hyalinejim

Yes, this is the XC15. I sold my XC10 to purchase it---I never noticed any issue with the XC10, but perhaps I'm not as skilled or attentive to details as i should be. I do a lot of education videos and the new XLR attachment and audio processing offered on the XC15 is excellent--had to have it, and now the XC15 is complete, at least for my primary purposes.
Note, that a firmware update is coming for the XC10 that will give it the Cps and color space of the XC15--and (I hope) the waveform as well. It is very, very helpful, especially shooting in Log. Could it not be possible that Canon knows about this issue, and has silently addressed the issue in the XC15, and plan to do the same for the XC10 in its next firmware update???
 

Ghost free!
Big thanks for that @tomsemiterrific. Looks clean as a whistle on my end, no motion ghosting. If I did what you did with my cam, it'd look like we were all on mushrooms. ..
@mercer or any other XC10 owner, can you check if your results are clean @20000 ISO like tom, or sick like kidzrevil and me?

Kidzrevil--here's the video you wanted to see. Where do you find the kind of Ghosting shown in your original example. Shot in 4k, HDR CP, with sharpening....
 

It's barely noticeable at low ISO. Everywhere in between is more or less noticeable, depending on what ISO, how much motion, and in what tonal range.
It's not that I ever intend to shoot at ISO 20000, it's just that it's incredibly noticeable and is the best test of "Does my XC10 have ghosting artifacts?"
There are 2 possibilities:
1. Only some XC10s have ghosting and kidzrevil and I should return our units.
2. All XC10s have ghosting and we should ask Canon for a fix.
All it takes is one sample clip to falsify no.2
 
 

No idea, it's not my vid. Ghosting is independent of shutter speed though - SS only changes the shape of the ghost due to motion blur.
I agree that in this case it's not the end of the world - a test video / tourist vid. But there are times when this sort of motion artifacting is flat out unacceptable. I would hate to be in a situation where a client points and says "What's that? Can you get rid of it please?"
In short, no, because if you play back frame by frame 25p footage the traces are from the previous frame, not a 50p interpolation 

Yes at 1000 there is a slight smearing of the image in HD, but 4K shouldn't be affected as much.
I didn't notice a difference between the two when it came to noise - both were at ISO500 so not that much noise anyway except for shadow areas.
Yes, that video has very clear ghosting in some shots - like double vision!
43s, back of the man's head - or the lady. Or when the white truck goes past, pause it and you'll see 2 sets of tail lights!

It's recoverable in Resolve as well but what I found was that it bands more readily when over exposed this way. The scopes on the ext recorder show C-LOG has more DR than any of the other profiles.

I also find it hard to believe that other people have not spotted the image ghosting and that makes me think it might just be some models. Only way to know for sure is to see footage from other units. It looks like @tomsemiterrific and @mercer are on the case and will post something in the other thread
In other news, more tests today confirm for me that the image is already losing detail at ISO1000 in HD.
Also, WideDR is better than CLog in HD because there's less banding and the colours are nicer.
CLOG:

 
WIDE DR:

It also makes it easier to see the screen. I don't think there's any difference in dynamic range. I also learned that there are superwhites and 100 zebras are not necessarily clipped - I can get that info back in 32bit workspace in After Effects.

I'll try to get it done this evening. Work today. In the flowerpot scene I can't see any ghosting; the ISO was 20,000 and sharpening was actually set about half way up the degrees---normally I shoot Clog so I haven't actually turned sharpening off--as it my habit with all CPs.
 

I did a couple of tests and didn't experience any thing like I see in the examples above.
Next, I put a pot of flowers in low light and ran the ISO to 20,000---still, no ghosting.
Disclaimer: I have an XC15--but I don't think that should really make any difference. Right?!?
I'll keep testing and keep a look out for it in the future. Weird. 

I may have a couple minutes to test mine tomorrow. I'll let you know. 

No such luck @kidzrevil! This one was in HD:
 

I agree. I went into a store in town today and checked out their display model. It had the exact same behaviour as mine. I've sent the files from both cameras to my Canon CPS rep, because I haven't heard from the regular support guys in a few days.
In the meantime I'm trying to keep ISO at 500 whenever possible. Interiors are manageable at 24mm f2.8. If the ISO goes up the image goes to mush and the ghosts start coming out. I'd like to see Canon release a firmware update on October 31st.
If you want to chance sending in your unit, ask Canon for a loan replacement. You might be entitled to it under the CPS programme.
If kidzrevil and I are correct in our hunch, this affects all units and not just ours. In that case the only solution is for XC10/15 users to contact Canon and ask them to offer an option to disable noise reduction.
Can you check this @HugoS316 and upload a quick example at ISO 20000, waving the camera around in front of something sharp and contrasty with underexposed areas? If your unit doesn't have ghosting, this will encourage kidzrevil and me to send our units back to Canon. Thanks in advance.

