Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon XC10 4K camcorder

Recommended Posts

@Kisaha no more NX1. I really needed the IS of the Canon but that didn't pan out like I thought it would. I am on ebay on the hunt for an NX1 with the 16-50. Even with the new cameras out I have yet to come across such a complete package. How do you like the nx1 stabilization with the16-50?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

@Kisaha no more NX1. I really needed the IS of the Canon but that didn't pan out like I thought it would. I am on ebay on the hunt for an NX1 with the 16-50. Even with the new cameras out I have yet to come across such a complete package. How do you like the nx1 stabilization with the16-50?

Are you going to sell the XC10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mercer said:

Are you going to sell the XC10?

not sure yet but I am going to make that decision tonight. Running some tests to see if I can isolate the problem. If I do sell it this week I am going to get another nx1 but with the 16-50 or I will try the Fuji XT2. I can now say with confidence the NX1 is one of the better cameras I have used and I can only imagine how it would look with a lens built SPECIFICALLY for it + the hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

not sure yet but I am going to make that decision tonight. Running some tests to see if I can isolate the problem. If I do sell it this week I am going to get another nx1 but with the 16-50 or I will try the Fuji XT2. I can now say with confidence the NX1 is one of the better cameras I have used and I can only imagine how it would look with a lens built SPECIFICALLY for it + the hack.

That sucks about the XC10 because I think the work you have posted with it is without a doubt some of your best work and I've been a fan of your videos since your GH4 days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the support dude ! You are right the XC10 has produced some of my best that's why I am still wrestling with it.

Hey if anything I will just move up to the XC15 and pay the ransom for it. SMH it seems Canon fixes their issues with hardware updates instead of firmware updates @mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't know what the hell they're doing. I am going to head out with it at the end of this week and do a bunch of tests. As I said earlier, I may sell mine, but it has more to do with the fact that it just may be too much camera for me, especially since I haven't really used it in almost two months. That's a lot of closet real estate that can go to other things. But I have been really hoping to utilize that unbelievable 4K codec for some stock footage, I just can't seem to find the time. But if I do sell it, I am going to get to the bottom of the ghosting before I do, even if it requires me sending it in to Canon for repairs, I don't need some eBay a-hole complaining to me and giving me bad feedback and possibly scratching the camera before they return it. 

@kidzrevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone assumes that the XC15 fixes this issue, but that is based on a single camera. Hardware issues may not show up in every sample.  Remember that some people reported that they did not have a ghosting issue with their XC10s. Therefore it is dangerous to assume that all XC15s do not have this issue. We need more tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. All of the seven or eight XC10 ghosting tests that I've seen have shown it, but it doesn't mean all XC10s have the problem. If anyone has a clean XC10 please post footage.

And the one clean XC15 test doesn't mean all XC15s are free from the problem. If anyone has a ghosting XC15 please post.

If you're thinking about getting either model I would strongly recommend you try before you buy, or look into your seller's return policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mercer said:

The GX85 has pretty good IBIS and for the price you could wait out the canon while shooting with that. 

Good adivce.  Great camera for handheld video.  I own two.  I'm selling one of mine at the end on November when my current gig is in the can.  I'm sure folks could find a cheap used one on eBay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Matching clips for the C300 Mk II and XC15

 

Without the background they look incredible similar, this little monster looks really good for run&gun, just waiting to see more information about other XC15 also free of ghosting, i can´t take the risk that tomsemiterrific was the only lucky one who got a working camera, can´t believe you can´t trust in canon anymore!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Without the background they look incredible similar, this little monster looks really good for run&gun, just waiting to see more information about other XC15 also free of ghosting, i can´t take the risk that tomsemiterrific was the only lucky one who got a working camera, can´t believe you can´t trust in canon anymore!!!

Looks pretty good. There is a slight green cast to the highlights (neck area) in the second clip. It might just be down to how each camera handles color balance/temp. The purple looks more saturated in the second clip. I doubt viewers would really notice either that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, arourke said:

Looks pretty good. There is a slight green cast to the highlights (neck area) in the second clip. It might just be down to how each camera handles color balance/temp. The purple looks more saturated in the second clip. I doubt viewers would really notice either that much.

That's actually the point. I did VERY little from what came from the cameras. Looking back to back there are differences---but shooting B roll at different angles, with different shadows I think they will work well together pretty well.

