UHDjohn

I like what that filter does to the highlights on top of the very nice looking footage. Did you use any stabilisation in post or do you just have a very steady hand

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.

There is no comparison with C-LOG in at paper.

The scopes on my PIX-E and Shogun don't show super whites but I can see them in Resolve by switching between Data and Video. The EBU paper didn't test the DR in C-LOG and I was comparing C-LOG to the other profiles for DR but I'm prepared to believe all the other non LOG profiles have similar DR.

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.

The XC10 profiles do not all have the same DR - hook up a monitor with some scopes and then point it at a highish contrast scene that can just be captured in C-LOG and then see the data go off the top and bottom when you switch to other profiles. C-LOG doesn't have any sharpening applied and it's designed that way so you can add much better sharpening in post. production where you can do it with more control and sophistication. I just with they did the same for NR and disabled it for the user to apply in post.

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 use a Tiffen Vari ND outdoors and combine it with the internal ND to keep it from creating uneven skies at strong settings. I know there are recoverable superwhites but the banding occurs with C-LOG when you pull back the exposure in post so I don't find ETTR to be that useful on this camera.I found C-LOG to have a wider DR than Wide DR (as seen on my ext monitor scopes) but depending on the scene's contrast range C-LOG may not be ideal low contrast situations. It would be great if it had inbuilt scopes to see the brightness range of a scene and choose the profile which best fits it. I'll check out the gain settting and hope Canon issues a firmware update for some of the obvious issues like baked in NR and the ghosting but I predict they won't bother now the XC15 is out......

Anyone know if the scopes on the XC15 are single channel or can you select the RGB parade?

How do you know there is a firmware update in the pipeline - it would be normal commercial practice for Canon to abandon the XC10 and push sales of the XC15.

It's not too catastrophic. What' s the shutter speed?

It's recoverable in Resolve as well but what I found was that it bands more readily when over exposed this way. The scopes on the ext recorder show C-LOG has more DR than any of the other profiles.

Can't see any ghosting - where is it in the timeline?

Both the Shogun and PIX-E5H display the incoming signal as 8bit.

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.

Agree on the BMPCC - tiny sensor which shouldnt be 'cinematic' but is better than many 24x36mm sensor based cameras.Nothing wrong with capturing in UHD and down sampling to achieve better HD as lots of 'pro' cameras do this internally. As for cropping then it's just another tool in the box and stills photographers do it all the time. Infact if you look at stills equipment then all cameras are capable of resolutions beyond what most people view the final image on. Arguments that you don't need more than 8mp (which is 4k/UHD) won't get you very far. HD will be the output format for some time to come I think but how you get to that end point has may different paths. Expensive cine cams do it nativity, cheap DSLR/mirrorless need to capture UHD to be converted in the NLE - it's just the state of the current tech.

The image has no in camera sharpening - it's not soft. Also you need to keep your aperture under F8 or diffraction kicks in which softens the image on UHD. DR is as good in C-LOG as my Sony A7s + Shogun. Af is OK for what it is. It's not a cinema camera so not having a cinematic image is hardly surprising. Current prices are good for what it offers - Cfast cards are cheap if you know where to get good deals. I got a 128 gb card for £125 on Ebay last week. I wouldn't consider it as a rival to the GH5 - different kind of camera altogether.

I shoot UHD on my A7s / Shogun and XC10 in order to get superior detail HD output. The lower compression helps a lot (much more than 8bit vs 10 bit) and having the ability to crop in is useful for using warp stabiliser and re-framing without quality loss. So yes UHD is really necessary for me. Colour is another matter but can't see it being relevant to HD vs UHD.

What numbers?

Nothing to do with tonal 'range' - it's the ability to differentiate between tones and colours which is not something that gets measured (or is easily measured).

Don't disagree on the optical quality differences but so far in this debate which started out as MF digital vs smaller formats the issue of colour and tonality had not been included. Moreover not everyone shoots in either cinema or stills wide open to create planes of focus with out of focus areas ( bokeh) to drool over. In situations where you are ( and want) maximising DOF there are still qualitative advantages to using medium format backs in stills applications for their ( rather obvious to my eyes) superior colour and tonal reproduction which I would also expect to translate to cinema if the chips could be used in this way.

Nope - difference in colour and tonal 'sophistication' was apparent between different formats in film days as well - not the range of colours and tones but the subtle differentiation between them using identical emulsions. I stick by my opinion of CFA density (or lack thereof) on modern small sensor cameras and it's effect on colour reproduction compared to MF sensors. CCD vs CMOS - we can argue all day.....

The reason why MF digital is 'better' has nothing to do with DOF or out of focus rendering and everything to do with CMOS vs CCD and the strength of the CFA's over the sensors. SONYCANONIKON etc put in the weakest CFA they can 'get away with' to maximise high ISO performance. MF digi back makers put in the CFA's which create the best colour fidelity and are not too bothered if this limits the high ISO ability. CCD vs COMS - again CCD can't give you high ISO sensitivity but when it comes to reproducing 'sophisticated' colour it's a different animal.

To get the best out of this when shooting UHD you need to keep your aperture <F8 otherwise you soften the image due to diffraction so set your aperture and use a variable ND filter to control exposure. I accept it has a few handling issues (what camera doesn't) but my only real gripe is the lack of a user selectable AF point which should be easy to do as a firmware update............