Kubrickian

It was this seller.
http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/171846075915

Suddenly clipped highlights, over sharpened, moire and aliasing, 60i and high compression.
That is the video look
Video look is not: deep depth of field, small sensor (super 16mm is a film look after all), though a crap DP can certainly make anything look like video if they try

Some low light shots.

I think I heard 3 but it turned out to be a little more when I tested. I can check.

Ive just looked at some of yesterdays shoots from after sundown and started playing a little in Resolve.
I like what I see so far. Im installing the Beta of R Studio so it might be a while untill I have some video to post.

Sometimes I wonder if it's possible for me to be more patronizing than this online
I wonder

This camera, like most Canon products, is clearly more than the sum of its spec sheet. The image is cinematic as hell. 

Quick run through of all the picture profiles in the Canon XC10 and also a DR shootout against a 5Dii with ML Raw and the BMPC4K.
DR looks good imo.
In the DR comparison I exposed all three a hair from zebra. Adjusted lift, gamma, gain.
In the first set of picture profiles I adjusted lift, gamma, gain and added saturation to the C-Log.
Second set is straight from camera, untouched.
All ETTR.

Some frames from a Dynamic Range Test against the 5Dmkii shooting Raw and the Blackmagic 4K also in Raw.
Same aperture and same correction. Adjusted contrast to the waveform and lifted the mids 0.3. All exposed to the right a hair under zebra.
So no, not scientific at all. Mostly just a guide for myself.
Sun is just about to set.
5D

BMPC4K

XC10

Also here is a XC10 frame in one of the standard picture settings during sundown. No corrections done.

I think it looks good. Showing off vintage cars is a genre where you want some deep saturation.

Just got the camera and yes all those tweaks are in there

Got some fun stuff in the mail today.
Among other things a new on camera mic for ambient sound. Will be fun to test it out on the XC10 and other cameras.

Besides the good price to performance and features the form factor was a deciding factor. I like using my "EVF" flipped up so it couldn't protrude backwards to much. 


 
I also took the opportunity to test the XC10 as a camera for product reviews/demos. The reach and parfocal lens is a nice feature for it. A bit limiting with a small sensor for that type of video but totally usable.
 
 

Went to a race track. Only had about two hours, no tripod, no credentials to get closer to the track or a decent microphone.
But I still wanted some video from it.
Thank god for the camcorder
Would be really fun to bring a good mic next time, get credentials and do some reporting as well. 
Simply didn't have the time for preparation or at the track.
Oh well maybe by winter I have time for my hobby again

Did lots of lens tests today during our morning walk. Haven't edited, will probably use it for a review. But I puled some frame grabs.
Closest Focus at 24 mm (20 cm)

Closest Focus at 240 mm (50 cm)

240mm Lets you keep distance (but of course less background).

"Shallow" depth of field 24 mm f2.8

"Shallow"depth of field 80ish mm f4.0

"Shallow" depth of field 240mm f5.6

Got the WiFi going so I could instagram from the XC10. It's OK imo. 
I use mainly film for stills or my full frame A7ii. But if I'm out with the XC10 and see something worth capturing it will do fine.
For journalistic work it's well beyond good enough. 

Still haven't had time to shoot anything for more than 30 min. Hopefully next week.
So I took it for a quick run when I went to the store.

Wanted to see how the XC10 worked under really bright conditions in C-Log using just the built in ND. 
The C-Log has a base of ISO500.
No highlights where blown when making this video.

I'm actually a bit shocked of the comments it gets at No Film School.
Are people claiming to be film makers, creative, artists really that narrow minded and straight up stupid. Or is it that its only trolls visiting that site these days?
People are really without being ironic talking about it and comparing to Red Epic, Alexa and even A7s!!!!?
They honestly think Canon meant this camera for prosumers and enthusiasts to shoot some drunk girl in a brides dress?
Cant their imagination expand more than "surveillance" like for example nature, sports (night time enduro), space?
They honestly see no potential with this sort of tech that a cheap LED cant replace?

If so, imo, filmmaking is not what they should be doing. At least not in any sort of creative fashion.

Try not to only post news articles that fit your narrow worldview:
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/01/02/sony-has-78-chance-to-go-bankrupt-in-two-years-says-macroaxis/

Film doesn't look like real life. And that's the point imo. It looks good, dreamy, exciting, magical, "enter any random word".
And it's the same with everything in films. Even if they are shot digitally it doesn't look like real life. It doesn't sound like real life. People don't talk or act like real life. Physics don't apply. People don't die when they should. Etc etc etc.
All I know is that I sit in forums like this and peep at everything from Sony 4K to H.265.  I mainly shoot Raw but also avchd. I watch modern movies shot with the absolute latest in video technology. 
And then the other day when I rewatched the old "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" I was once again just blown away of how good real film looks. Even if it's over 50 years old and kinda Vintage.
The skin tones, highlights, shadows, everything just straight out kills any video footage I've seen.

So Gawker melted down - I followed it - the biggest thing that was really behind it wasn't what was on the surface - that poor story about the conde nast exec - it was corporate management taking over editorial - and well it was secretly really about this article - http://gawker.com/brands-are-not-your-friend-1684232182 - why brands aren't your friends.

In their meeting they talked about firing the author -Sam Briddle - as Gawker starts to care more about making money. Some say growing up - but there is nothing wrong with this article - it's not offensive to a person, it doesn't destroy someone - it's purely truth to power.

And they wanted to fire the writer - and that's not good to admit publically.

But why should we care - we are filmmakers?  Because all film is politcal.  We are a wing of journalism even if you are a VFX artist on Michael Bay films -that's political - it's your choice to support this modern blockbuster world - and you are making something seen by many.

You can't escape the politics.

And part of why I got banned from 2 other forums is because I started to show the truth behind the corporate control of those sites - almost the same reason they wanted to fire Sam - and I thought that corporate control of a forum to advance the discussion and science of filmmaking was harmful to the online principle.  It was so nice of the admin to create this site.

But see this is the thing - I work for advertising and I love them and the people I work for - they are all great people - we all are good people - we just know that corporations exist except for b corporations to solely make money.  Everything else is secondary.  So I have no ethical quandry being a counter to some of these measures especially since I believe in environmental and economic sustainability, just like the Pope, and that puts us in conflict.  This doesn't mean I don't like working on commercials - I actually love it because it gives me the free time to do my own work to try to help the world out - I couldn't do that if I was working for little to no pay on a doc that would take 70 hours of my week away.  I love advertisers - but there has to be boundaries.  Or soceity will continue to fade more and more into environmental and social decay.

There is a reason the press exists - it's a fundemental part of freedom and democracy.  When the press starts to cowtow to corporate interests anymore than it already has, it gets weak.  And then the bad will continue, more and more.  And this isn't fun to watch.

Did Andrew go off his meds again? 

Did Andrew go off his meds again? 

Fuzzynormal, you should have known better than to try to tell the alcoholics that they don't need alcohol anymore. Just look at the addict-levels of denial and rationalization above.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. 

Fuzzynormal, you should have known better than to try to tell the alcoholics that they don't need alcohol anymore. Just look at the addict-levels of denial and rationalization above.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. 

It's almost like the choice of hardware takes a backseat to ideas and collaborators among successful filmmakers. Maybe we should start looking for a forum about real filmmaking and not spec comparisons?