Lintelfilm

Posting to confirm this was discussed by all moderators and was chosen as the best solution to both allow the problem to be solved by all parties involved, and minimise the negative impact on the wider EOSHD community.
Please take extra care when trading privately online.
Stay safe and keep making this the best camera forum around! Peace out x

You can customize Canon's scene file settings using the given gamma curves and matrices from standard, cinema, wide dr, eos, and canon log to create customized looks and with quite a lot of power (adjusting each color's relative balance, gamma, IRE clipping point, knee, noise reduction, sharpening, etc.).
However cinema locked is... locked. And I just use those settings. It is undoubtedly the best gamma I've used for getting an image with decent dynamic range and tonality from an 8 bit signal. 

Slightly off topic, but not really... I have been messing around with some downloaded C Log files from the XC10 and I am really impressed. It's a blast to grade with so much color latitude for an 8 bit small sensor camera. But I was wondering... Is C Log customizable or is it like Raw and ProRes from BM, flat and as is?

Yeah I went for the C100 MKII. Couldn't be happier.I'd love it to be 10 bit 422 internal but the colour and codec is extraordinary for 24mbps 8bit 420.
Internal ND's, Dual pixel AF, great audio, small camera, 60fps, amazing low light, good DR, ergonomics I love. It just works.
I also bought an XC10 to compliment it and that provides 4K, 422 (& 10bit external). Incredible stabilization, excellent HD. The new firmware addresses the focusing niggles well. 
Together they make a massively reliable and painless all-round  professional kit. They're built to be video workhorses and deliver beautiful images.
I'd love an Ursa 4K but for the documentary-like work I do it'd be a luxury item. Canon hits the middle ground between cinematic image and use-ability very, very well.
I haven't quite managed to sell my BMPCC yet though ... still love that image!

Lintelfilm - Did you end up buying a new camera, and if so, which one did you end up getting?  I"m in the same boat now, and was curious to hear what you concluded on!

On the subject of Canon + RAW, etc ...
It's only the first steps so far, but A1ex of ML fame has begun work on the 7D MkII. It'd be a great video camera with ML RAW. Arguably superior to the 5DIII. DAF, s35 sensor, native 60p. Burst rate is 10fps so clearly the buffer + CF card combo has good potential for RAW options. DAF + FHD RAW would be a first I believe. I'd suggest voicing interest & support on the ML forum if you're inclined - who knows how much motivation Canon ML coders have these days: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13746.225 (A1ex's breakthrough is halfway down page).

They have been using it for quite some time with great results. Definetelly shows a segment where the camera is great.
This is mainly a "film maker" forum. But we sometimes seem to forget that not everyone of Panasony and Canikons customers are. 
Some are videomakers like Jared and some are still photographers, again like Jarred.
Thats why I sometimes have an issue with the "only an idiot would..", "thats crap because..." and "why does Canon..." type of attitude on every single product that doesnt also serve as a perfect tool for shooting a narrative movie.

One of the biggest issues with sharing great content is that it's much harder to do now on social media because the platforms have been monetised. You need an "advertising" budget so you can pay to boost posts that would otherwise not be seen by the majority of your followers and others. 
Alongside all the random clips of women slapping their ass, gifs, auto-play drunk people videos, cheesy meme's etc... the content you share gets over-saturated by all the other bollocks around it. Social media is SO distracting that when you are trying to find something useful, you end up going off on this great tangent where you end up watching a funny cats compilation instead. This is because we are bombarded by endless bollocks and the good content gets covered in shit. 
When I first started my video business, Facebook was a massive client stream for me. Everyone could see my content and I got bookings. I even had a weird fan club. Since the platform has become monetised... the only people that see my videos now is my mother. SEO is so over-saturated it's hardly worth bothering with on a limited budget, so I've had to reinvent my entire plan COMPLETELY just so I can adapt to this crazy online world. I have to be MUCH MORE than just a video producer. You have to be on top of everything. And most of it isn't even online - it's what you do in person. 
EOSHD has always been great place to post and read stuff. I've always had the ideas and drive to create. But I remember forcing myself to learn about as much video techie stuff as possible, and read forum posts over and over thinking "what on earth is this 10 bit 422 thing people are on about?" Second nature now.
You can evolve the platform of EOSHD for sure. I'd definitely work on your shooters guides and LUTs and make an online store or something, with relevant articles and the forum. Get different members around the globe to make a themed video using the latest mirrorless camera, with your shooters guides and LUTS... put it together as one video and promote it. Make your video community as one that works together to create stuff FOR the video community. Allow users to upload their own tips/techniques/LUTS... create an online bible of everything you need for every enthusiast camera and the best lenses/devices. Every enthusiast camera has it's own EOSHD store and user resource!! Does that make sense? 
I wouldn't be afraid of making money the commercial way from EOSHD. Fuck it. There's no harm in it. You are spending your time helping the video community and you should be rewarded financially for your hard work. No need for gear adverts. Just yourself asking for money for your material. Like you do now but on STEROIDS. 
I would also re-brand. In all due respect, I think the name EOSHD and the logo now looks rather dated. I know shitloads of logo and brand designers, if you ever feel you need it.  

