Lintelfilm

Just to let you other FCPX users know, since updating to 10.3 my Log footage ( CLog on XC10 and C100 too i think) has been displaying as totally over exposed. I thought I was doing something wrong in camera but it turns out FCP has been automatically applying Log Processing! I was annoyed but relieved to discover I could use the two days of footage I thought I'd ruined. To turn off log processing go to the info pane of the inspector and choose "settings" view. Then select "none" for log processing. 

Thanks.
It's the biggest update yet, and I think it's very good. But we must find out about hidden bugs.

Indeed! I never wanted to use them - in fact I didn't even know they were there! But after I updated to 10.3 the metadata from my cameras saying "shot in Canon Log" started getting read by FCPX and automagically processed. Not what I wanted at all. Particularly as I didn't know it was doing it or where to find the place to turn it off. 
The function of the Log Processing however is not to act as a grading LUT. It does have its uses. It's for editors working with log footage who want to work with a more "realistic" image prior to the grading stage. The processing would always be turned off again prior to being handed off to a colourist.
However I'd ETTR'd all my shots so the built in processor was just blowing everything.
Suffice to say my post was just a warning that Log Processing got turned on automatically for me, so watch out!

Never use the built-in luts. You can't color correct the image underneath (the way you could with LUTutility on an adjustment-layer) and bring back the highlights. You can only grade on top of that lut, after it has limited the signal! 

Mercer I think you're an FCPX user? Having looked at the documentation from apple the log processing feature was actually present before 10.3 so if I were you I'd find those old clips that were getting blown and see if that was the problem. In the inspector choose the info tab and at the bottom change the drop down menu to "settings". Set log processing to none and voila, no clipping! I bet that's what your issue was too. For some reason it only started happening to me after I updated to 10.3 but it's worth a try...

That's nuts about the new Final Cut. Glad you got it sorted @Lintelfilm. Presumably this happens with log from other cameras too. 

I've just been wondering the same thing. I've only noticed the blown areas since updating to FCP 10.3. Perhaps I need to see if I can tweak the interpretation levels somehow. 
I'll also look at the footage in resolve to see if that changes anything. 
Thanks!

Sorry yes it's ' look 5' - was looking for C-Log. I got more DR out of it than the other profiles in my tests so will continue to use it. If I get time I'll post some tests.

Yes, but is your monitor showing what's in 100 to 109 IRE?
Source: page 11 of Alan Roberts' EBU paper
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s17.pdf
On mine, all of the info is there sitting under 100 IRE on the waveform monitor as would be expected. Is your software somehow interpreting the footage as 16-235 levels? Can you upload a clip for us to check out?

Quick tip: I think there are a few XC10 users here using FCPX? Alex4D's free Unsharp Mask plugin works great. It's default sharpness is far too strong but if yopu apply it and then bring the radius down to about 1.9 and crank the "amount" slider up it really brings the detail out in a nice organic way. If you're using grain remember to stack it under (i.e. apply it before/top of the inspector) so it doesnt sharpen the grain too. This technique with a fine 4K grain (e.g. Film Convert's 35mm) on top of a low-radius unsharp mask gets fantastic results, great with 4K but even with HD footage too.
For best HD results: upscale HD to 4K > add subtle unsharp mask > add a contrasty curve > add 4K grain = HD that looks very much like 4K!
Yeah I really miss not having a waveform on the XC10. I really hope Canon add it with a firmware update.

I could be wrong and it could be the LUMA channel but I'm assuming it's like their DSLR's which all show the clipping in the green channel only but I'm pretty sure when I had the RGB parade up and was pointing at a 24 patch colour checker I saw how it reacted. In the situation you describe, which is going to be a tough test for any camera, your best approach is to use an external monitor with scopes and make sure you get a custom WB. 

This is why I stopped using 100% zebras and started using 70%. At 100% I could not save any of the highlights, they were gone. But I actually have had two cameras. BH accidentally sent me a return, but I tried it out and had those results. After speaking with a few people on this site, I was told to use 70% because of the whole 18% grey card exposure rule for C-Log. I was told, if you don't use a grey card to expose (I never have) than the simplest, safest way was to use 70% zebras. When I received my new camera. I went right into using 70% and it seemed to work fine. Since then I was told to use 100% but I haven't had the camera out in a while, to give it another test. 

The Zebras work on the green channel so with blue sky you can be not showing any clipping but be very overexposed. ETTR is not a good idea with any in-camera profile as it's an exposure strategy for shooting RAW. With RAW you get as much info onto the sensor before clipping to maximise DR and keep out of the noise and then apply a tone curve in post production. With non RAW capture the tone curve is 'baked in' to the data so if it's a low contrast scene you will overexpose if you ETTR and you have to pull down the values in post but you are moving values to a different part of the tone curve where with 8bit they can get stretched out and cause banding. Like I said this camera needs scopes ( as they decided to do with the XC15) but more importantly an RGB parade so you can see the individual channels ( not sure if they have done this with the XC15) - or use an external monitor / recorder but this kind of defeats the ergonomics. 

