Lintelfilm

Thanks @jpfilmz for your test footage.
I can confirm that ghosting exists at ISO500 with everything switched off. Here's a CLog frame grab with contrast expanded:

Look at the curved handle on the RHS - there's a ghost image. This is affecting motion cadence at all ISOs.
@jpfilmz @Lintelfilm @mercer @HugoS316 and all other XC10 owners:
It's time to contact Canon! Send them your ghosting footage and/or  links to the threads here and ask them to resolve the issue.

I just turned everything off and the ghosting is still there. It's much less regular and visible - I think when IS is off because all the motion blur hides it more, but it's definitely still there. @Jpfilmz can you try again to make sure?

I just ran a series of test with the XC10.  First set I was getting slight ghosting.  Not as clean as tomsemiterrific's footage.  I then went into the camera and turned off everything...all image stabilization features, all auto focus features, including on the body of the camera, flicker reduction off, shockless WB off, rolling shutter reduction off and with those setting I was able to greatly eliminate ghosting affects in my footage.  EDIT I also tried with with rolling shutter reduction turned back on and had similar results.  Could someone else try with these setting off and see if that helps.  I'll try to post some of my footage.

I've used it with a Shogun and Pix-e5h. I can't see any quality gain over the internal UHD 305 codec but haven't done any motion tests. I tested it to see if I could eliminate banding in blue skies but it didn't improve. ( HDMI out is 8 bit and not 10 bit)I found ETTR not the best way to expose for C-Log. Firstly the zebras are on the green channel so you can clip other colours ( inc blue skies) and mainly because the image just looks better to me about 1 stop under ETTR and the banding is under control. The banding is a bit of a shame and I don't get it with my A7s S-Log HDMI out which is also 8 bit. One good reason for an external monitor is to have scopes which I hear they have introduced on the new x15. Probably no technical reason they can't do this with a firmware upgrade but I guess they won't for commercial reasons. One thing I hate ( And on the A7s) is the lack of a quick WB set button. I would just like to point it at a grey card or pop on my expodisk and press to set the WB. This camera generated so much hate when it came out but is now gaining a lot of respect  due in no small part to a superb C-Log / 305mbs codec and the now sensible pricing ( the launch price was just ill judged). Couple of tips; don't stop down past f8 in UHD or the resolution drops off due to diffraction. it can't trigger the recording from the camera on the video devices recorder but it can with then Atomos. ( kind of pointless putting a monitor on it anyway as it ruins it's compact point and shoot nature) I'd also like to see user selectable NR and more options for assigning functions to the buttons.

@kidzrevil Thanks for making this thread. Canon don't know yet that this is a big problem. On page 76 of the manual they write:
"When using Dynamic IS, the edges of the picture may be adversely affected (ghosting, artifacts and/or dark 
areas may appear) when compensating for a high degree of camcorder shake."
BUT the ghosting appears whether or not IS selected or not, and at all ISOs. Now, my video shows faint ghosting artifacts at ISO 500, and kidzrevil's high ISO frame grabs show severe ghosting. So it gets worse with ISO. So it's probably due to temporal noise reduction. Forget frame grabs for a second: it's visible on the LCD at moderate ISOs as soon as anything moves. This makes the footage next to useless. 
I don't know how this slipped past Canon and the BBC guy. If you only shoot static scenes everything's hunky dory. But look what happened when DVInfo panned across a chart:

Adam Wilt knows it , I know it, kidzrevil knows it, but...
Canon doesn't know about the ghosting yet
So if you own an XC10, contact Canon support and tell them your camera does mad shit against your will. They've shown their willingness to improve image quality through firmware updates. Ask them to fix the ghost that is haunting your camera. 
Because if your scene demands you record at anything above ISO 500, you might as well shoot it on a potato.

I agree we should start a thread. I'm away from my mac this weekend but will repost the stills I posted to this thread next week. I'll also contact Canon direct like you did. Let's make a ruckus. Even if it just makes them aware of it or they explain what's causing it would be something. 
If any XC10 owners here haven't registered with CPN (the XC10 makes you eligible) I suggest you do so and voice your concern via that way. No doubt you'll get more attention than consumer channels.
might be a bad idea to dilute the message but if they do release another firmware update I'd also like to lobby canon to add the waveform and shutter angle features from the xc15 to the XC10!