If true @HugoS316 that would be a massive relief because we can hopefully get our cameras repaired / replaced. Would you be so good as to record a few seconds of high ISO movement like I did above?
@tomsemiterrific do you see ghosting on your XC15?
@kidzrevil Did you register your camera on CPN? If so, they say there's a 5 day turnaround for returns.

Time for a game of guess the camera!


Which is XC10 and which is Magic Lantern RAW? (I've downsized these so resolution advantages aren't apparent.) If you need a hint take a closer look at the camera strap.
This is good news for me as it means I can match the two closely enough. The 5D3 was shooting in crop mode so DOF is more or less the same. Interestingly there is a difference in exposing the two cameras. I have to close down the 5D3 by about one stop to reach the same clipping point as the XC10 when they are set to ISO 400 and 500 respectively. In other words, if I used the 5D3 to set exposure and ETTR, and used the same settings on the XC10, the XC10 would be one stop blown out in the highlights. I'm not sure what the implications of this are.

 
 

Time for a game of guess the camera!


Which is XC10 and which is Magic Lantern RAW? (I've downsized these so resolution advantages aren't apparent.) If you need a hint take a closer look at the camera strap.
This is good news for me as it means I can match the two closely enough. The 5D3 was shooting in crop mode so DOF is more or less the same. Interestingly there is a difference in exposing the two cameras. I have to close down the 5D3 by about one stop to reach the same clipping point as the XC10 when they are set to ISO 400 and 500 respectively. In other words, if I used the 5D3 to set exposure and ETTR, and used the same settings on the XC10, the XC10 would be one stop blown out in the highlights. I'm not sure what the implications of this are.

 
 

I've used it with a Shogun and Pix-e5h. I can't see any quality gain over the internal UHD 305 codec but haven't done any motion tests. I tested it to see if I could eliminate banding in blue skies but it didn't improve. ( HDMI out is 8 bit and not 10 bit)I found ETTR not the best way to expose for C-Log. Firstly the zebras are on the green channel so you can clip other colours ( inc blue skies) and mainly because the image just looks better to me about 1 stop under ETTR and the banding is under control. The banding is a bit of a shame and I don't get it with my A7s S-Log HDMI out which is also 8 bit. One good reason for an external monitor is to have scopes which I hear they have introduced on the new x15. Probably no technical reason they can't do this with a firmware upgrade but I guess they won't for commercial reasons. One thing I hate ( And on the A7s) is the lack of a quick WB set button. I would just like to point it at a grey card or pop on my expodisk and press to set the WB. This camera generated so much hate when it came out but is now gaining a lot of respect  due in no small part to a superb C-Log / 305mbs codec and the now sensible pricing ( the launch price was just ill judged). Couple of tips; don't stop down past f8 in UHD or the resolution drops off due to diffraction. it can't trigger the recording from the camera on the video devices recorder but it can with then Atomos. ( kind of pointless putting a monitor on it anyway as it ruins it's compact point and shoot nature) I'd also like to see user selectable NR and more options for assigning functions to the buttons.

I have not experienced this with my XC10 (with the latest firmware). I just did a quick test with high ISO and IS enabled. No issue.

Some landscape shots from a country walk yesterday. 4K CLog ETTR at ISO 500 to 1000. FilmConvert Kodak 5213 Vis3. Very pleased with sky v foliage v skintone colour separation using FilmConvert on XC10 footage.
 

Here's a 4k 305mbps frame grab of a scene with deep DOF and a lot of fine detail at only ISO 1000:

Here's a crop of the top right hand corner at 100%

Look at those rocks and shrubs. Pure mush. Here it is again resized to 1080:

It's still fucking mush!!!
There's no ghosting here as the camera wasn't moving. It's spatial noise reduction (within the frame) as opposed to temporal noise reduction (between frames). Both are perfidious and noise reduction should really be user selectable. Now, I'm sure the aggressive NR is helping the compression algorithm BUT... if I could switch it off I would.
I'd also love to hear from other XC owners about whether they see aggressive noise reduction and motion ghosting in their units. Because if it's just my unit and kidzrevil's I'm sending mine back to Canon pronto!

