Eduardo Portas

I agree with you, Sir. There is no way a highly regarded Japanese company "goes all the way" with one of the most important Korean companies out there. It would make Nikon look terrible in their home market. More than that, it would a sign of weakness. Japanese companies detest showing their weaknesses. There's a lot of pride here, specially when you consider the not totally healed socio-cultural consequences of WWII between the Korean and the Japanese. I don't discard some kind of agreement through the back-door, though.

Thanks, I'll give it a read. I completely agree that better acquisition will improve your final delivery. However, seeing that an enormous amount of streamed video is watched on tiny displays I struggle to find any differences at all between well done HD and 4K while having two or more windows open at the same time in my Mac or PC. I would propose that we are slowly veering towards a "YouTube aesthetic" versus a "Hollywood/BBC video aesthetic" were the latter is more pleasing for narrative visual work, instead of 4 minute clips of people ranting about why the new iPhone sucks. Cheers.

I second this opinion. I will normally reduce my streaming resolution when watching videos online during peak hours (on a laptop they look fine at 480p with at least another window open side by side whilst I multi-task). Very rarely will I stream 1080 content. At the moment, over here in Mexico, it is almost impossible to stream a 4K video, even with a powerful computer. Even then, I know I'm not getting the whole experience because my monitor is not 4K. So yes, I also believe other factors are paramount in producing a pleasing image and giving the impression of it being "sharp".

Thanks Mattias, not a complete hassle I see. Problem is Canon have accustomed me to their dedicated ISO button! You thought so? I just saw it and it looked much warmer, punchier, than their previous episodes recorded with either Sony or Panasonic cameras. The skin-tone difference is enormous. The host's skin looks much better in this review. The greenery looked nice. Not Lord of the Rings sharp, but really clear. (I did notice huge CA when they do a tilt-shot with the big trees in the woods) So another case of Canon colours on the XC10?

Thank you. That's a good description.

Hey Matt, could you explain for us newbies what's a "milk black". Thanks. Hey Aaron, how have you circumvented the lack of a dedicated ISO button on the XC10? I've gotten used to Canon's DLSR's bodies in that respect. It just seems counter-intuitive not have one? Thanks.

At least the last line of the interview confirms what many forums where discussing a few months ago: the XC10 is positioned for ENG that requiere 4K. Interesting that Canon saw that opportunity with a dedicated hybrid camera. Maybe they're using us journos as a massive focus group before they make the big leap to mom and dad 4K in the Rebel line or similar? We normally treat our gear with no respect at all. It gets flung, hit, bashed and cursed practically everyday when out in the cut-through media field. If it breaks whilst on the job, I expect my employer to provide another copy of the exact same equipment. Install a strong user-base there and you're home free with less demanding consumers (mom and pop) that will receive "good enough" picture quality. Just my 2c.

Sometimes small changes in marketing empower the consumer to feel better about his purchase. These changes come in the box-art, new font type, ad campaigns, etc. I think that about sums this up: to Canon we are consumers and little else. That's not bad in itself, but it is very traditional. Other companies--at least that's the image they convey--actually try to produce communities. At the end, I think the latter is better for people with artistic tendencies, like most of the readers of this site. For the other 99% that new Canon box will be soooo cooool ;]

Thank you all for your opinions. At the end I picked Film Convert, just because I mainly shoot with 8-bit codecs and the various examples I saw comparing both of them featured a "heavy hand" when showing footage graded with MB.

Hello everyone, I use FCPX to edit, color correct and grade, but I feel a lot of time is wasted with its native toolset to achieve a "look". Seeing that MB Looks now includes a similar feature to Film Convert called "Magic Bullet Film", does it make financial sense to spend a little bit more and get the MB? I would like to know your experiences.

Your video looks fine. Of course you can make it a $100k production but ask yourself: who is the primary audience for this video? Once that's clear, your good to go. I thought It made its point very clear: this is the way to make a nutritious, all natural green juice. I would only cut a couple of frames when you show your subject introducing the leaves inside the blender (why show the same action twice?) and when the whole drink is being blended. That's it! Good job!

