hyalinejim

Thanks Panasonic for finding 4 dudes for your promo video. I guess girls don't know how to use cameras.

Put a curves effect in the Effects Panel  before your Lumetri effect and pull down the whites. 

Thanks for the support.
If people don't agree with me on this, then I will at some point also cave in and do a run of big advertisements splashed on the site and regular sponsored articles. But if my readers say they're NOT fine with this, I won't. Simple as that. So speak up for the indies... not many advertising-free places left now on the internet.
It wasn't supposed to be this way online.

It depends on what you consider an accurate WB to be. If I had to choose a WB that my camera would be stuck on forever, I'd choose 4500. This will make tungsten look warm and shade look cool, as they should be. In my opinion, a custom WB in these situations leads to unnaturally clinical colour in tungsten light and unnaturally warm colour in shade.
I'm not suggesting leaving your camera on 4400 for the rest of your life. But it's actually not as bad as you might think. And the Kelvin scale is not linear. The jump from 3000 to 4000 is very noticeable, while going from 7000 to 8000 is relatively subtle. So 4400 is not as far from 8000 as you might think from looking at the numbers.
Before I shot RAW on my 5d3 I would usually begin from 4500 and dial up or down depending on my intention for that scene. On my XC10 I leave it on cloudy all the time (as colour seems nicer with this preset although I've no hard proof of that) and the 422 codec is tough enough for me to bring it into the correct range, even when shooting tungsten.
I should mention that I use the now defunct GingerHDR Color Temperature plugin, though. This is way better than anything else I've tried. 

Yeah, but it's not unreasonable to expect a level to be, well... level!

Whether Auto-ISO is a frequently requested feature among still photographers or not is immaterial to this discussion and frankly this forum as a whole. This is or at one time was a forum dedicated to shooting film-like footage with DLSRs. There are plenty of still photography forums. This isn't one of them. It's for video shooters, and specifically, video shooters trying to mimic the look of film. Which means following a few basics like 180-degree shutter, getting exposure right by knowing how ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and available light all work together. You do it long enough and it becomes 2nd nature. But if you're 20 with your first beard and you think all this old-school crap is "played out" and you just want to go to a music festival and shoot wide open in bright sun with a 1/1500 shutter because screw NDs that's for old men with ear horns, you'll just live with choppy motion that screams amateur video because hell why not all the best Red Bull extreme idiot videos have that same look so it must be woke, right bra?
Just how lazy are some of you guys? Shooting Manual for video is how pros do it. It's how film shooters did and do it. It's how you get the best looking motion footage from a digital camera, so the brightness isn't ramping up and down as the camera senses and then tries compensating on the fly with the inevitable and unescapable delay that screams camcorder instead of Super 35. Like I told Vesku, if auto-ISO is what you want, you're in the wrong forum. Shoot auto-everything with your iPhone and be done with it. You'll be much happier with your video, and you won't have to worry about cameras with pesky manual controls you need to spend a whole day or two to grok. 
I get that some of you younger guys are inexperienced, impatient, and have zero sense of history or tradition. I get that these things are "played out" to you, that you know better because you live now while the great filmmakers lived in the past, forced to use all that un-woke (sleeping?) manual gear. This is the age of Trump after all - the Post-Fact era, where actually knowing things is a liability. Better to just grab it and Make Art like this genius.
Maybe it's me. Maybe I still think these forums are for guys trying to get a film look from a digital camera, instead of what they seem to have become which is that perforated drain catcher in the shower that collects all the hairballs and effluvia. 

"Invite" is also used informally as a noun that means "invitation".
Video invite sounds better to me than video invitation.

"Invite" is also used informally as a noun that means "invitation".
Video invite sounds better to me than video invitation.

I am slowly getting round to finishing my mammoth XC10 review.... expect it this week!

Well since the E-M1 II already oversamples from 5K and is very very close indeed to the A6300's 4K the answer is yes.
GH5 will have a flood of high detail.
I long since stopped caring about the sharpness of 4K though.
More sharpness is the last thing we need.
10bit, dynamic range, colour, less aliasing, less moire, less rolling shutter are all more important when it comes to 4K, which already has too much detail according to most of the cinema audience reaction to it being projected.

Just watched Listen Up Phillip - shot on handheld 16mm. Beautiful colours and a real retro feel.
 

Just watched Listen Up Phillip - shot on handheld 16mm. Beautiful colours and a real retro feel.
 

It's click bait BS. He couldn't even match WB between the two.

That's the Blackmagic Pocket Cam.  I really love both cams...XC10 has a feature and ergonomic usability advantage over the pocket.  The pocket has 10bit prores out of the box and RAW in a portable package.  I love both images but I feel the pocket is more cinematic with it's movement.  I will say this....IF i had to pick only one to shoot a feature on I would probably grab the XC10 before the pocket simply due to it's built in features...ND filters, 5 axis stabilization, auto focus, better scratch audio, slomotion, 4k, and wireless monitoring.  I would simply need to light my shots and I could get more done with less....wouldn't need a ronin to get stable shots, it's low profile, good battery performance, has a great adapter for shooting in the sun, can hand hold in a car and get stable shots etc. Even though I think the pocket's image is better....it's occasional moire, IR pollution, abysmal battery life, bad audio preamps and need for rigging make it a less compelling tool to shoot with in dynamic situations.  Also I think you to get the best image out of the pocket you NEED a speedbooster on it.

