Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon XC10 4K camcorder

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Dope! Notice any ghosting in this profile? How does it compare to eos standard?

It's such a less contrasty profile that it's hard to know without doing an A/B comparison and normalising the contrast. But I'd guess that they're pretty much the same. 

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
8 hours ago, mercer said:

@hyalinejim, those look great, love the first grab and the fence. 

I can't really put my finger on it, but the XC10 has such a cool modern, yet vintage look to it's video. 

Ben, someone may have asked you this already, did you use manual exposure or shutter priority for this and the other video you posted?

I manually exposed. I pretty much always used the ND, ISO 500, tried to between f2.8 and f8. The stuff shot at F11, like I said, is pretty much unusable. Something looks weird at that f stop. All C-LOG. 

10 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Here are some frames from a few shots I grabbed on the way to the shop, using EOS Standard > FilmConvert. @kidzrevil I think that Cinema EOS Standard at ISO160 is an even closer match to C-Log at IS0500 than EOS Standard is - it's way less contrasty with lifted shadows like you mentioned before. I think I might use EOS Standard for low contrast scenes and Cinema EOS for high contrast or highlight protection.


A007_C066_1611215_K_CANON_3_19_42_07.jpg

These are excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a bit dense, as I've been figuring out ghosting in relation to picture styles, ISO and 4K v HD so skip this if it's not of interest to you. If you are interested, don't take this as gospel - find what works for you!

8 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Dope! Notice any ghosting in this profile? How does it compare to eos standard?

I went and checked and it looks to me like EOS Standard has the least ghosting. Here's a motion test at ISO 4000, f5/6, 1/50s in 4K. I balanced the contrast between each of them and desaturated so that ghosting becomes more clearly visible and comparable. The area of grey in the middle would be completely clear of horizontal stripes if there were no ghosting in this camera. I'm counting (roughly) the number of times I see the white band repeating before it becomes so indistinguishable as to be unproblematic.

EOS STANDARD ghosts = 4
01_ES.jpg

 

CINEMA EOS ghosts = 5 or 6
01_CE.jpg

 

WIDE DR = 6 or 7
01_WD.jpg

 

C-LOG = 8
01_CL.jpg

Now, whether or not you see the same number of ghosts as me doesn't really matter. The general trend is clear and it looks like EOS Standard has the least ghosting.

This was at 4K and I tried the same test in HD at the same ISO of 4000. All four profiles were equally rubbish here but at lower ISOs the same trend emerged with EOS Standard having the least ghosting.

Interestingly, in 50fps 1/50s the ghosting appeared to be a little better than in 25fps 1/50s because the ghosts were smaller. So you might get better results by switching to 50 or 60fps, as long as you can live with the effectively decreased bitrate.

Also interestingly, in the EBU paper the guy talks about the resolution drop in HD at higher ISOs. I think Canon chose to address this in their last firmware update because now HD looks as if it might have more resolution than 4K at ISO 6400 - even when the 4K is downsized to match it!!! Check it out:

HD on left, downsized 4K on right:

Comp_2_0_00_00_00.jpg

In an individual frame, the HD looks much cleaner. But if I press play on this static scene it's pretty obvious that there is major noise suppression going on in the HD which feels a bit plasticky without added grain - and if there's movement in the scene then noise reduction and compression artifacts are everywhere. Still though, I'm very surprised that HD does so well - I can read the text much more easily than in the 4K. Perhaps the XC10 is now optimised for shooting charts from a tripod ;)

OK, back to ghosting and low light. Since it was the best, I did some more tests using EOS Standard and for me around 1600 to 2000 is a good cut off point in both HD and 4k. Ghosting is beginning to appear at this stage but if you weren't consciously looking for it you probably wouldn't see it. Any higher than that in HD and ghosting gets progressively worse, while the noise stays constant and the image gets smeared. In 4K, on the other hand, ghosting seems to stay about the same as ISO increases, but noise kicks in so much that HD is actually better. So if I ever do need to go 3200 plus - to film the ghost of Elvis or something (as long as he doesn't move too much) - I think I'd use HD rather than 4K as there's less noise and the same or more detail. I was surprised to see today in my HD ISO5000 clip of the girls and skeletons how usable it looked. In 4K it would be a mess of colour noise at that high ISO.

