hyalinejim

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

If it is hardware, they should be able to fix it by replacing the faulty components. It would be nice if it were a hardware problem that only affects our units. But we've yet to see output from a unit that doesn't have it. Otherwise I would've sent mine in last week . 

@mercer
The answer to the first question is: those are the most significant differences, as well as the fact that larger sensors generally have less noise.
The answer to the second question is: if the focal lengths and apertures are equivalent then the field of view and depth of field will match and the aps-c will not stand out. But the lens that will match the desired focal length and depth of field may not exist for aps-c or it may be more expensive than you'd like.
The take home message is: Use the laws of equivalence to decide if a given format's lens selection will meet your desires and budget for:
Angle of view - how wide or how telephoto you need to go Depth of field - how little or much of the image do you want to be in focus Light gathering ability - your preferences for depth of field in a given lighting situation with regard to the sensor's noise performance This will allow you to choose the best format for you, or to match one format to another within the limits of available hardware.

@mercer
The answer to the first question is: those are the most significant differences, as well as the fact that larger sensors generally have less noise.
The answer to the second question is: if the focal lengths and apertures are equivalent then the field of view and depth of field will match and the aps-c will not stand out. But the lens that will match the desired focal length and depth of field may not exist for aps-c or it may be more expensive than you'd like.
The take home message is: Use the laws of equivalence to decide if a given format's lens selection will meet your desires and budget for:
Angle of view - how wide or how telephoto you need to go Depth of field - how little or much of the image do you want to be in focus Light gathering ability - your preferences for depth of field in a given lighting situation with regard to the sensor's noise performance This will allow you to choose the best format for you, or to match one format to another within the limits of available hardware.

Mattias compression is only about distance from the subject. It has nothing whatsoever to do with lens choice OR sensor size. You can test this without a camera using your eyes and your feet. Wider lenses have the ability to get more FOV in the frame but they can't magically see around or behind objects. Just as longer lenses can't magically make background objects larger.
This discussion/disagreement is about equivalent focal lengths and whether or not the same image characteristics can be recreated regardless of sensor size if the correct lens spec is used. Depth of field doesn't have to be part of that discussion but it can be and has been (I think you talked about bokeh for example).
So yes a 50mm lens at 2m from a subject creates the compression as it does on a small or big sensor. But so does a 25mm lens kept at that same distance. And therefore the only variables that influence image character are FOV, sensor size and aperture size. These variables however can't magically make background and foreground objects move in 3D space! 
Or to put it another way ...
 

I'm a bit rusty myself, but if the Isco can only go to about 80mm wide before vignetting is introduced it doesn't bode well for other anamorphics. On full frame, I remember that the Isco could do 50mm and the Kowas and Sankors of this world would do about 85 - but you have to remember they have differing crop factors, ostensibly 1.5x and 2x respectively although this open to interpretation (my isco is probably more like 1.4x).
I'm not familiar with the two models you mention.
Today I did a quick test regarding exposure methods for WideDR. I fed a +1, 0 and -1 exposure (using the camera's metering and an eye on the zebras for reference) into FilmConvert. When overexposed shots are brought back into range they become more contrasty. The opposite is true for underexposure. Nevertheless, I was able to match all three:

Looks similar right? Now look at the lower midtones / shadows:

It's clear to me how I'm going to go about exposing WideDR.

Just picked up a nice kit on ebay for 1600 shipped. Pelican case, 128gb Lexar card, 64gb card, reader. There are tons of deals, so don't buy one new if anyone is thinking of purchasing one.
 

 

What diffusion filter did you get @kidzrevil? I ordered a 1/4 Black Pro Mist the other day.
If anyone is interested, there's a great comparison video that demistifies the differences between diffusions.
 

Baassiilllll!

Don't mention the war!

Don't mention the war!

From Canon:
 

Okay, I should have it to you tomorrow or Friday. 

No probs if you're too busy, mercer. I just think that Canon will like to see the original file so they know it's happening in camera and the XML file as well so they know what settings were used.

I have a really busy week. Can you download mine from my Vimeo page?
I hope to get out tomorrow and do a more thorough run through, if I have the time. 

Here's a quick frame grab and video from my XC10. I don't remember the setting on this one just found it with some random footage. I think it shows the ghosting pretty clearly though.
 

