User

@ Andrew: Philip Bloom caled he wants hes location back

The answer to that one is "it depends" but typically, its best to get the strongest signal from the source possible, and turn down the preamps in camera as much as you can. Typically due to the fact that the preamps built into cameras are (while not bad in the C100's case) not the greatest.
That being said, it is possible to over modulate the source if the transceiver/receiver is too hot. Just kind of one of those situations where you need to spend some time playing with different combinations of settings to see what sounds best. 

Hey dude - not sure how much you've tried but once you plug in a VideoMic Pro or something of the like, the appropriate options become available. 

That's the beauty, it shouldn't matter, because your project ultimately isn't working in C-Log colorspace. And the assumption is that you're basing your corrections offa the waveform/vectorscope within your project (not the footage) read-out as well-lit skin should appear already color corrected. That doesn't really change, as Larry states: our brains are programmed to know three colors: blue skies, green grass and skintones. Working with greyscales and the skintone line allows us to have a reference that shouldn't look off. Of course these are just guide values and ranges and apply to well-lit skin, which might not be the case in your scene, or perhaps you were shooting the Hulk or some fellow from Avatar. But you could correct a whole scene, just by nailing bare well-lit skintone. So you do have to eyeball the ultimate tweaks. But those general values should get you darn close. The video that goes with it shows it nicely I think...
You might want to check this Color Correction Handbook by Alexis van Hurkman : http://www.amazon.com/Color-Correction-Handbook-Professional-Techniques/dp/0321929667 who talks in great depth about this. The actual referenced book in the video: the Encyclopedia of Color Correction is from 2006, the later Handbook (2nd ed) from 2013.
P.s. I'm no authority on color correction or Canon footage, I'm just a guy who conviently comes across the helpful stuff of others.

Completely OT, but nothing published after 1923 has entered the public domain in the U.S., Disney is one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, they don't care about anyone's families, including their own employees given some of the massive layoffs from some of their most profitable divisions simply to make them more profitable - see ESPN. Disney only cares about making their shareholders happy as demonstrated by that lame remake of Episode IV by the great Xerox director they call The Force Awakens.
Society as a whole benefits from unrestricted access to science and the arts, we're already at authors life + 70 years or 95 for a corporation. This comes up again soon, expect to see the same BS as before - "we have to keep Mickey away from the porn industry" while Disney shovels loads of cash into the coffers of those voting for another extension.
Continually extending copyrights only benefits a select few - the publishers - plain and simple its nothing more than corporate welfare. Hopefully our next president vetoes the bill and puts an end to this nonsense.

A newscast is copyrighted content, nothing about it is public domain. In fact virtually nothing has entered the public domain in the U.S. in decades, you can thank the fuck-tards at Disney for that one because every 10 years when Mickeys copyright is about to expire they shovel truckloads of cash at lobbyists and get the copyright extended. 
Rant off. I just hate copyrights being extended in perpetuity for the sake of greed, that was never the intention of copyright protection.

No.
Same goes for your original question with the quote, as long as its properly attributed, it falls under fair use. Watch any issue driven doc and you'll see a barrage of quotes from news stories, video from news reports and so on, as long as its attributed, you're fine. I watch a few docs a week, along with Frontline and 60 Minutes all the time and they cite stuff from books, newspapers and so on - constantly. Its all about attribution, cite the source and you're good.
I'm not a lawyer, but I took every media law class offered at my university when getting my journalism degree. I wouldn't hesitate for a second pulling a quote from somewhere else and including it in a piece. Its done all the time, its fair use as long as you're citing your source. I'm only speaking about the U.S.
http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/documentary/documentary-filmmakers-statement-best-practices-fair-use#two

The information you need to give to get a sensible answer is the following:
What is the thing you want to quote - is it a non-descript paragraph from a lengthy tome or is it the first verse from a short poem - the amount of the work you want to use and it's promenance is very important. Even a single line from a long book can land you in trouble, especially if that line were something like: "The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed" - one of the most iconic lines in Stephen King's "The Gunslinger" series would be absolutely off limits, whereas "The man in black travels with your soul in his pocket" from the same book would almost certainly be fine. As for the amount, the publisher almost certainly gives it's own authors guidance on the amount of work they can use in their books, they would be fighting a losing battle if you get a hold of that information and stick to it yourself.
Is the thing you want to quote an unadorned fact - if yes, then go ahead, it's fine - "Humans live on the Planet Earth" for example, however "Humanity existed on the surface of the planet earth like termintes in their mound" is adorned with descriptive language and this is copyrightable - I made that up fyi, and yes, you have my permission to use it however you wish
The purpose and character of use, is this a for profit venture, is it educational or entertainment - if it's both then for this purpose, it counts as entertainment unless it's aimed at children, when entertainment is beneficial to the education.
The other thing to consider is how your work relates to the work you want to quote - if your work makes any part of that obselete, i.e. something of value given in that work is replaced in yours, you would not be able to do this - e.g. if I were to make a documentary on whales and I quoted a book by Richard Attenborough about sea life, if even a paragraph of that book contained information about whales, then my work would make that paragraph obselete, and I would be in trouble.
If you are very confident that you are on the "fair use" side of all these terms, and very far on the fair use side, then you should be fine - at least in the US
 