So all in all, I'm fairly happy with EOS Standard as a workaround to mitigate ghosting. I can now utilise the ISO range from 160 to 1600 to help with exposure without worrying about messing up image quality too much. This captures a similar tonal range that you would get in C-Log at 500 - 5000... and that's a hell of a lot higher than I would ever have gone before. If I think back to the first video camera I ever owned, the Canon XM2, that had 3 stops of gain. Part of the reason that I like the XC10 so much is that it reminds me of that camera, shooting handheld when I was first discovering video. And I'm glad that I can now confidently use it in moderately low light.


 

 

 

Share this post


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

@hyalinejim really appreciate you for this test ! I am going to now focus on getting the best results using the right combination of in camera tweaks to eos standard & diffusion filtration

hello,  

@hyalinejim @kidzrevil  @BenEricson

"i hope my English is understandable"

I like your pictures : )  

I just bought an xc10 I will start to make tests in my turn, I bought it to make a documentary

in your opinion, if you only have a single tiffen filter to choose to shoot in 1080p only and probably in WIDE DR mod, what would it be ? 

here a test but in french (The test was done before the firmware update) http://urlz.fr/4qxf

basically they say that the c log is not a LOG curve but a compression of the highlights and WIDE DR is better choice 

the other problem with standard settings is that the signal level of the contour is very, present on the XC10

"DSLRs are generally free of this phenomenon, as a result of the digital processing of the purely video signal, which gives a "tv" effect to the images (the most original of the "Detail" correction was to visually correct the response of the cathode ray tube which , Softens transitions by a contrast enhancing treatment on each side of the transition"

I hope canon will make an update otherwise it is not worth its price...


  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Batou Bato said:

 

here a test but in french (The test was done before the firmware update) http://urlz.fr/4qxf

basically they say that the c log is not a LOG curve but a compression of the highlights and WIDE DR is better choice 

the other problem with standard settings is that the signal level of the contour is very, present on the XC10

"DSLRs are generally free of this phenomenon, as a result of the digital processing of the purely video signal, which gives a "tv" effect to the images (the most original of the "Detail" correction was to visually correct the response of the cathode ray tube which , Softens transitions by a contrast enhancing treatment on each side of the transition"


  

Thanks for posting this. It's very interesting to read (I used google translate).

Regarding which picture style to use they say, like all reviewers have so far:

"The first two gamma curves burn very quickly highlights, while the Wide DR and Canon Log preserve. So we will avoid using the first two"

Yes, this is true when comparing at the same ISO. However, nobody has thought until now that standard picture styles should be compared at 1.66 ISO stops lower than WideDR and C-Log. That's why "base ISO" for C-Log is 500... it's actually 160 pushed. And so Wide DR is noisy (shadows are lifted) and C-Log is mushy and ghosty - (extra noise reduction).

The second part in the quote above, if I understand it correctly, seems to be about sharpening - just dial it down to 0 in camera.

Looking forward to your tests!

Share this post


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

hello,  

@hyalinejim @kidzrevil  @BenEricson

"i hope my English is understandable"

I like your pictures : )  

I just bought an xc10 I will start to make tests in my turn, I bought it to make a documentary

in your opinion, if you only have a single tiffen filter to choose to shoot in 1080p only and probably in WIDE DR mod, what would it be ? 

here a test but in french (The test was done before the firmware update) http://urlz.fr/4qxf

basically they say that the c log is not a LOG curve but a compression of the highlights and WIDE DR is better choice 

the other problem with standard settings is that the signal level of the contour is very, present on the XC10

"DSLRs are generally free of this phenomenon, as a result of the digital processing of the purely video signal, which gives a "tv" effect to the images (the most original of the "Detail" correction was to visually correct the response of the cathode ray tube which , Softens transitions by a contrast enhancing treatment on each side of the transition"

I hope canon will make an update otherwise it is not worth its price...

