hyalinejim

Second hand 5d3 with ML plus cards and hard drives is probably do-able for below 2000. The pliability in grading the image is amazing and will knock any 8 bit image into a hat in that regard. And I think this is important for narrative work, to be able to create a stylised look that suits your film.
A C series camera will be sharper and less noisy, but a well exposed 5D3 image is a dream to work with in post and, as this guy says, 1920 x 1080 is enough for a 2k DCP.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=18286.0

I manually exposed. I pretty much always used the ND, ISO 500, tried to between f2.8 and f8. The stuff shot at F11, like I said, is pretty much unusable. Something looks weird at that f stop. All C-LOG. 
These are excellent.

I have both of those cameras...
But I agree that the GX85 for it's price is a great narrative tool. I am kinda glad I haven't sold it. Up to $500, I think the D5500 is really good. The XC10 is a great camera, but I think a 5d mkiii with ML (especially with current developments) is the better pick. 

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.
 

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.

Yes, ghosting is less pronounced in the 3 contrasty profiles than in WideDR, and C-Log is the worst.

Here are some rough graded screen grabs from our shoot. All shot RAW Cinema 4K to 4K ProRes HQ. Also, here is a DB link to the ungraded TIFFs: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xltljff7euy65iq/AABIShq-mPu2YdYVmLRqpRUIa?dl=0 I included a chip chart on some of the interview setups too if you guys wanna have a crack at it. 

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

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.
 
 
 

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
 

I agree, but what about 3200? How about 1600? Even at 1000 C-Log starts to turn into mush. It's fine at base ISO - I'm looking for ways that I can use it at something higher. So far, so good. Will post more samples in a while.

I agree, but what about 3200? How about 1600? Even at 1000 C-Log starts to turn into mush. It's fine at base ISO - I'm looking for ways that I can use it at something higher. So far, so good. Will post more samples in a while.

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

All these things are nice. USB charging, wireless file transfer, etc. However they will not save the consumer market one jot.
What average joe with a smartphone wakes up in the morning and says to himself "today I will run eagerly to a camera store and buy a Sony because it has Wifi, USB charging and a touch screen menu!!"
They are just not interested. SO Let them bugger off is the crux of my article.

Yes, that's true. You can only see aperture in AV mode, and shutter speed in TV mode. In P and Auto modes there is no info.

Here is a link to the LUT I am using. You can download the whole pack if you want as well. 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ljz17ji7k0q4kvm/AABZGeJdt2xz2Q94rQMvuhd4a?dl=0
I attached a few images that show what the LUT is doing. It's working similarly to those film looks you use. It compresses the highlights and will really create nice roll off for blown out footage. This is actually black magic pocket footage, but it's the only thing I have on this laptop to work with.
The LUT isn't too aggressive, it may work with wide dr footage as well. Make sure you sharpen 10-15 in premiere as well.
I appreciate that. Honestly, I think I haven't come to terms with the fact that a camera that is so easy to use and compact can actually produce high quality footage.

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. 
 

This is a pretty cool update, I'll wait for the version that doesn't require me to walk around with a big goofy drone for handheld shots. They'd sell a LOT of the camera/osmo combos if you didn't need a drone for the recorder. I'd buy the 1" version with the gimbal in a heartbeat.
DJI, are you listening?

Nice work @kidzrevil - what delicious filters are you using at the moment?
Yes, I've seen it before... and I'm sure I'll see it again! I've noticed it on single frames only.
 
Thanks for posting - great to see what others are up to! Some great tonality there. I totally hear you about detailed shots becoming mush. Must check out kidzrevil's recommendation to try other picture styles with sharpness whacked up. And please do post your lut @BenEricson
Here's my shots from a weekend break in Belfast - I can sense the mush in lots of them even when downscaled to 1080p. 

Camera: 4K C-Log, ISO500, ETTR where possible, WB Cloudy, Tiffen 1/4 Black Pro Mist.

Post: white balance tweak → levels → my simple curve posted as a lut on previous page.
EDIT: I think my lovely grain did not survive the vimeo compression too well

@Dan Wake previously, in 5x greyscale crop mode the cropped area was not in the middle of the sensor. It was to the left. Soon that will be fixed.

More good news (well, for certain shooters). A1ex is on the way to fixing the off-centre 5x zoom crop centering. If you weren't aware, in the "5x" grayscale preview crop mode (the one that allows you to bump up the resolution) the portion of the sensor that was being sampled was not exactly in the middle. And the more you'd increase resolution, the more off center it would become. This was a PITA for those who are trying to make precise geometric compositions in this mode as it was impossible to get a symmetrical planimetric framing, or for anyone who wanted to use an anamorphic in crop mode as you would start hitting the vignetting on one side.
It isn't in the nightly builds yet, but is on the way.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=17021.msg174866#msg174866

Maybe shoot Canon an email or phonecall and ask them. The more they hear from customers about this the more likely they are to do something.

I like what that filter does to the highlights on top of the very nice looking footage. Did you use any stabilisation in post or do you just have a very steady hand

Nice work @kidzrevil - what delicious filters are you using at the moment?
Yes, I've seen it before... and I'm sure I'll see it again! I've noticed it on single frames only.
 
Thanks for posting - great to see what others are up to! Some great tonality there. I totally hear you about detailed shots becoming mush. Must check out kidzrevil's recommendation to try other picture styles with sharpness whacked up. And please do post your lut @BenEricson
Here's my shots from a weekend break in Belfast - I can sense the mush in lots of them even when downscaled to 1080p. 

Camera: 4K C-Log, ISO500, ETTR where possible, WB Cloudy, Tiffen 1/4 Black Pro Mist.

Post: white balance tweak → levels → my simple curve posted as a lut on previous page.
EDIT: I think my lovely grain did not survive the vimeo compression too well

More good news (well, for certain shooters). A1ex is on the way to fixing the off-centre 5x zoom crop centering. If you weren't aware, in the "5x" grayscale preview crop mode (the one that allows you to bump up the resolution) the portion of the sensor that was being sampled was not exactly in the middle. And the more you'd increase resolution, the more off center it would become. This was a PITA for those who are trying to make precise geometric compositions in this mode as it was impossible to get a symmetrical planimetric framing, or for anyone who wanted to use an anamorphic in crop mode as you would start hitting the vignetting on one side.
It isn't in the nightly builds yet, but is on the way.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=17021.msg174866#msg174866