Yeah... it certainly isn't gonna replace a cinema experience of something like a romantic comedy.... it will be genre specific, for sure. Sci-fi , action and horror seem the perfect genres... as well as the really good imax "experience" films. I think Pixar are already on the case too.... though a world full of kids in vr headsets is a worrying thought!
BTW... Did you see the news today that imax and Google have paired up to create what they call the first cinematic 3d 360 camera.... I can only imagine the price of that!
Now go load up insidious on your cardboard.... headphones on... time to get scared!

It would be nice if this blog/forum became a place for hobbyists like myself to discuss the art of making a good film/video rather than a place where people bicker over gear choices. I know there's a subforum for that here already but to post there would be like posting in the Video forum at DPReview. If you're tired of gear, why not shift the focus to what you can do with it?

Thanks jimmy, very interesting points you make. I agree about the 270-degree fov. If VR tries to do away with a century of cinematic language it won't have a place in live action narrative. 
We have an IMAX nearby and I love seeing 3D epics there. Prometheus and Star Wars 7 were mind blowing. But on a smaller screen, even a cinema screen, 3D doesn't work imo. It needs that full fov element. So I agree with you , for me that's what VR offers narrative film - immersion. And only tasteful, appropriate use of viewer directed attention when the story calls for it. 
There is no doubt in my mind VR is here to stay. For games clearly, but also for certain factual stuff like fly on the wall docs there is huge potential. As the tech and language evolves and becomes widespread it will bleed into narrative fiction. I think the big unknown is wether people will actually want to wear headsets to watch TV drama etc. If not it may just become a parallel medium mainly used for games and big sci fi films, but personally I think there's huge potential for it to enhance and build upon existing cinematic language rather than turn it upside down.
New tech is always met with suspicion and naysayers, but filmmakers of any sort would be foolish to remain in denial. VR is huge and will take a long time to grow in narrative cinema but only because it opens up such a huge new palette of possibilities. For the immediate future I think it's main benefit for films will be to make 3D a worthwhile experience in the home, but over time viewer interactivity will undoubtedly bleed into cinema and that can only happen successfully through trial and error and a kind of rebellious approach to, but respect for, the long established language of film.
Right I'm off to buy a cardboard for my iPhone!

I've spent the last few months now really getting involved in VR... Learning everything I can and testing all the top (and low end) gear. My end goal is in the app side of things... But I wanted to make a post about 360 video and where I see VR filmmaking going.
VR is still very much in it's infancy and the tech is nowhere close to perfect, pixels are easy to make out and the heavy headset, tethered to a large computer*, is not the most comfortable way to be entertained (*Vive and Oculus)... But the magic of VR is clear the minute you put a headset on. It is a stunning experience and really does go some way to tricking your brain into feeling like you are in another world... Even senses like movement and touch can be tricked.
The first experience I had was in Oculus, with a game of sorts called "Life of Lon".... After floating around in the sky for a while, the spaceship I was in suddenly nose dived towards the ocean... I literally clung onto the desk in front of me (in the real world) as the sense of speed and dropping from the sky was incredibly real. This was when it struck me that VR as a narrative means will be huge. That sense of immersion is so well suited to certain genres.
My first experience of narrative VR was a trailer for Insidious 3... It is creepy as hell and the PERFECT use of the format... The feeling of something behind you or in your peripheral vision is palpable. They are also clever in their visual and audio cues to guide you to look in the right places... Essential for a 360 experience.
This brings me onto 360 video as a narrative tool.... For almost everything other than the first person view done so well with insidious... It is just a massive gimmick. It is nauseating, unnatural and, worst of all, boring. Most of the films on the Oculus video app are misusing the tech badly, making you swing wildly around, looking for the action. Narrative needs direction, 360 video takes that out of the equation, unless in very clever hands. The other downside is that production suffers, you can no long have lights, boom mics, dollies, cranes etc.
My view for the future of this tech is a 270 degree, ultra wide format that allows you to sit in a normal chair... look all the way left, right, up and down... This would still provide complete immersion, but allow for the so called "4th wall" to remain in place, so lighting, directing, sound etc become a little less stressful, allowing for far better production values.
Anyway, just some thoughts on what I think to be an amazing tech... I urge all of you who have yet to experience it to try and find a way. It is only going to get better and better.
 

That's cool. I don't have time either as I'm currently juggling 3 jobs and a big pitch. Besides I want to be the one who guesses!

Thanks for the challenge Lintelfilm- sorry that's not something I can do right now. Why not try it yourself? You can guide the thread you start away from chaos ;). I did something similar recently when shooting the 8-bit 420 4K A7S II (downsampled to 1080p) against that 10-bit 422 C300 II and 8-bit 422 1DX II. For that studio environment, nobody could really tell which camera was which.