@kidzrevil Thanks for making this thread. Canon don't know yet that this is a big problem. On page 76 of the manual they write:
"When using Dynamic IS, the edges of the picture may be adversely affected (ghosting, artifacts and/or dark 
areas may appear) when compensating for a high degree of camcorder shake."
BUT the ghosting appears whether or not IS selected or not, and at all ISOs. Now, my video shows faint ghosting artifacts at ISO 500, and kidzrevil's high ISO frame grabs show severe ghosting. So it gets worse with ISO. So it's probably due to temporal noise reduction. Forget frame grabs for a second: it's visible on the LCD at moderate ISOs as soon as anything moves. This makes the footage next to useless. 
I don't know how this slipped past Canon and the BBC guy. If you only shoot static scenes everything's hunky dory. But look what happened when DVInfo panned across a chart:

Adam Wilt knows it , I know it, kidzrevil knows it, but...
Canon doesn't know about the ghosting yet
So if you own an XC10, contact Canon support and tell them your camera does mad shit against your will. They've shown their willingness to improve image quality through firmware updates. Ask them to fix the ghost that is haunting your camera. 
Because if your scene demands you record at anything above ISO 500, you might as well shoot it on a potato.

Thanks Santa!

And thanks FilmConvert for decent colour separation at a mouse click! CLog with FilmConvert and a highlight saturation roll off. Here's where I'd been at in terms of trying for nice colour:

And I think it's not bad, but I was introducing edge artifacts and accentuating compression blocks. FilmConvert does a really good job of getting psychologically realistic colours without the image falling apart.
I had noticed an overall colour cast to the images that I found hard to shake and I think some LUTs just cover over it but FilmConvert actually seems to be converting (what look like to me) a whole bunch of greens and purples and turning them into... real colour.
I got a 30cm Lastolite EzyBalance yesterday. It folds up and stuffs away into your bag. When unfolded it's big enough to fill the screen. Stick it in front of the lens in the light you're going to be shooting in and select custom white balance 1 or 2 then press set. You should have neutral colours for the rest of that shoot as long as the light temperature doesn't change.
Canon have replied to me asking for samples:
Maybe I will start a new thread on this. Canon have already issued two firmware updates, and have included improvements to noise reduction and rolling shutter. So why not this?

@kidzrevil Thanks for making this thread. Canon don't know yet that this is a big problem. On page 76 of the manual they write:
"When using Dynamic IS, the edges of the picture may be adversely affected (ghosting, artifacts and/or dark 
areas may appear) when compensating for a high degree of camcorder shake."
BUT the ghosting appears whether or not IS selected or not, and at all ISOs. Now, my video shows faint ghosting artifacts at ISO 500, and kidzrevil's high ISO frame grabs show severe ghosting. So it gets worse with ISO. So it's probably due to temporal noise reduction. Forget frame grabs for a second: it's visible on the LCD at moderate ISOs as soon as anything moves. This makes the footage next to useless. 
I don't know how this slipped past Canon and the BBC guy. If you only shoot static scenes everything's hunky dory. But look what happened when DVInfo panned across a chart:

Adam Wilt knows it , I know it, kidzrevil knows it, but...
Canon doesn't know about the ghosting yet
So if you own an XC10, contact Canon support and tell them your camera does mad shit against your will. They've shown their willingness to improve image quality through firmware updates. Ask them to fix the ghost that is haunting your camera. 
Because if your scene demands you record at anything above ISO 500, you might as well shoot it on a potato.

Thanks Santa!

And thanks FilmConvert for decent colour separation at a mouse click! CLog with FilmConvert and a highlight saturation roll off. Here's where I'd been at in terms of trying for nice colour:

And I think it's not bad, but I was introducing edge artifacts and accentuating compression blocks. FilmConvert does a really good job of getting psychologically realistic colours without the image falling apart.
I had noticed an overall colour cast to the images that I found hard to shake and I think some LUTs just cover over it but FilmConvert actually seems to be converting (what look like to me) a whole bunch of greens and purples and turning them into... real colour.
I got a 30cm Lastolite EzyBalance yesterday. It folds up and stuffs away into your bag. When unfolded it's big enough to fill the screen. Stick it in front of the lens in the light you're going to be shooting in and select custom white balance 1 or 2 then press set. You should have neutral colours for the rest of that shoot as long as the light temperature doesn't change.
Canon have replied to me asking for samples:
Maybe I will start a new thread on this. Canon have already issued two firmware updates, and have included improvements to noise reduction and rolling shutter. So why not this?

A couple of stills from my Disneyland trip (don't ask!) that I've graded in FilmConvert with the new profiles. 5207 Vis3, 60% film colour, 65% Super 16 grain. Tweaks to curve and saturation. Edit: shot in Canon log at ISO 500 (apart from the last one, which I think was at 2000.
I'm really loving the image I get this camera - it may not be for everybody, but it matches my sensibilities. Knowing it is capable of producing exactly what I want and that it's so easy to use makes me want to shoot a lot more, which is - obviously - the best way to get better at anything!