hyalinejim

Second attempt...which is which?

In this test, I've slowed the video down by 16x so we can see frame by frame what's going on. The settings are:
CLog - 1/50s - f4.8 - ISO500 - all image stabilisation OFF - 4K
I stuck a lut on it to bring back contrast. Ghosting is clearly visible as vertical traces - sometimes as many as two or three from previous frames.
I don't think it's the stabiliser as the footage above shows. Maybe it is certain units or maybe it is firmware.
My camera came with the stock firmware and I updated it to 1.0.2.0. I don't know where you might find the original, or if it's even possible to revert to it. Can you do a test similar to above to see if your unit exhibits the same problem? It's most noticeable when a dark area is moving into midtones.
In other news Canon sent me this, so if you guys report the same issue to them they might get on the case and actually do something:
TLDR: XC10 has ghosting at all ISOs and it has nothing to do with image stabilisation.

I agree that Tv Mode is useful, but I'd like to have access to exposure lock and exposure compensation without going into the menu. But maybe I just need to get used to using the joystick.
As a handheld, run and gun, below the radar camera the XC10 is epic (aside from image ghosting issues which drive me nuts when I see them). It's so small and light that you can walk around all day with it in your hands getting acres and acres of usable footage in a very casual manner. It's so ugly that it looks like a bridge camera from 2004, and this means that people are likely to think you're just another tourist. Just add bum bag [fanny pack] to complete the effect

I'll try to upload a vid or frame grab maybe tomorrow. It's noticeable in areas of high contrast when there is a moderate degree of motion. Maybe it doesn't affect all units. If so, I would gladly return mine for repair / replacement. 

A Letter to Canon
Hi Canon,
Since you've already provided a firmware update for the XC10 I'm assuming you're open to feedback that will seriously improve the camera's image quality and handling. It's a good camera, but it could be great. Here are three major flaws and how to correct them
PROBLEM 1: Image softening at high ISOs and ghosting artifacts.
When the ISO is increased beyond 3200 resolution drops due to in-camera noise reduction. And at all ISOs, ghosting artifacts are visible when high contrast areas are in motion. In the manual it states that ghosting may become visible when certain Image Stabilisation modes are used. However, my tests show that ghosting artifacts exist equally across all IS modes, and even when IS is switched off entirely. The effect increases with ISO which leads me to believe it is a kind of temporal noise reduction which seriously undermines the image and the camera's ability to be used as a "run and gun" hand-held camera.
SOLUTION: Allow the user the option of disabling noise reduction in-camera. Many users who are familiar with post production processes will be comfortable performing their own noise reduction to taste, thus preserving image detail and preventing motion ghosting.
PROBLEM 2: Long throw zoom ring. In manual focus mode, the zoom ring usually has too long a throw, particularly at the telephoto end. At the wide end, focus throw is normal. However at longer focal lengths it takes too long to focus. To do a focus pull from 1 meter to infinity takes many rotations of the zoom ring, farther than the human wrist is capable of turning in a single motion. This slows down manual focus to an unusable level, and introduces unnecessary camera shake when shooting handheld.
SOLUTION: Change the manual focus speed so that all focal lengths focus as quickly and easily as at the wide setting. Currently there are 3 manual focus speed settings, but the fast setting is still far too slow.
PROBLEM 3: Physical exposure controls Full exposure control is accessible from the touch screen menu. However, when shooting handheld it's not convenient to access the touch screen menu while shooting. The joystick control introduces camera shake when pressed and is prone to directional error as it's so small.
SOLUTION: Map more of the exposure controls to the dial wheel and buttons. For example: 1. Assign one of buttons 1, 2, or 3 to Exposure Lock 2. Enable Exposure Compensation on the dial wheel 3. Enable one of buttons 1, 2 or 3 to shift the function of the dial wheel in Manual mode, in the same way that aperture is controlled on the EOS Rebel cameras. Implementing these suggestions would seriously improve the image quality and handheld usability of the XC10. Please consider including them in a firmware upgrade.
[End of Letter to Canon]
That all seems fairly straightforward and reasonable doesn't it? Let them hear your voice:
http://global.canon/en/support/index.html
XC10 is under Camcorders > Cinema EOS

Here's kind of a cheesy campaign vid I just shot on the XC10. 
 