Dave's a nice guy and yes, he qualifies that he's only talking about noise, but that doesn't change the fact it's a nonsense test. The FS5 vs A7SII side by side under the bridge was the funniest. He was saying the A7 looked better, but his face in the A7 shot looked like a purple version of the Elephant Man. 
Also he completely failed to acknowledge that, for a professional camera like the FS5, noisy shadows (again vs the A7SII) that hold detail are far more desirable than clean shadows turned to mush by a weak codec and/or noise reduction. Noise can be cleaned up in post while retaining detail. If the NR is in-camera it's a lost cause.
It's a bit like saying "This is a test to see who is the fastest runner, but I'm only going to base it on how fast the athlete's arms move"

This matches my experience recording C100 with Ninja 2. I was using DNxHD 220x which is 10-bit, and was thinking "is this somehow filling in the extra bits?!" But it isn't, the output is 8-bit, it's just having so much more data really helps.

The manual zooms above looked really nice. I want one! Thanks for sharing.

Just the video then:
 

Well put! Yes they do it very well in real life, as opposed to brilliant on the spec sheet and poor in practice.

Yeah I'm finding that with the AVCHD. It's crazy. And my hard drives love the tiny files. The XC10 is awesome in 1080 too. For interviews and people shots I'll probably stick to HD. It's landscapes and wide detailed shots where the 4K high bitrate shines.
I think there's a huge misunderstanding of Canon's choices out there. They make very intentional choices based on factors that aren't just spec-centric. They don't just do it "well enough" though IMO - they do just enough, very well. I do wish they put 10 bit 422 in the Mark II but I'm not going to complain too much. As a professional tool for corporate video the MkII (and MkI) is plenty for a few more years to come. DAF is nice but I'm using manual focus a lot with the Sigma's a lot so far because AF is really fast and not massively consistent with the 50-100. I see the 50-100 purely as a replacement for a set of fast cine primes, it's not one for run & gun. I think the C100 is at its best with shallow DOF and that's why I have the Sigmas. If I get a runngun zoom I'll probably go for a 2.8. Otherwise I'll go for the 18-135 STM. I've seen some nice stuff shot with the C100 and the 24-105 though (see Noam Kroll).

I don't have the DAF upgrade on either C100 body, so I have no STM lenses. I don't think I'll look into it at this stage really, I'll probably wait til C100 MKiii if it ever arrives with 4k.
I use the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the 24-105L f4 mainly. The latter is not by any means spectacular, but it's a sort of "camcorder" workhorse with the IS. That's what puts me off this one a little too: lack of stabilisation.
I have a bunch of nice Contax primes and so on but they only come out for the big projects to reduce general wear and tear on them, and because using primes is very slow in comparison.
What you talk about there is the secret to Canon success: doing all of it well enough. The package is just very usable. You can rescue the AVCHD from much worse mistakes than you'd think too!

Yeah I've literally just swapped from a BMPCC and GH4, both with Nikon mount speedboosters. I was doing a shoot all last week at a mining museum in the wilds of the Durham dales and had a major Canon epiphany. The GH4 is great as a workhorse but the image just wasn't up to the massive changes in lighting (dark forests, underground mines and extreme midday sunshine) and the BMPCC which has a wonderful image but just isn't up to the functional demands of an on the fly doc shoot chasing school kids around an old mine site. Canon DAF alone would've saved about 60% of the shots I've had to trash. So immediately after the shoot finished I dumped about £6K on CVP & WEX and will be selling my BM & GH4 & Nikon glass.
I'll miss the Pocket's 10bit 13 stop image but that's about it. The XC10 doesn't offer the lens choices of the BM but the 305mbps image is comparable and the stabilization, zoom range and AF/face tracking outweigh that for me. I also picked up a 10-18mm STM for the C100 as the XC10 doesn't go quite wide enough for some things (my current shoot involves cathedral interiors). I may pick up the 18-135mm STM but I'm not sure what it'd offer on the C100 that the XC10 can't do.
What lenses do you use most on the C100? I'm considering a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS or a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC purely for the stabilisation (and the USM as the Sigmas are pretty noisy with DAF).

Sounds like you use the same main kit as me C100, 18-35 1.8, and an XC10. Can't complain at all! As such I'll have a look at this lens, since on a two-cam interview that's both your angles covered.

Yeah 0.95M is on the barrel. It is quite a big downside in many ways. As I say it's going to be mainly a portrait lens for me so not a huge issue, but for some it may be another reason to look elsewhere.
The fact remains though it stands alone in the market, effectively offering a set of 3 fast, sharp primes with nice character in one reasonably sized zoom. For that fact alone it is invaluable to me. I can go out on a shoot with just the 18-35mm and 50-100mm and be sure of cinematic images without the hassle of swapping all the time. If I need small and handheld, I can put an XC10 in my bag (which has impressed me hugely by the way - it's just a rock-solid 4K camera with a gorgeous image that cuts perfectly with the C100). 

Natural is the best profile on the GH4, hands down I think.  Perhaps not as much grading room as V-Log or Cine-D, but the colors are usually pleasing. 
GH4 is a hell of a workhorse camera, no doubt about it.