hyalinejim

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

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!