Thank you. I would recommend doing as many tests as possible. Kidzrevil has been doing a ton of tests with different profiles, he seems to be making a lot of progress in finding the correct profile for each situation. 

C-LOG is really really nice in my opinion, but probably not ideal for lowlight. You need to work with seeing how much you can push it. If you keep the shadows lit enough, you can really avoid macro blocking and noise. The camera is temperamental. Does weird things sometimes. You really need to work with the strengths and learn to avoid exploiting the weaknesses. 

My biggest advice would be to not shoot over F11. Try to between 2.8 and 8, favor the shallower more open apertures when possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2016 at 4:46 AM, hyalinejim said:

This post is a bit dense, as I've been figuring out ghosting in relation to picture styles, ISO and 4K v HD so skip this if it's not of interest to you. If you are interested, don't take this as gospel - find what works for you!

I went and checked and it looks to me like EOS Standard has the least ghosting. Here's a motion test at ISO 4000, f5/6, 1/50s in 4K. I balanced the contrast between each of them and desaturated so that ghosting becomes more clearly visible and comparable. The area of grey in the middle would be completely clear of horizontal stripes if there were no ghosting in this camera. I'm counting (roughly) the number of times I see the white band repeating before it becomes so indistinguishable as to be unproblematic.

EOS STANDARD ghosts = 4
01_ES.jpg

 

CINEMA EOS ghosts = 5 or 6
01_CE.jpg

 

WIDE DR = 6 or 7
01_WD.jpg

 

C-LOG = 8
01_CL.jpg

Now, whether or not you see the same number of ghosts as me doesn't really matter. The general trend is clear and it looks like EOS Standard has the least ghosting.

This was at 4K and I tried the same test in HD at the same ISO of 4000. All four profiles were equally rubbish here but at lower ISOs the same trend emerged with EOS Standard having the least ghosting.

Interestingly, in 50fps 1/50s the ghosting appeared to be a little better than in 25fps 1/50s because the ghosts were smaller. So you might get better results by switching to 50 or 60fps, as long as you can live with the effectively decreased bitrate.

Also interestingly, in the EBU paper the guy talks about the resolution drop in HD at higher ISOs. I think Canon chose to address this in their last firmware update because now HD looks as if it might have more resolution than 4K at ISO 6400 - even when the 4K is downsized to match it!!! Check it out:

HD on left, downsized 4K on right:

Comp_2_0_00_00_00.jpg

In an individual frame, the HD looks much cleaner. But if I press play on this static scene it's pretty obvious that there is major noise suppression going on in the HD which feels a bit plasticky without added grain - and if there's movement in the scene then noise reduction and compression artifacts are everywhere. Still though, I'm very surprised that HD does so well - I can read the text much more easily than in the 4K. Perhaps the XC10 is now optimised for shooting charts from a tripod ;)

OK, back to ghosting and low light. Since it was the best, I did some more tests using EOS Standard and for me around 1600 to 2000 is a good cut off point in both HD and 4k. Ghosting is beginning to appear at this stage but if you weren't consciously looking for it you probably wouldn't see it. Any higher than that in HD and ghosting gets progressively worse, while the noise stays constant and the image gets smeared. In 4K, on the other hand, ghosting seems to stay about the same as ISO increases, but noise kicks in so much that HD is actually better. So if I ever do need to go 3200 plus - to film the ghost of Elvis or something (as long as he doesn't move too much) - I think I'd use HD rather than 4K as there's less noise and the same or more detail. I was surprised to see today in my HD ISO5000 clip of the girls and skeletons how usable it looked. In 4K it would be a mess of colour noise at that high ISO.

So all in all, I'm fairly happy with EOS Standard as a workaround to mitigate ghosting. I can now utilise the ISO range from 160 to 1600 to help with exposure without worrying about messing up image quality too much. This captures a similar tonal range that you would get in C-Log at 500 - 5000... and that's a hell of a lot higher than I would ever have gone before. If I think back to the first video camera I ever owned, the Canon XM2, that had 3 stops of gain. Part of the reason that I like the XC10 so much is that it reminds me of that camera, shooting handheld when I was first discovering video. And I'm glad that I can now confidently use it in moderately low light.