I just picked up an XC-10 on ebay used for $1200.  The guy was very nice and threw in two 256GB CFast 2.0 cards and two CFAST readers.  Pretty much the best deal I've scored on ebay for years.  My 1dx pukes yesterday but I have this little camera to keep me happy for a couple of weeks.  I called the guy after the sale and asked why he was so generous - he said he bought a C500 and just didn't need the cards and figured I could use them.  There is hope for civilization yet folks. 
Digging the XC-10 so far.  Downloading the Canon XF software was a waste though unless you want to read EXIF info.  Camera is plenty sharp when you grade the C-LOG footage and looks really Super 16'ish.  It is what it is - a good light deep DOF camera with IS, ND, 4k, no time limit and C-Log.  It is not a replacement for the larger sensor Cx00 cameras, but should match nicely in post.  Loving it!

I don't think it's RS because this image shows RS and ghosting together:

Also, if it was RS why would it change with ISO? It's surely noise reduction.
@kidzrevil Your Canon rep is very responsive. Mine is much more terse: thanks for the video, send it in.
STOP THE PRESS, this just in:
 
 

From flicking back and forth between ISO and (fine) gain in a non-Log picture style, ISO 400 = 7.5db  and ISO 500 = 10.5db.
Going down from 10.5db to 8.5 using fine gain controls is -2db, so that's a 1/3 of a stop. It seems to only make a difference in WideDR and CLog. Could be useful for another little bit of exposure latitude when shooting outdoors.

I think this is a very sensible point of view - you can great footage from the cam as is. Nevertheless, if it is a NR issue I'd prefer to have the option of using Canon's NR processing in camera, or using my own in post if I could avoid ghosting. Or having it fixed somehow.
Sometimes people talk about motion cadence and its importance and even if you can't point out ghosting with normally exposed footage at base ISO without looking at individual frame grabs, it nevertheless is there and is performing a streaking of motion that affects our perception of movement. And, for me, the premise of this camera is that it is a camera that moves - small, light, handheld, image stabilisation, on the run, on a gimbal. So its rendering of movement should be good. And that is compromised at the moment.

Personally I think this is an issue you will see in any XC10. We don't have anyone here really looking for the ghosting and saying they can't find any.
I think you'd be wasting your time to send your unit in. I'd press them to try it on a random unit (or ten) to confirm/underline that it is a universal issue.
 
Posted these on the other thread ages ago. Granted they're out of focus but I think they show the real world effects of the issue pretty well. Look at the weird banding on the faces, and in the final image the ghost of his profile. It's really very weird.

Thanks @jpfilmz for your test footage.
I can confirm that ghosting exists at ISO500 with everything switched off. Here's a CLog frame grab with contrast expanded:

Look at the curved handle on the RHS - there's a ghost image. This is affecting motion cadence at all ISOs.
@jpfilmz @Lintelfilm @mercer @HugoS316 and all other XC10 owners:
It's time to contact Canon! Send them your ghosting footage and/or  links to the threads here and ask them to resolve the issue.

I just turned everything off and the ghosting is still there. It's much less regular and visible - I think when IS is off because all the motion blur hides it more, but it's definitely still there. @Jpfilmz can you try again to make sure?

I just ran a series of test with the XC10.  First set I was getting slight ghosting.  Not as clean as tomsemiterrific's footage.  I then went into the camera and turned off everything...all image stabilization features, all auto focus features, including on the body of the camera, flicker reduction off, shockless WB off, rolling shutter reduction off and with those setting I was able to greatly eliminate ghosting affects in my footage.  EDIT I also tried with with rolling shutter reduction turned back on and had similar results.  Could someone else try with these setting off and see if that helps.  I'll try to post some of my footage.

I sure hope so Tom. That's very exciting about a firmware update. Even though I don't know anything about this CPS colour space. Must google it.
Y'know I'm pretty sure you would have spotted ghosting on your XC10 if it had it. All the same, I'd still like to see a similar clip from an XC10 without ghosting.
@kidzrevil It's looking more likely that we should send ours in. We know now that not all XC15s have ghosting. But it could still be the case that all XC10s do, and the difference is due to software processing. We still need to see a high ISO XC10 clip without ghosting.
I tried one in a shop yesterday and it was like Ghostie McGhosterton. Who else owns an XC10 round here?