I find the GH4 1080p to be very good, great even. It's certainly not immaculate- I do occasionally get fine moire- and downscaling the 4K is definitely cleaner and higher-res, so I use that for regular-speed stuff. But I shoot a lot at >30p, probably half of my shots or more, so I use 1080p a lot. The 100mbps is definitely better than the 200mbps, except for extreme motion (deep DOF, subject and camera both moving rapidly), which again is a lot of what I shoot, so I end up using 200mbps quite a bit. But for moderate/normal amounts of motion, the 100mbps is cleaner and higher-res.
I agree about the 1080p bitrates being disappointing on the lower-end cams. I want to upgrade/sidegrade my GH4 to a G85, for the better ISO performance and the IBIS, but 28mbps at 1080 is not enough for what I do. So I'm considering adding an external 5" recorder, either a Video Assist or hopefully a Pix-E5. Not entirely sure I want to dick around with HDMI and more batteries, though. The VA is affordable to me, but would only do 1080, which is all I would really need I guess. While the Pix-E5 would be a perfect match framerate/res-wise, but is pretty pricey, and would probably be a bit redundant once I go GH5 next year.

This is on Live right now:
 

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens.
But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.
Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF
 






You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.
Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.
CinemaFile.zip

Personally I think this is an issue you will see in any XC10. We don't have anyone here really looking for the ghosting and saying they can't find any.
I think you'd be wasting your time to send your unit in. I'd press them to try it on a random unit (or ten) to confirm/underline that it is a universal issue.
 
Posted these on the other thread ages ago. Granted they're out of focus but I think they show the real world effects of the issue pretty well. Look at the weird banding on the faces, and in the final image the ghost of his profile. It's really very weird.

3 is the highest I'd go with the UltraCon. Personally I think 2 is the best balance but what's right depends on focal length quite a bit and the XC10 has quite a range to choose from! 
Note that the HDTVFX filter is simply an UltraCon and Digital Diffusion added together. The UltraCon doesn't diffuse at all so if you want to take a little of the digital look off the XC10 the HDTVFX is a good choice as you get the contrast reduction too. 

The C100 mkii has a larger dual pixel focus area than mki. Worth the added cost 

Mattias compression is only about distance from the subject. It has nothing whatsoever to do with lens choice OR sensor size. You can test this without a camera using your eyes and your feet. Wider lenses have the ability to get more FOV in the frame but they can't magically see around or behind objects. Just as longer lenses can't magically make background objects larger.
This discussion/disagreement is about equivalent focal lengths and whether or not the same image characteristics can be recreated regardless of sensor size if the correct lens spec is used. Depth of field doesn't have to be part of that discussion but it can be and has been (I think you talked about bokeh for example).
So yes a 50mm lens at 2m from a subject creates the compression as it does on a small or big sensor. But so does a 25mm lens kept at that same distance. And therefore the only variables that influence image character are FOV, sensor size and aperture size. These variables however can't magically make background and foreground objects move in 3D space! 
Or to put it another way ...
 

Great article.. and amazing film project. People gotta understand the film budget is peanuts compared to the rest of the mission.. A couple lost cameras/lenses is no big deal whatsoever in the grand scheme of things..
Also what an advertising for Canon lol... their cameras were chosen  to go outer space because of:
A. simpler menu systems then Sony/Phantom  
B. less bulky then Arri  
C. their gear is NASA certified
D. test audience chose Canon colors over RED !

Exactly correct.
F-stop is a measurement of exposure - the amount of light hitting the sensor is the amount of light hitting the sensor. However aperture size as related to depth of field is a different thing entirely - not related to exposure but image character. Of course the two things are interrelated as one affects the other, but they should not be confused. 
There will always be real-world advantages to larger sensors, but all things being equal (on paper / mathematically) you can always re-create the "full frame" aesthetic on smaller sensors. 
THIS IS SERIOUS!!!! STOP BEING TRIVIAL!!!!

Just watched the demo... Really cool plug in. The inverted mask really helped the final look, but I wasn't so sure it would because the flaring creeping into the center of the frame looked pretty realistic as well, but keeping the effect at the edges, it left just an impression which was subtle. Good job. And thanks for making it. 

Exactly correct.
F-stop is a measurement of exposure - the amount of light hitting the sensor is the amount of light hitting the sensor. However aperture size as related to depth of field is a different thing entirely - not related to exposure but image character. Of course the two things are interrelated as one affects the other, but they should not be confused. 
There will always be real-world advantages to larger sensors, but all things being equal (on paper / mathematically) you can always re-create the "full frame" aesthetic on smaller sensors. 
THIS IS SERIOUS!!!! STOP BEING TRIVIAL!!!!