TOP TIP: When shooting C Log set screen backlight to high and drop brightness for a poor man's lut. This helps a bit in judging exposure.

TOP TIP: When shooting C Log set screen backlight to high and drop brightness for a poor man's lut. This helps a bit in judging exposure.

Yes, and very occasionally for me ML tries to record to SD even though CF is inserted and set to "preferred card" in ML menu. You know this is happening if the bit rate in the upper right corner of the screen is lower than 86 to 90.
A reboot solves this one, but it's had me scratching my head more than once.

So that's what all those hieroglyphs are: ancient Egyptian pottery rants and fanboyism...

Yes, I see it and it's not pretty! I noticed it first in HD (after firmware update) and to a lesser extent in 4K. Switching between IS modes makes no difference but it does increase with ISO.
It makes HD footage unusable at 3200 if there's any movement of high contrast areas. The DV Info review points it out and theorises that the ghosting artifacts are due to an in-camera temporal noise reduction. The reviewer spotted it during a rolling shutter test:

Now that I've seen it in my own footage I can't unsee it! It seems to even be present, but very subtly, at 500. Whack up the ISO a bit, zoom in on a contrasty line and wiggle the camera a bit. You'll see it too ?
Now, I know the latest firmware "improved" high ISO performance in HD. But has it caused a worsening of ghosting? I took only a handful of shots before updating so I can't really check for sure. Of course, the sensible thing would be to have an option to disable all noise reduction but... it's Canon.

Has anyone else noticed weird ghosting/banding with the XC10? It's most visible in out of focus areas (hence blurred images below). I've noticed it most in 4K though not sure about HD. My best guess is it's something to do with IS but I really have no idea. I've never seen anything like it before. Images below (look at the skin/face in the first two, and to the right of the face in profile on the last image for a "ghost profile" in the shadow). Very weird.).
 
The XC10 manual says "ghosting, artefacts and/or dark areas may appear when using Dynamic IS" --- however Dynamic IS isn't available in 4K mode (which the frame grabs above are from). I'll do some tests with/without IS but if anyone has experienced this too I'd like to hear about it.
 

Got my XC10 this morning. Still playing with it when I really should be working! As promised I slapped an Isco pre36 on it to see if it's usable. Shots below are at 24mm, 80, 240 and 80.



There's slight vignetting at 80mm, which turns to pronounced white vignetting when pointed at a light source. Nevertheless, it's nice to have the option of a stabilised 80-240 anamorphic, even if it is at 5.6 on a 1" sensor.

Got my XC10 this morning. Still playing with it when I really should be working! As promised I slapped an Isco pre36 on it to see if it's usable. Shots below are at 24mm, 80, 240 and 80.



There's slight vignetting at 80mm, which turns to pronounced white vignetting when pointed at a light source. Nevertheless, it's nice to have the option of a stabilised 80-240 anamorphic, even if it is at 5.6 on a 1" sensor.

Got my XC10 this morning. Still playing with it when I really should be working! As promised I slapped an Isco pre36 on it to see if it's usable. Shots below are at 24mm, 80, 240 and 80.



There's slight vignetting at 80mm, which turns to pronounced white vignetting when pointed at a light source. Nevertheless, it's nice to have the option of a stabilised 80-240 anamorphic, even if it is at 5.6 on a 1" sensor.

Got my XC10 this morning. Still playing with it when I really should be working! As promised I slapped an Isco pre36 on it to see if it's usable. Shots below are at 24mm, 80, 240 and 80.



There's slight vignetting at 80mm, which turns to pronounced white vignetting when pointed at a light source. Nevertheless, it's nice to have the option of a stabilised 80-240 anamorphic, even if it is at 5.6 on a 1" sensor.