 

 

 

The transform from 4K to HD (in camera) basically is a 2x2 sample of the 4K frame pixels going into one HD pixel - so effectively 1/4 the spread of noise. Essentially averaging to the mean each set of 4 pixels in the 4K to create one pixel in HD. The 'neat' thing about this is that you can (canon can) also use this to sharpen (increase luminance contrast) as part of the process as the chrominance noise is variable for each colour channel. So we end up with less noisy but slightly sharper images in HD.

I still think Canon should be able to improve on the 'ghosting' or 'temporal' quantisation/sampling problem - if they are not then they should be using a fast optical flow algorithm to integrate the frames at low frame rates - to get better filmic motion blur. As seen with our examples there is some kind of 'stepping' and 'kneeing' at the transitions from dark to light and visa versa - this is like the effect you get on CRTs when a high key signal drops to base black. Along the edge of the transition you see an over-shoot and undershoot of the image signal. Apart from the scan-line look,  this is what gives an old analogue video signal it's characteristic 'Video' look - odd dark lines around things. It is quite possible that the required level of processing is beyond the single Digic chip's spec for the XC10/15 and is only implemented in the higher end cameras (C100/C300/C500/C700 etc.) - can but hope otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

Probably could use a bit more work - especially the score - but I quite like the 'thrillery' feel. Cinema EOS standard, HD, colour and contrast balanced then FilmConvert-ed to Fuji Velvia. Soundtrack done in Filmstro.

 

Very cool, Tim. The imagery and energy are great. I half expected to see Brad Pitt pop up while simultaneously planning and performing a heist... and slapping his kid... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

Probably could use a bit more work - especially the score - but I quite like the 'thrillery' feel. Cinema EOS standard, HD, colour and contrast balanced then FilmConvert-ed to Fuji Velvia. Soundtrack done in Filmstro.

 

I think this is what we call 'challenging lighting conditions' - winter in the UK - grey day lighting. Nice grade - has a interesting rich textural quality to the colours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tim Sewell said:

Probably could use a bit more work - especially the score - but I quite like the 'thrillery' feel. Cinema EOS standard, HD, colour and contrast balanced then FilmConvert-ed to Fuji Velvia. Soundtrack done in Filmstro.

 

You got some great shots here man ! Love the style of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ran another some test with the EOS Standard settings and there is definitely a reduction if near total elimination of ghosting at when in lower light situations. Out doors in good light or good overcast light you can shoot whatever you want.  Indoors if your not lighting or in low light I think EOS Standard with reduced contrast and color saturation is the way to go.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

@jpfilmz What's the BM camera in your shot and how do you like the XC10 colour and gradability in comparison to it?

That's the Blackmagic Pocket Cam.  I really love both cams...XC10 has a feature and ergonomic usability advantage over the pocket.  The pocket has 10bit prores out of the box and RAW in a portable package.  I love both images but I feel the pocket is more cinematic with it's movement.  I will say this....IF i had to pick only one to shoot a feature on I would probably grab the XC10 before the pocket simply due to it's built in features...ND filters, 5 axis stabilization, auto focus, better scratch audio, slomotion, 4k, and wireless monitoring.  I would simply need to light my shots and I could get more done with less....wouldn't need a ronin to get stable shots, it's low profile, good battery performance, has a great adapter for shooting in the sun, can hand hold in a car and get stable shots etc. Even though I think the pocket's image is better....it's occasional moire, IR pollution, abysmal battery life, bad audio preamps and need for rigging make it a less compelling tool to shoot with in dynamic situations.  Also I think you to get the best image out of the pocket you NEED a speedbooster on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jpfilmz said:

Even though I think the pocket's image is better....it's occasional moire, IR pollution, abysmal battery life, bad audio preamps and need for rigging make it a less compelling tool to shoot with in dynamic situations.  Also I think you to get the best image out of the pocket you NEED a speedbooster on it.

Agree with all of this. The footage looks so nice, but the IR pollution is a nightmare, the moire is a bummer as well. The XC10 is a really nice camera to just grab and go.

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...