hyalinejim

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

That's nuts about the new Final Cut. Glad you got it sorted @Lintelfilm. Presumably this happens with log from other cameras too. 

Sorry yes it's ' look 5' - was looking for C-Log. I got more DR out of it than the other profiles in my tests so will continue to use it. If I get time I'll post some tests.

I've just been wondering the same thing. I've only noticed the blown areas since updating to FCP 10.3. Perhaps I need to see if I can tweak the interpretation levels somehow. 
I'll also look at the footage in resolve to see if that changes anything. 
Thanks!

Yes, but is your monitor showing what's in 100 to 109 IRE?
Source: page 11 of Alan Roberts' EBU paper
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s17.pdf
On mine, all of the info is there sitting under 100 IRE on the waveform monitor as would be expected. Is your software somehow interpreting the footage as 16-235 levels? Can you upload a clip for us to check out?

On page 11 there's a comparison of DR between Standard and C-Log:

I don't fully understand the DR test, but I interpret this graph as showing that the clipping point at 100 IRE is earlier for Standard than it is for, but that the final maxed out clipping point at 109 is roughly the same for both. So if you're shooting standard with 100% zebras and you're seeing clipping, there could be quite a bit of info still in those superwhites. It just appears that Standard has less DR when you switch back and forth between it and C-Log because the area under the zebras increases.
I think so too, from reading the EBU paper and from my own experience of tinkering with the files.
I shot a lot of 4K C-Log yesterday at 205mbps and noticed a bit of chroma artifacting going on with FilmConvert. So I went back to the old fashioned way of grading and came up with a curve for C-Log that I really like and that doesn't seem to cause as much breaking up of the footage. Here it is if you wanna check it out:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1exEpCRAfgFVzlUaVByczNDR1U/view?usp=sharing
I like this because it's quite contrasty but doesn't really crush shadows at all. Just set your white point and black point with curves or levels before this lut.
I am seeing this as well with C-Log... must do some comparison with other styles with sharpening whacked up.

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

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

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.


Was this ISO500? Looks good!
Implying a firmware fix might be possible

Thank you so much! yeah lol im always right about US politics in terms of predicting the future –– even this year
anyway please send my dollar to:
Kaylee Fabian
1234 Anystreet
Cario Egypt 11311
 
P.S. @Ed_David i also bet myself a dollar that you would start this thread

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.


Was this ISO500? Looks good!
Implying a firmware fix might be possible

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.

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

... 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]

Form the test I managed to do (the 50D and 5d mk2 are not yet fully supported as one every two frames is garbage), I don't see a noticable difference between 12 & 14 bits with a standard grading and a properly exposed shot. 10 bit is too noisy though.
 

This is at 3200 ISO. The area within the red box is where the noise lives!

I'm with you on that one. My take home message is: the advantage of 10bit amounts to a 29% increase in resolution or fps or recording time, or some mix of all three.
If you don't need any of the above, stick with 14bit. But if you do, make sure nothing you're interested in lives in the noise floor (which is shown on the RAW histogram as a dithered pattern - stay outta there!).
 

Exactly, 10 and 12 bits are just a great tools, for me ability to shot 14bits and then drop to 12bit to record 50fps continously with 16:9 aspect is just great. I have also tried 65fps and get 12 seconds of 10bit raw 65fps 16:9 -  it would be just a great addon in situation when 37% slomo is needed

I don't think it's that bad. Are you referring to the screengrab above, or the DNGs I posted?

The XC10's 1080p is quite compressed and has a lot of artifacts. Its 4K downscaled to 1080, however, is lovely and stands up to moderate grading quite well. 
But of course, the motion ghosting that we've been going on about here a bit lately precludes it as a serious contender for image quality. 

Here's a comparison at ISO 100, exposed to protect highlights, 2560x1072 (14 bit gives 28 seconds, 10 bit is continuous) in greyscale crop mode. I lifted the shadows a bit to see into the blacks. 14 bit is top left, 10 bit is bottom right.

Try 3 pairs of DNGs here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFNUNVZVRYN0ZkSms
I think that 10bit will work really well, as long as there's nothing you need to pull out of the noise floor. Remember that the 2K DCI spec for Cinemascope is 2048x858... which is 80% of the above res. This allows for a significant amount of re-composing / stabilising / downscaling for increased resolution.
Interestingly, both types of DNG are the same size in bytes - don't know what's going on there.

The download finally barely worked! Now to install it and try it out!
CP210x_Windows_Drivers.zip
Zhiyun_Gimbal_Tools_for_Windows_v1.2.0.zip

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

Yes, but any gains in resolution are only offered by the crop mode with the stuttery greyscale preview - it's off center and quite difficult to follow live action. The normal mode and 3x crop fast preview mode are limited to 1920x1080 AFAIK.

I like pond5. Can't compare them to musicbed as I haven't used that site. But I've found a range of good stuff on pond5 after a little bit of clever searching. I like to search for a specific artist that I want something to sound like, rather than general tags which are overused. 
For example, I've searched for "Bon Iver" rather than "folk", with good results.
Also, has anyone checked out this:
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/post/first-look-music-vine-a-fresh-new-music-licensing-platform-for-filmmakers.html