Sounds like you're having fun! MLRAW is very exciting, especially when you see the amount of colour detail that can be extracted. As Squig pointed out, 2 popular work flows involve converting the DNGs to a visually lossless 444 codec.
 
Resolve is much much faster at this. But ACR gives a slightly cleaner image and possibly nicer colour reproduction. If you value the ACR image quality, it might be worth investing in Cinelog, which will give you a log image from ACR with all highlight and shadow info present and correct.
So if I'm doing a job with a quick turnaround I'll use Resolve. Otherwise I use ACR to After Effects. Transcoding times are loooong.
+1 for ETTR. You will get strong noise at higher ISOs in the shadows. Luckily the RAW histogram option shows the noise floor. Try to stay out of it.
Finally, check out the new crop.rec module (not to be confused with the older greyscale crop mode). It turns your camera into a superzoom! 

There is also a third model which I think Sony has taken (it's also quite a new approach). Don't you think Sony delivers features but a lot of the time they're not 100% reliable like on Canikons? They're unreliable to the point that some people after initial OHs and WOWs switch back. The third model is based around Lean startup method in which you intentionally release lower quality products in order to improve them later on.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_startup). The idea is to get a "good enough" product on the market ASAP and improve it over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_startup#Minimum_viable_product). This way you can release cutting edge technologies earlier and more often, cut the costs (less testing time etc) and get feedback from customers earlier. The downsides we all know, don't we ;)? We're all unpaid beta testers all the time in a way. There is also something called split testing in which "different versions of a product are offered to customers at the same time" - sounds familiar, doesn't it? 
It'll be interesting to see which model will come out first in the end, though!

Film is also a language.
Static tripod shots are a way of saying (because they are understood subconsciously in that way by the audience): "Look here, I wanna to show you something I have selected for your consideration".
The fast zoom of the late seventies and early eighties says: "And it's THIS !!!"
Until Godards À bout de souffle (Breathless) of 1950, hand-held camera meant either POV or amateur. Suddenly people realized that a doc-style hand camera did NOT say: "this is something witnessed by a camera operator, there is no structured narration", but that it added emotion to the scene. It said, "what happens here is (or WAS) not fully controlled or understood". Godard, also a film-philosopher, explained that cinema showed "death at work". The viewer of a traditional movie was like someone who sits in a train, in driving direction. He could anticipate everything because it slowly moved into his field of vision. Cuts with perfect continuity or with a too obvious narrative function, motifs carefully framed and presented in cold blood. A deterministic world view, down-to-earth (or down-to-your-knees!) morals, Pleasantville. Every 'film of life' has the same curve bending from the cradle to the grave.
Revolting for the existentialistic Godard. He wanted audiences breathless. I think that a gimbal or IBIS stabilized shot that is deliberately made shaky in post does NOT transport this. People who want "total stabilization" often also demand HFR, 48, 50, 60 fps. This smoothes motion, true, but it effectively makes motion blur (or lack of motion blur!) almost invisible. They smoothed motion, but they also stopped (e-)motion. Film is a language, and it needs as much differentiation as possible. Sharp - unsharp, stable - shaky, smooth - choppy, contrasty - misty, giant - tiny, what have you. Film is not about technical perfection. If a gimbal shot looks as if made by the Terminator (I own the Ronin M, so I'm not a hater), you don't need servo sounds for the audience to sense this, imo.

RS already has it's place in the vocabulary of contemporary cinema. If there is an explosion or sth. like that filmed in the aforementioned Nouvelle Vague fashion, RS will add emotion AND authenticity. Of course not in the long tripod shot in which Daniel Craig escapes with the explosion on the horizon. Let me add another semiotic polarity: UGLYYYYY - nice ...
EDIT: I can't remember which film it was, but only recently I saw RS flashes (images torn in their middle) in an, er, blockbuster. Viewing habits have already adopted that look.

I'm holding out for the GH13

Have the HD25s for a few years now. They're light but sturdy. Would highly recommend.

It probably makes sense if you're shooting at 30p. The numbers seem roughly correct. If you shoot at 24p you should be getting 49min of 1920x1080 on a 256gb card.