HV20: Cinemode Softness (loss of image detail) Pic

Ian G. Thompson · August 10th, 2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki Halkka

One possible candidate is noise reduction - the loss of detail is quite similar to what one gets with good quality spatial noise reducing software.

It could very well be that the in-camera noise reduction is tweaked to look good with all the regular modes, which should in theory have more noise than cine mode, especially after sharpening.

With cine mode's lower noise and low contrast image, the noise reduction algorithm would be too strong, and eat up low contrast detail, just as we've seen happening.

If we get some HDMI-captured footage and it shows the same loss, noise reduction is probably the thing to blame. If not, then it's HDV compression.

That's exactly what I said the other day. The results looks just like when I use noise reduction in my footage. It will take away a lot of fine details like wrinkles and freckles etc. and make the whole image smoother looking (when I over do it it makes everything look too plastic). I stick to that theory.

Thomas Smet · August 10th, 2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reese Leysen

No, that's my point :) .

They probably simply ported it without enough tweaking to a lower end machine, resulting in a too drastic loss of detail compared to the HV20's other modes.

But a setting doesn't add blur in a camera. As far as I know there is no such thing as a hardware blur filter inside of a camera. There is only a sharpen filter. It all comes down to the fact that this is a cheaper build of a camera and the lack of sharpness may be more extreme then that of other cameras. If a certain mode on a higher end camera cuts off all sharpness and has more detail it is because the camera itself resolves more natural raw detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

Nobody here denies that the cinema mode is softer. I am glad that it is. In fact I may even go as far as to say I think Canon made it better then most other cameras I have seen.

http://www.reel-stream.com/gallery_t...start_point=24

Here you can see just how soft a raw tap from the chips can be. View the Greenscreen image 2/2 and take a look at the larger image and then go back and look at the processed image. The Reelstream product pulls the bayer data due to pixel shift right from the chips before any processing is done. The result is a very soft raw tap. once the image is processed in software it looks more like how a image from a DVX100 would look. This image is a prime example of just what comes off the chips before any processing is done to the image.

Canon created the cinema mode to be about as raw as you can get from a HDV camera. using the cinema mode combined with a HDMI live capture should result in some pretty sweet material that you can sharpen and adjust to look how you want it to. Of course it may not be perfect because after all it isn't a true RAW image. The image even if coming from HDMI still will be a yuv image and no longer in a bayer pattern. If I could get a RAW bayer image from the HV20 I guarentee you I could adjust the image to have as much detail as what the TV mode is doing.

So it comes down to are you somebody who wants a canned look right out of the box or are you somebody who wants to tweak your footage and get the look that you want? To me canned look right out of the box is kind of like paint by numbers while cinema mode is a blank canvas.

Thomas Smet · August 10th, 2007, 12:38 PM

I should point out that even though the DVX100 is a 3 chip camera. The Reelstream device actually works as a bayer pattern. It does this by using the pixel shift for detail. By using the pixel shift the system ends up with a pattern similar to a bayer chip. It then constructs a HD image out of the pixle shifted SD chips similar to what a single chip HD chip could do. Basically its exactly what the HVX200 does. The bayer data from the chips is pulled before it hits the DSP and then processed with the Reelstream software as RGB 4:4:4.

The whole point of this is to show what a raw bayer tap actually looks like before it is processed and it looks pretty much like what the cinema mode is doing.

Robert Ducon · August 10th, 2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

To me canned look right out of the box is kind of like paint by numbers while cinema mode is a blank canvas.

Beautiful analogy, Thomas.

My HV20 is still out of commission - sounds like Canon is replacing circuitry (CMOS sensor perhaps) under warranty.

In the meantime, I've rented an HV20 this weekend, and if I get a chance, I will do an UNCOMPRESSED HDMI capture test and compare! And yes, I'll post .PNGs ;)

Joseph H. Moore · August 10th, 2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

As far as I know there is no such thing as a hardware blur filter inside of a camera.

Of course cameras include blur filters. The HV20 most defintely does just this with the SMOOTH SKIN setting.

Joseph H. Moore · August 10th, 2007, 02:35 PM

So whose gonna step-up and do some HDMI recording? C'mon, pretty please! We all wanna know if CINE's missing detail exists prior to HDV compression.

Thomas Smet · August 10th, 2007, 05:18 PM

http://www.siliconimaging.com/Digita...illimages.html

Some more examples of high quality filmlike images from a much better camera then the HV20. This is from the Silicon Imaging camera.

Notice how the images have the same style of softness as the cinema mode. Again proof that Canon knew exactly what they were doing when they made the cinema mode. like it or not this is exactly the sort of images a lot of film makers are looking for.

The images from the Silicon Imaging camera also come from a bayer pattern single CMOS chip. The camera gives of a nice raw image from the chip before any other processing is done. It does it this way so the film makers can grade the footage the way they want.

Eugenia Loli-Queru · August 10th, 2007, 05:34 PM

If that's true, then it's a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer to look at the 21st century and cameras like the RED where everything is sharp and of great quality. Others, are free to look at the 20th Century and try to emulate the old non-sharp style. But I must say, there is a reason why professionals photographers go with Canon DSLRs that produce ultra-sharp images and not with Kodak's soft style. Because I am a review journalist I get free samples of hardware to play with from time to time. All of Kodak's digicams have an artificially-created "kodak look": aka soft. Their actual cameras are able to capture cleaner pictures, but Kodak artificially dillutes the result just so they achieve the kodak look that made them who they are 100 years ago.

Sorry, I am just not a big legacy girl. I always look forward.