Modified EOS Standard
Sharpness +4
Contrast -4
Color Depth -4
ISO 1600

Lighting = Back light from tv and 1 z96 LED at about half power @ about 3 1/2 feet away.
I did the same shoot with CLOG and visible ghosting appeared.

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
 

This post is a bit dense, as I've been figuring out ghosting in relation to picture styles, ISO and 4K v HD so skip this if it's not of interest to you. If you are interested, don't take this as gospel - find what works for you!
I went and checked and it looks to me like EOS Standard has the least ghosting. Here's a motion test at ISO 4000, f5/6, 1/50s in 4K. I balanced the contrast between each of them and desaturated so that ghosting becomes more clearly visible and comparable. The area of grey in the middle would be completely clear of horizontal stripes if there were no ghosting in this camera. I'm counting (roughly) the number of times I see the white band repeating before it becomes so indistinguishable as to be unproblematic.
EOS STANDARD ghosts = 4

 
CINEMA EOS ghosts = 5 or 6

 
WIDE DR = 6 or 7

 
C-LOG = 8

Now, whether or not you see the same number of ghosts as me doesn't really matter. The general trend is clear and it looks like EOS Standard has the least ghosting.
This was at 4K and I tried the same test in HD at the same ISO of 4000. All four profiles were equally rubbish here but at lower ISOs the same trend emerged with EOS Standard having the least ghosting.
Interestingly, in 50fps 1/50s the ghosting appeared to be a little better than in 25fps 1/50s because the ghosts were smaller. So you might get better results by switching to 50 or 60fps, as long as you can live with the effectively decreased bitrate.
Also interestingly, in the EBU paper the guy talks about the resolution drop in HD at higher ISOs. I think Canon chose to address this in their last firmware update because now HD looks as if it might have more resolution than 4K at ISO 6400 - even when the 4K is downsized to match it!!! Check it out:
HD on left, downsized 4K on right:

In an individual frame, the HD looks much cleaner. But if I press play on this static scene it's pretty obvious that there is major noise suppression going on in the HD which feels a bit plasticky without added grain - and if there's movement in the scene then noise reduction and compression artifacts are everywhere. Still though, I'm very surprised that HD does so well - I can read the text much more easily than in the 4K. Perhaps the XC10 is now optimised for shooting charts from a tripod
OK, back to ghosting and low light. Since it was the best, I did some more tests using EOS Standard and for me around 1600 to 2000 is a good cut off point in both HD and 4k. Ghosting is beginning to appear at this stage but if you weren't consciously looking for it you probably wouldn't see it. Any higher than that in HD and ghosting gets progressively worse, while the noise stays constant and the image gets smeared. In 4K, on the other hand, ghosting seems to stay about the same as ISO increases, but noise kicks in so much that HD is actually better. So if I ever do need to go 3200 plus - to film the ghost of Elvis or something (as long as he doesn't move too much) - I think I'd use HD rather than 4K as there's less noise and the same or more detail. I was surprised to see today in my HD ISO5000 clip of the girls and skeletons how usable it looked. In 4K it would be a mess of colour noise at that high ISO.
So all in all, I'm fairly happy with EOS Standard as a workaround to mitigate ghosting. I can now utilise the ISO range from 160 to 1600 to help with exposure without worrying about messing up image quality too much. This captures a similar tonal range that you would get in C-Log at 500 - 5000... and that's a hell of a lot higher than I would ever have gone before. If I think back to the first video camera I ever owned, the Canon XM2, that had 3 stops of gain. Part of the reason that I like the XC10 so much is that it reminds me of that camera, shooting handheld when I was first discovering video. And I'm glad that I can now confidently use it in moderately low light.

 
 
 

Thanks for posting this. It's very interesting to read (I used google translate).
Regarding which picture style to use they say, like all reviewers have so far:
"The first two gamma curves burn very quickly highlights, while the Wide DR and Canon Log preserve. So we will avoid using the first two"
Yes, this is true when comparing at the same ISO. However, nobody has thought until now that standard picture styles should be compared at 1.66 ISO stops lower than WideDR and C-Log. That's why "base ISO" for C-Log is 500... it's actually 160 pushed. And so Wide DR is noisy (shadows are lifted) and C-Log is mushy and ghosty - (extra noise reduction).
The second part in the quote above, if I understand it correctly, seems to be about sharpening - just dial it down to 0 in camera.
Looking forward to your tests!

It's click bait BS. He couldn't even match WB between the two.

