Jump to content

Canon XC10 hardcoded noise reduction issue


kidzrevil
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 18/11/2016 at 5:54 PM, hyalinejim said:

Regarding ghosting, Canon say it's due to noise reduction and (I guess) that we must all bite the bullet:

I mean, does this footage look usable? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely wondering if people think you could use shots like this without the general viewer thinking wtf is that?

 

Personally I think this looks pretty awful. I haven't seen much from my XC10 that looks that bad, but if I did I'd be loathe to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
2 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

@Lintelfilm I think with my new workaround I've found a way to shoot in moderately low light, avoid ghosting and mush as much as possible while still keeping nice colours. Check it out (this one old weird trick... Canon hates him!)

 

Have you tested your camera outdoors in good light with C-Log at base ISO?

I always felt that just because a camera can go up to 6400 or even 20,000, doesn't mean it should be used that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2016 at 5:14 PM, hyalinejim said:

@Lintelfilm I think with my new workaround I've found a way to shoot in moderately low light, avoid ghosting and mush as much as possible while still keeping nice colours. Check it out (this one old weird trick... Canon hates him!)

 

Have you tried this in comparison to Wide DR? Is there an advantage of shooting Standard over Wide DR?

Certainly in low contrast situations C-Log should not be used as you're stretching the codec for no reason ... but I find Wide DR a happy medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, I think it has been pretty self evident and proven by Ben, kidz, Lintel and others that the XC10 isn't a low light camera but it EXCELS in C-Log at or near base ISO. Fighting that seems pointless when the results are so amazing. Should these issues be addressed by Canon... Yes! This is not a $500, or less, camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received my xc15 this week, and I'm experiencing the same problem. The edges of objects ghost terribly. It almost looks like dripping smoke. Has Canon evaluated any units that folks have sent in? With the expense of cfast 2 cards, it makes this camera really expensive. And with an issue like this, it doesn't seem worth the cost if this can't be fixed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sucks, @Pvandall. We had all previously thought that the XC15 was free of ghosting and for the price it's just a joke. For the XC10 I sent Canon samples from lots of different XC10s that I gathered here. They said the camera was within spec, that it's a side-effect of noise reduction and that there's no point in sending the camera in.

Can you post a sample that shows the problem?

If the XC15 is similar, you might find my recent posts in the big XC10 thread of interest to help combat ghosting. In short, shooting EOS Standard with contrast, saturation and sharpness turned down and with ISO at 1.66 stops lower than C-Log or WideDR will give you similar results in terms of dynamic range but with much less ghosting. If you can then keep your exposure under 2000 by increasing shutter speed or shooting wider you might find that you can just about live with it. Detailed info here:

and here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Pvandall said:

I received my xc15 this week, and I'm experiencing the same problem. The edges of objects ghost terribly. It almost looks like dripping smoke. Has Canon evaluated any units that folks have sent in? With the expense of cfast 2 cards, it makes this camera really expensive. And with an issue like this, it doesn't seem worth the cost if this can't be fixed. 

OMG!!!  the XC15 was supposed to be free of ghosting, No way, looks like some cameras works OK and others don´t, too risky, this is really bad news, ohhh boy!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Yes, that was from a test by @tomsemiterrific which is no longer online. He tested at 20,000 ISO and it was very noisy but ghost free. Here's the file if you wanna check it out:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcuoet3nxruwwgv/A043C899_161024FY_CANON.MXF?dl=0

He didn't have the MXF file so I don't know what picture style it was.

How is this possible?, what could be different?, very strange….which probably could means also some XC10 are free of ghosting….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just lucky--it's about time---but I don''t recall any problems with my XC10, and I can't reproduce the ghosting effect in my XC15--which I believe has a better image quality than my XC10--but both are excellent.

What's funny is in all the reviews I've seen, of very good and competent, picky reviewers I can't recall anyone has ever mentioned the problem.

On 11/20/2016 at 11:02 AM, Lintelfilm said:

Personally I think this looks pretty awful. I haven't seen much from my XC10 that looks that bad, but if I did I'd be loathe to use it.

Absolutely it looks terrible---the ghosting is so bad and actually seems to be omnipresent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I guess I'm just lucky--it's about time---but I don''t recall any problems with my XC10, and I can't reproduce the ghosting effect in my XC15--which I believe has a better image quality than my XC10--but both are excellent.

What's funny is in all the reviews I've seen, of very good and competent, picky reviewers I can't recall anyone has ever mentioned the problem.

Absolutely it looks terrible---the ghosting is so bad and actually seems to be omnipresent.

Seems to be a lack of quality control on Canon's part. The camera does work well within its limits and even better now that we know EOS standard alleviates some of these issues. Still these are things Canon needs to address but probably won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Seems to be a lack of quality control on Canon's part. The camera does work well within its limits and even better now that we know EOS standard alleviates some of these issues. Still these are things Canon needs to address but probably won't.

Agree, this is quality control, and since looks like some cameras didn´t have the issue, most probably is related to hardware than firmware, which make very dangerous to buy any of this cameras, really sad, I was saving to go for the XC15 thinking it was free of ghosting, now I will have to go another route, and the problem is that I like Canon look more than any other camera in the market…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Agree, this is quality control, and since looks like some cameras didn´t have the issue, most probably is related to hardware than firmware, which make very dangerous to buy any of this cameras, really sad, I was saving to go for the XC15 thinking it was free of ghosting, now I will have to go another route, and the problem is that I like Canon look more than any other camera in the market…..

It's a shame too, because the XC10, seems like it should be a great event camera, but without lowlight capabilities, it's use becomes a little limited. I am definitely selling mine, I just need to decide what to replace it with. I was thinking about going the D500 route, but I think I will wait until they up some of their video functions and the 4K funnels down into their lesser models. So now I have to decide between the X-T2 or a 5D mk iii. Since I only work on narratives, the mk iii seems like the better choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

It's a shame too, because the XC10, seems like it should be a great event camera, but without lowlight capabilities, it's use becomes a little limited. I am definitely selling mine, I just need to decide what to replace it with. I was thinking about going the D500 route, but I think I will wait until they up some of their video functions and the 4K funnels down into their lesser models. So now I have to decide between the X-T2 or a 5D mk iii. Since I only work on narratives, the mk iii seems like the better choice. 

Its between the xt2,panasonic g80 & gh5 for me. Im gonna wait a lil while before I make my decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...