elements (non-retransmitted elements such as position) for optimal network bandwidth utilization (used in the first XBox Live! game). Additionally, the physics simulation hid visible lag well over 500ms, including collisions. AI is used to drive the cars around the track and avoid collisions (the flight simulator also used AI to fly the aircraft, which could also perform post-stall maneuvers, long before real aircraft could do this in real life. The model uses a generalized rigid body moving through a fluid, which wasn't replicated by other developers until many years later). I wrote the first stereoscopic head-tracking multiplayer games for the PC (virtual reality), including 3D sound modeling, and showed John Carmack (now CTO of Oculus) how to do proper stereoscopic 3D when my company ported Quake to stereo3D for H3D Entertainment.
I'm an expert in real-time simulations and accurate modeling of real-world systems. I'm very familiar with the scientific method, as well as how to conduct single and double blind studies for psychology.
When I proved that the full frame look is a myth, people still argued and didn't believe it (some still don't believe it). I did the math, did the experiment, and showed the results for others to replicate. http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/, 

 

There's another thread where someone created excellent 3D renderings, taking the lens out of the equation, and some folks still argued. So the point is even with the scientific method, math, real-world examples and simulations, people still argue because of their ego, just like you are doing right now. You are using ad hominem, which is an instant fail in debate. You've got to focus on the topic at hand, instead of attacking the other party, otherwise it becomes clear you have no valid argument in the debate.
From my background in mathematics, physical simulators, networked simulations, and artificial intelligence, I can see patterns in systems such as quantum physics when combined with concepts from psychology (as well as life experience) that make a good case for concepts like "thoughts make things", that working together and not fighting is more efficient in terms of energy, and am confident that a simulator which replicates large systems such as what is going on in the world today would coincide with economist Mark Blyth's analysis on the effects of Predatory Capitalism. The quantum experiments show that the universe reacts to perceivers in irrational ways. Einstein thought quantum entanglement was bunk, calling it 'spooky action at a distance'. He was wrong. These simple concepts should give one a powerful idea as to what the universe really is on a large scale. Due to the quantized nature of quantum physics (hence the name), some theorists believe the universe is a simulation running in a computer (and are creating tests to check the theory). Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen believe the universe and everything in it is God (which makes all of us elements of God). Alan Watts does a good job describing it (YouTube). And that there's a 'peek-a-boo' with our consciousnesses and the universe/God which correlates well with what we are learning about quantum physics.
Science can't explain everything (not even close), it's just a tool, and said tool has limitations. The human filter on reality also hides the true nature of reality, and the only way you can see this is through meditation and/or through compounds such as DMT (which shuts off the human filter 'software', especially 5MeO-DMT).
This post is intended to open your mind to possibilities beyond close-minded thinking. If you disagree and choose not to look deeper into what reality really is, that's cool. Many people enjoy living in illusion, The Matrix was a good example of this concept.