Will PM you a few DNGs of random things at different resolutions.
I asked the Canon service guy I'd been in contact with if the XC15 has ghosting like the XC10 and he said he's not able to find out...

@hijodeibn Would a second hand C100 suit you? Lovely image from that. I know it's only 1080p but it's downsized from a 4k sensor, and the XC10 4k is just marketing rather than real resolution.
@mercer I can send you some 5D3 ML DNGs if you wanna play with them to see if it'd suit you.
@kidzrevil I think the gh5 will be something special 

That sucks, @Pvandall. We had all previously thought that the XC15 was free of ghosting and for the price it's just a joke. For the XC10 I sent Canon samples from lots of different XC10s that I gathered here. They said the camera was within spec, that it's a side-effect of noise reduction and that there's no point in sending the camera in.
Can you post a sample that shows the problem?
If the XC15 is similar, you might find my recent posts in the big XC10 thread of interest to help combat ghosting. In short, shooting EOS Standard with contrast, saturation and sharpness turned down and with ISO at 1.66 stops lower than C-Log or WideDR will give you similar results in terms of dynamic range but with much less ghosting. If you can then keep your exposure under 2000 by increasing shutter speed or shooting wider you might find that you can just about live with it. Detailed info here:

and here:

 

I received my xc15 this week, and I'm experiencing the same problem. The edges of objects ghost terribly. It almost looks like dripping smoke. Has Canon evaluated any units that folks have sent in? With the expense of cfast 2 cards, it makes this camera really expensive. And with an issue like this, it doesn't seem worth the cost if this can't be fixed. 

This post is a bit dense, as I've been figuring out ghosting in relation to picture styles, ISO and 4K v HD so skip this if it's not of interest to you. If you are interested, don't take this as gospel - find what works for you!
I went and checked and it looks to me like EOS Standard has the least ghosting. Here's a motion test at ISO 4000, f5/6, 1/50s in 4K. I balanced the contrast between each of them and desaturated so that ghosting becomes more clearly visible and comparable. The area of grey in the middle would be completely clear of horizontal stripes if there were no ghosting in this camera. I'm counting (roughly) the number of times I see the white band repeating before it becomes so indistinguishable as to be unproblematic.
EOS STANDARD ghosts = 4

 
CINEMA EOS ghosts = 5 or 6

 
WIDE DR = 6 or 7

 
C-LOG = 8

Now, whether or not you see the same number of ghosts as me doesn't really matter. The general trend is clear and it looks like EOS Standard has the least ghosting.
This was at 4K and I tried the same test in HD at the same ISO of 4000. All four profiles were equally rubbish here but at lower ISOs the same trend emerged with EOS Standard having the least ghosting.
Interestingly, in 50fps 1/50s the ghosting appeared to be a little better than in 25fps 1/50s because the ghosts were smaller. So you might get better results by switching to 50 or 60fps, as long as you can live with the effectively decreased bitrate.
Also interestingly, in the EBU paper the guy talks about the resolution drop in HD at higher ISOs. I think Canon chose to address this in their last firmware update because now HD looks as if it might have more resolution than 4K at ISO 6400 - even when the 4K is downsized to match it!!! Check it out:
HD on left, downsized 4K on right:

In an individual frame, the HD looks much cleaner. But if I press play on this static scene it's pretty obvious that there is major noise suppression going on in the HD which feels a bit plasticky without added grain - and if there's movement in the scene then noise reduction and compression artifacts are everywhere. Still though, I'm very surprised that HD does so well - I can read the text much more easily than in the 4K. Perhaps the XC10 is now optimised for shooting charts from a tripod
OK, back to ghosting and low light. Since it was the best, I did some more tests using EOS Standard and for me around 1600 to 2000 is a good cut off point in both HD and 4k. Ghosting is beginning to appear at this stage but if you weren't consciously looking for it you probably wouldn't see it. Any higher than that in HD and ghosting gets progressively worse, while the noise stays constant and the image gets smeared. In 4K, on the other hand, ghosting seems to stay about the same as ISO increases, but noise kicks in so much that HD is actually better. So if I ever do need to go 3200 plus - to film the ghost of Elvis or something (as long as he doesn't move too much) - I think I'd use HD rather than 4K as there's less noise and the same or more detail. I was surprised to see today in my HD ISO5000 clip of the girls and skeletons how usable it looked. In 4K it would be a mess of colour noise at that high ISO.
So all in all, I'm fairly happy with EOS Standard as a workaround to mitigate ghosting. I can now utilise the ISO range from 160 to 1600 to help with exposure without worrying about messing up image quality too much. This captures a similar tonal range that you would get in C-Log at 500 - 5000... and that's a hell of a lot higher than I would ever have gone before. If I think back to the first video camera I ever owned, the Canon XM2, that had 3 stops of gain. Part of the reason that I like the XC10 so much is that it reminds me of that camera, shooting handheld when I was first discovering video. And I'm glad that I can now confidently use it in moderately low light.

 
 
 

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.