 

The publisher will say no, it's literally their job to try to get you to pay money, whether you legally have to or not.

you will need to get permission from the publisher of the book or you will face legal action for copyright violations - contact them asn ask - get it all in writting

I have never exported to Cineform. 
I have uploaded the Clip now with pro res proxy, way better (as H264upload)!!!
A good tip found in this topic, thanks!
Not a good example, because of the subtle use of grain, but here it is:
 

Are you still in Germany? Thomann.de have them in stock and I swear I found a transmitter only link yesterday, might be worth just emailing them and asking. I recently bought a mic from them and they were super helpful.

I will try on mine. What are you settings?

I've only seen this once before and that was on a pre-production camera, the Sony A7 II. Check out 2 min 38.
Maybe Canon need to fix this with a firmware update.

Weird. It looks too clean of a line to be optical to me. Have you tried adding filters and flags/hoods to see if that changes anything? Perhaps also using the internal ND's? If this changes things it might indicate that it is an optical issue I guess.
It's clearly caused by the blown light areas (the two guys' heads on the bus in the other thread are crazy). If it's natural light coming in the bus window it's not flicker that's the problem. My guess would be that this is a processing issue of some sort. The line just looks too clean and uniformly horizontal to be flaring to me. I don't know what you can tweak on the C100II - I'd try turning off/down any auto functions (e.g. noise reduction) to see if that changes things. Are there any auto DR settings?

is it under ISO 850? I've had some bad results below that.

Have you tried the clear scan shutter speed mode? Where you dial in the frequency? Not sure if that would help or not. If it persists I'd probably email Canon and see if they can help. Their Cinema line support is pretty great

The green bar issue could well be a lens issue. Does it happen with any other glass?

1) I used CLog when I first got the camera but have since switched to WDR. It seems the main difference between the two profiles is how the tonal range is spread. Shadows are lighter in WDR, whereas they're darker in CLOG so you have to increase exposure to compensate. 
2) Never seen that green bar except when I used a Nikon D7100 for photography (and only one of the two units I used had the problem). I would probably get your camera repaired/replaced.
3) One thing that I've not really seen mentioned anywhere is the use of "Phase" in the Color Matrix section. Increasing this can have a nice effect on the overall image, especially skin tones. I also spent some time tweaking CLOG to get rid of the raised blacks etc. But as I say, in the end I switched to WDR. I've only used the camera for a few projects so far though so my opinions may change.

Glad to see you picked up a C100ii. I haven't had that green streak problem. I have no idea what that could be.

Beards come free with the Digital Bolex.

I feel the same way about Speed Boosters and shallow-focus. Enough, already!

Shooting 23.98 in a country with 50hz power supply will not work as you have discovered if there is any light powered by the 50hz mains ....
just the small shift to 25 eliminates the flickering. Conforming after the fact will not eliminate the flicker as it has been captured and I assume
will still show up ... Should you shoot outside with daylight any standard will work. I assume that shutter angle C-scan or any other approach
will leave you with a residual flicker .... now shooting at 25 and conforming to 23.98 would allow you to capture non-flickering video and render it 
cleanly. The standards were set through the discovery of the problem and the solution is fairly set ... as neither the EU nor the American system will
conform to the other system's standard.
 
Bob

Have you tried on different lights. Some fluorescents flickr enough for my eyes to see it. Do some tests. But since you've already shot a bunch of it in24p you pretty much need to stick to that now. Worst case, if it flickrs, go outside. 
I wouldn't care to much about the waveform. Look at it on a TV or something. If it doesn't flickr there, then who will notice.

24p in 60hz wont flicker much. The Hz isn't a setting in the camera, its a menu option to guide you.
What causes flicker is the frame rate when it doesnt match the Hz in the lights. So you need to avoid 30p, 60p and 120p in PAL-land.
25p, 50p and 100p are safe.
So are 24p and 96p because they are close enough. 
Do a quick test before to feel confident.