I agree we should start a thread. I'm away from my mac this weekend but will repost the stills I posted to this thread next week. I'll also contact Canon direct like you did. Let's make a ruckus. Even if it just makes them aware of it or they explain what's causing it would be something. 
If any XC10 owners here haven't registered with CPN (the XC10 makes you eligible) I suggest you do so and voice your concern via that way. No doubt you'll get more attention than consumer channels.
might be a bad idea to dilute the message but if they do release another firmware update I'd also like to lobby canon to add the waveform and shutter angle features from the xc15 to the XC10!

Thanks Santa!

And thanks FilmConvert for decent colour separation at a mouse click! CLog with FilmConvert and a highlight saturation roll off. Here's where I'd been at in terms of trying for nice colour:

And I think it's not bad, but I was introducing edge artifacts and accentuating compression blocks. FilmConvert does a really good job of getting psychologically realistic colours without the image falling apart.
I had noticed an overall colour cast to the images that I found hard to shake and I think some LUTs just cover over it but FilmConvert actually seems to be converting (what look like to me) a whole bunch of greens and purples and turning them into... real colour.
I got a 30cm Lastolite EzyBalance yesterday. It folds up and stuffs away into your bag. When unfolded it's big enough to fill the screen. Stick it in front of the lens in the light you're going to be shooting in and select custom white balance 1 or 2 then press set. You should have neutral colours for the rest of that shoot as long as the light temperature doesn't change.
Canon have replied to me asking for samples:
Maybe I will start a new thread on this. Canon have already issued two firmware updates, and have included improvements to noise reduction and rolling shutter. So why not this?

Film Convert have just released their profiles for the XC10, I really want to get my hands on this camera. An XC15 combined with mt a7s would make a killer combo for my needs.

I understand what Kisaha is saying about the 416 but because I'm a one man band and a camera guy first the 600 gives that leeway to be a little less precise. I also honestly prefer the sound too. The 416 always sounds a bit too harsh to me but that's just from listening to online tests, I haven't tried them side by side.
regarding the MKE600 vs the NTG3 I looked atand listened to pretty much every test, review and spec sheet I could find online at least twice and I honestly couldn't find anything better or worse between them. They're different obviously but I couldn't say one is better than the other. The 600 is not just Sennheiser's NTG2 it's significantly better and a step up from the ME66 too. Much smaller and better built for one but again it sounds much warmer/ less harsh to me.
Im not a sound expert by any means but I'm just saying find a clear reason to go for the NTG3 over the 600. Personally I prefer the Sennheiser sound. 
The CS1 is more in the ballpark of the 416 in that it might be technically the better mic but not as versatile and forgiving as the 600 and NTG3. I really value well rounded kit for the work I do as it's just me and I just own one shotgun. If you're doing dedicated sound work no doubt the pricier mics are better, but to stick into a camera for factual stuff the 600 is great ...

I understand what Kisaha is saying about the 416 but because I'm a one man band and a camera guy first the 600 gives that leeway to be a little less precise. I also honestly prefer the sound too. The 416 always sounds a bit too harsh to me but that's just from listening to online tests, I haven't tried them side by side.
regarding the MKE600 vs the NTG3 I looked atand listened to pretty much every test, review and spec sheet I could find online at least twice and I honestly couldn't find anything better or worse between them. They're different obviously but I couldn't say one is better than the other. The 600 is not just Sennheiser's NTG2 it's significantly better and a step up from the ME66 too. Much smaller and better built for one but again it sounds much warmer/ less harsh to me.
Im not a sound expert by any means but I'm just saying find a clear reason to go for the NTG3 over the 600. Personally I prefer the Sennheiser sound. 
The CS1 is more in the ballpark of the 416 in that it might be technically the better mic but not as versatile and forgiving as the 600 and NTG3. I really value well rounded kit for the work I do as it's just me and I just own one shotgun. If you're doing dedicated sound work no doubt the pricier mics are better, but to stick into a camera for factual stuff the 600 is great ...

I started a very similar thread a couple months ago when i wanted to upgrade my NTG2. I looked into all the options, including the CS1 and was settled on the NTG3. Then I started looking at the Sennheiser MKE 600 which I'd written off without looking closely due to cheap price and AA battery option. Actually it's a fantastic mic and personally for me I prefer the sound to the 416. It's warm like the NTG3. It's the same size and high build quality as those two high end mics too. Its pretty decent as an indoor close quarters mic. Way better than the NTG2 and a step up from the ME66. It's a gem IMO I don't know why it's not the standard go to XLR shotgun for everyone here.