Canon colors. Nice.

​It's a shame that the video about the XC10 looks better than the actual footage from the XC10 itself!!!! As far as I remember, DigitalRev uses a 5D Mark III and a 24-105 L for almost all their camera reviews. So yeah, there's a learning curve with any new camera, but I did not expect the footage of the XC10 to come out that soft. They did no favours to Canon here. I find the missing ISO/gain button a big oversight.

​That's the best part of the entire video ;] (Sorry, I couldn't help it)

​hehe, well done Sir.

​All interesting thoughts. However, I'm not so sure the same aesthetic we have today will be consumed by the majority. This has happened time and time again since the inception of cinema, TV, home video, YouTube, etc. I question, for example, if young people 20 years from now will find "The Hobbit" aesthetically pleasing or just a garbled mess of pixels that look fake. The story is solid, but will the delivery stand the test of time? Twenty years in the future maybe we'll all revert to real 16mm film to achieve a "different look" than the majority :]

​Yes, there's a big difference in quality from the material I posted above and the one you mention. Maybe it's just PP? Shooting with the correct settings? Who knows. Still, it's an intriguing bet from Canon. +In my original post I'm referring to Cinema5D, not Planet 5D. Sorry for the mixup+

An Italian magazine has posted some material recorded with Canon's controversial new product. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M84vVDx4mU YouTube is probably not the best platform for a video quality assessment test, but this is still one of the first tests we see after the previous Planet5D material from about a month ago. Cheers

Not my personal style, but I respect the creator's vision.I think it fits quite nicely as an artifact of our age. If future researchers see it as devoid of meaning I wouldn't argue with them. To put it bluntly, and I'm pulling a Werner here, the form of the film is the actual meaning in itself: over-the-top CGI effects, 30-minute duration for the painful attention span of the generation, released on YouTube, ridiculous super hero story, etc

Looking like a very capable ENG camera. Nice surprise for journalists.

I agree, skin tones look very good and there's a good amount of "organic" feel to the image, although the creator of the video did add FilmConvert in post, which is a great way to make images feel less clinical. Some clipped highlights, though (outdoor scenes). Personally I don't mind the slow lens. I almost always end up shooting at F5.6 or F8 to get a deeper DOF. That's just y style, not a knock on creators who prefer shallower DOF. So, all in all, I think it's a good first outing for the much criticized XC10. At least from an ENG POV.

​ And a very interesting opinion it is, Andrew. Congrats on your site. I agree that the XC10 is not attractive for enthusiasts. There are other tools that do the job for much less money. But, it does have that Canon allure, at least in journalistic terms. And if pro journos use it then maybe Canon hopes it can bring in some cash in the secondary enthusiast market, just as their DSLRs already do? We'll see! Cheers.

I respect different points of view regarding Canon's XC10. It's unappealing for most pro creators with artistic qualities, like majority of people who read this site. However, it seems like a good tool IF you practice journalism, where pixel quality comes only after taking the shot itself. At least that's been my experience in journalism. Sure there are great photographers and videographers around me who strive to combine both journalism and art, but these are few and generally very skilled. The vast majority of their jobs assignments en up as "functional"--not artistic--material. So yes, from a journalist's point of view the XC10 seems attractive because: a) It offers the best ergonomics in the business as a run-and-gun instrument b ) It's future-proofed with its 4K capability c) It won't cost media outlets huge amounts of cash when bought in large quantities for the media desk (less or just as expensive as a GH4 with a good lens, but with better ergonomics) d) It's fixed-lens gives the journalist and media outlets themselves one less thing to worry about e) It's a serviceable tool built for functional results, not ultra high quality photographs and video I can see lots of reporters carrying this thing around as good solution for information-gathering. Having said that, I would not pay the announced cost for a glorified bridge-cam. Yet the Canon brand is the most attractive....