Here's a different shot I did at the same clips tonight:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/11/2016 at 9:44 AM, hyalinejim said:

I agree. All of the seven or eight XC10 ghosting tests that I've seen have shown it, but it doesn't mean all XC10s have the problem. If anyone has a clean XC10 please post footage.

And the one clean XC15 test doesn't mean all XC15s are free from the problem. If anyone has a ghosting XC15 please post.

If you're thinking about getting either model I would strongly recommend you try before you buy, or look into your seller's return policy.

I bought my XC10 back in January (2016) and have been very happy with the quality of the images/footage. This 'Ghosting' or temporal noise reduction (possibly) has also shown up on my footage (see bellow) - and I've been following this thread on the issue. Having had a close look at the artefact I can pretty much say with certainty its an error in the calculation of how Canon integrate values from one frame to the next when calculating for motion blur. Basically the maths is off and creating a 'rounding error' so the pixel bins either hold an 'over shoot' or 'under shoot' value - so you get this characteristic 'zoning' of luminance values. Its a bit like the posterising effect (thresholding) one can achieve when reducing the bit depth of an image. So what is causing this ... hopefully it's a firmware only issue, in which case the frame to frame integration algorithm needs re-writing, or it is something done in hardware ... which means a fault in the DIGIC DV 5 chip. Canon will need to check in the later case if it is a batch issue or systemic. Let's hope it only requires a firmware update! The 'good' thing is that if it is (as I surmise), then the solution is just a question of maths - but the problem is how that is implemented - at chip level in hardware or a firmware 'bug'.

(I should add, this could also will explain why this is less evident on HD footage as it has 4x more 'integration' as a reduction from 4K in spatial resolution - equivalent of averaging down to a quarter sized image.)

One test we could try is running at a higher frame rate (HD only) and seeing if the artefacts are reduced or increased further for the same amount if spatial moment - in other words more samples over a given time frame and spatial transfer.

XC10_motion_Artifact.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lamplighter55 said:

.. and from Wikipedia 'The XC10 uses a single DIGIC DV 5, while the C300 Mark II uses a dual DIGIC DV 5 implementation.' So less sampling/super-sampling no doubt. There is also now the DIGIC DV 5+ (faster by 3x - so possibly equivalent of the dual set up in the 300 MkII) - yet to find which camera platforms it's to be used for apart from the EOS 1D X ... maybe XC15?!  

The technical term for these artefacts is 'Quantisation error'. Which could also hint at a way to mitigate them by spreading the pixel values over a wider range of bits - in other words shifting the luma and contrast with more light, assuming under really low light (higher ISO settings) the quantisation is lost/masked in the higher digital noise signal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lamplighter55 said:

 I can pretty much say with certainty its an error in the calculation of how Canon integrate values from one frame to the next when calculating for motion blur. Basically the maths is off and creating a 'rounding error' so the pixel bins either hold an 'over shoot' or 'under shoot' value - so you get this characteristic 'zoning' of luminance values.

Interesting! According to this theory, would you expect ghosting to worsen with ISO, as we have seen?

 

5 hours ago, Lamplighter55 said:

So what is causing this ... hopefully it's a firmware only issue, in which case the frame to frame integration algorithm needs re-writing, or it is something done in hardware ... which means a fault in the DIGIC DV 5 chip. Canon will need to check in the later case if it is a batch issue or systemic. Let's hope it only requires a firmware update! The 'good' thing is that if it is (as I surmise), then the solution is just a question of maths - but the problem is how that is implemented - at chip level in hardware or a firmware 'bug'.

 

Here's the latest update from Canon:
 

Quote

 

CANON:
Thank you for taking the time to contact us and for providing a copy of your camera’s settings with sample video of the issue. I can confirm this has been passed over to our European Product Specialists and they have been investigating the issue you reported. At present I do not have any further information but if I get any updates I will let you know.

ME:
Thank you. I realise that you may be limited in what you can communicate to me, but do you think there is any point in sending my camera in for repair at this stage in order to fix the issue?

CANON:
In response to your email, I would advise that at present sending your camera in would not resolve the issue. As this is still being investigated please await further updates from us.

 

I guess you could interpret this in a few different ways. I'm going with "they're fixing the firmware" for now.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...