I started a very similar thread a couple months ago when i wanted to upgrade my NTG2. I looked into all the options, including the CS1 and was settled on the NTG3. Then I started looking at the Sennheiser MKE 600 which I'd written off without looking closely due to cheap price and AA battery option. Actually it's a fantastic mic and personally for me I prefer the sound to the 416. It's warm like the NTG3. It's the same size and high build quality as those two high end mics too. Its pretty decent as an indoor close quarters mic. Way better than the NTG2 and a step up from the ME66. It's a gem IMO I don't know why it's not the standard go to XLR shotgun for everyone here.

Great summation... I ran out of "Like" for the day. 

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

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

Well you shouldn't be changing shutter speed on the fly and personally I don't often want to change aperture while shooting as generally I leave it either wide open or at constant f5.6 depending on light and subject. A combination of ND filters and riding the ISO wheel in Manual mode is all you really need then. 
Of course the other option is to put it in shutter priority mode, set it to 180 degrees and leave it there. That puts ISO and aperture onto full auto which works well and exposure changes are smooth. You can use NDs to tweak how the AE behaves in bright light. It's a camera that's built to be used in auto mode, which is a bit scary to us geeks, but it works well as it's auto functions are prioritised for video not stills.

I thought c-log didn't have any noise reduction?
Hello Claudio and welcome. It's always good to hear from another XC10 owner. I believe @Lintelfilm uses the Ninja Star with the XC10, but I am very interested in hearing about your results or seeing some footage of the pair. 

So far I've not been too annoyed with it, but yes I've noticed this ghosting. Actually today is the first time it properly annoyed me on an edit, and someone else said "what's that weird stuff"
A bit of a shame, since stabilisation is a big part of the point of the camera

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.

Imagine how great this camera would be with the FS5 auto ND!
I'm still finding my way with post on this, but my best results so far have been getting it legal manually then applying rec709 looks. Canon log seems to be really really easy to deal with and the results just knock me out - super 16 vibe with enough resolution that you can afford to throw some away. I'm grading it for colour and exposure, then adding a filmconvert layer with the colour dialled to zero but with super 16 grain to 35% or so and it's making me wet my pants.

Here's a few clips in c-log Hd, as well as some 60p shots. I'm not a very good at color grading so I know it could be better. I had my daughter in a pack on my back of all these shots so the stabilization helped a lot.
 

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.
 

It's not terrible in lowlight but that's not where this camera shines.  Daylight, cloudy, overcast, dusk, interiors that are lit or have lights on, night stage lighting at concerts = awesome footage.  I would shoot interior interviews with at least one z96 LED light on the subject.  I would not use the XC10  for wedding receptions or night exteriors without light. I would not shoot over 3200 iso.  It is my favorite run & gun cam.  I have a C100MK2 and a 5DMK3 but I enjoy shooting with the XC10 the most out of the group. Here is an example of a low lit interior with mixed stage lighting in 4K.
 
 

The official Canon intro video does demo and talk about this feature specifically as great "for vloggers" with no mention of selfies.
Im a C100 and XC10 owner extremely bored of hearing the video-shooting minority complain about the quality of video on Canon's stills cameras. Most people think it's Canon being money grabbing and pushing users to the more expensive Cinema line to get decent video. However the more benign explanation is that it's always been part of Canons ethos to honour existing customers by not making their purchases obsolete every 5 minutes (*cough* Sony *cough*). As you say, stills is their focus outside of the pro video segment.
HOWEVER - I do think the graduation of the M camera line to semi-pro with the M5 presents a problem for Canon. Because mirrorless is by nature far more of a hybrid 50/50 stills/video beast. DSLRs fundamentally make pretty awful video cameras, but with mirrorless the form factor etc is pretty much just as good for video as stills (hence the success of the A7S and GH4 and the apparent discontinuation of the 1DC). The line Canon have clearly drawn between DSLRs and their cinema line makes sense, but to omit good video from a true hybrid mirrorless is like Victornox selling Swiss Army Knives that have one side full of sharp high quality tools and the other side full of blunt Chinese knock-off blades. Or like manufacturing a tandem bike frame with no second seat on the back. It doesn't make any sense.
The M5 is big news because it means Canon are clearly phasing in quality mirrorless cameras, which has been a big question mark over their heads. But "phasing in" is the key phrase here. They are still market leaders so they have no need to hurry. A big part of the reason they are market leaders is the brand loyalty and respect they command, which comes in part from not ditching existing customers for the sake of winning the latest and greatest spec war.