Nathan Shane · August 10th, 2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

Sorry, I am just not a big legacy girl. I always look forward.

Great quote worth repeating again and again. I'm with you on this one too. Super-fine detail is something many are not embracing just yet because of embracing a "specific" look that has been ingrained in the minds and eyes of viewers for years. Nothing wrong with that, it's worked for years and will for years to come. But put me down as a BIG fan of all the finite details. I marvel at many of the Discovery HD Theater shows that show such great details in their footage. And I'm also a fan of close up footage rather than distance footage.

Thomas Smet · August 10th, 2007, 05:57 PM

I'm sure the people using the Silicon Imaging camera are not exactly bankrupt either. Trust me they get plenty of paid work doing the "old soft style" and I'm sure they have a more lucrative film career then the people trying to use a $1,000 camera.

Besides the only reason why Red looks so good is because it is 4k. It still uses a raw tap from it's CMOS chip. You will notice on any of the 4k image samples that there isn't the insane level of sharpness that you will get from the HV20 in TV mode. The only way you can have greater true detail in to increase the resoltuion even more. If you want a 1080p image to be super crisp you will have to shoot 4k and downscale.

My whole point here is to show that the cinema mode is just giving off a true tap of the raw CMOS chip as close as you can get in a HDV tape system. It isn't any different then highend cameras that cost well over $10,000.00 that give off the same raw look. The cinema mode is named for a reason. It has the most cinematic look to tweak the footage. If that style of "old school" film production isn't your thing then of course you shouldn't use the cinema mode because you are not trying to create cinema. You are trying to create video.

For those of us who like that style it really has nothing to do with an "old school style." We just like clean footage that we can work with. Anybody can say what they want about a style or look but the raw style is hands down easier to tweak to get a certain look you are after. It also usually has less artifacts to deal with when adjusting or keying that footage. While the sharpened HV20 footage from the TV mode may look awesome to some of you that doesn't change the fact that it is a modification of what the CMOS chip is really doing. It's cool that some of you like that look but it is also cool for some of you to prefer the cinema look as well.

Lets all just pick what we like and get our butts out there and start creating some stuff. Stop trying to make things that look different into something that is wrong. I have given plenty of examples of where that look is prefered. It just so happens that a lot of those people are the ones working on film projects and making big bucks in doing so.

I have nothing wrong with detail just as long as it is clean detail. Sure I would like an extra detailed image but I'm not going to settle for a fake sharpened image to get there. When we can buy an 2/3" 4k camera from Canon for $1,000.00 I will be happy with the high detailed raw output. It isn't that we like soft images. We just like clean images.

Salah Baker · August 10th, 2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

So whose gonna step-up and do some HDMI recording? C'mon, pretty please! We all wanna know if CINE's missing detail exists prior to HDV compression.

I sent them to Stu...

Joseph H. Moore · August 10th, 2007, 06:06 PM

Salah,
Sent what to Stu? If you've got images, share!

David Parks · August 10th, 2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Lets all just pick what we like and get our butts out there and start creating some stuff. Stop trying to make things that look different into something that is wrong. I have given plenty of examples of where that look is prefered. It just so happens that a lot of those people are the ones working on film projects and making big bucks in doing so.

I have nothing wrong with detail just as long as it is clean detail

Amen Thomas! Food for thought and then I'm not saying anything else.

I hate to keep bringing up my HD 100 because I don't have my HV20. But on the JVC I can control the amount of sharpness in detail from +10 to -10. Most DP's that use that camera learned over time to turn down that sharpness down to usually -5 to -9 or even off completely because the detail would look noisy when projected or broadcast. No one I know of ever cranks it up to +10. Too harsh. Especially if it is downconverted to SD which most of us are still making a living with SD deliverables. So remember what end result you're going for and look past what your seeing with a 200% blow up. It is out of context with the final result.

The pros I know are always thinking past the shoot and post and about distribution and projection in addition to look. So, while you might like detail beware of what may look noisy at the end of the chain.

And as Forrest Gump once said, "That's all I have to say about that."

Thomas Smet · August 10th, 2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

If that's true, then it's a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer to look at the 21st century and cameras like the RED where everything is sharp and of great quality. Others, are free to look at the 20th Century and try to emulate the old non-sharp style. But I must say, there is a reason why professionals photographers go with Canon DSLRs that produce ultra-sharp images and not with Kodak's soft style. Because I am a review journalist I get free samples of hardware to play with from time to time. All of Kodak's digicams have an artificially-created "kodak look": aka soft. Their actual cameras are able to capture cleaner pictures, but Kodak artificially dillutes the result just so they achieve the kodak look that made them who they are 100 years ago.

Sorry, I am just not a big legacy girl. I always look forward.

yeah well thats why Red costs about 30x the cost of the HV20. You pay for that extra level of detail without having to use any sharpen filters. Red is the perfect level between detail and clean.

Professional photographers expect great detail because they are buying expensive high quality equipment and not the cheapest camera they can find. I doubt you will find a pro photographer using a Kodak Easy Share camera who thinks they are going to get the same level of quality or raw detail as a D20.

Calvin Tan · August 10th, 2007, 07:47 PM

ok, this is what i found out. I compared my HC1 , Fx1 and Hv20 and i can say that there is no loss of detail at cinemode if u use custom contrast +1. Yes it appears soft and less contrasty when compared to TV mode but I stand firm that there is no loss of detail when use custom contrast +1. I shot same footage on far distant objects and compared again and again on actual footage captured to my computer and studied the details over and over again using all my three HC1, Fx1 and HV20. What to do then? Well i suggest if you are shooting in a highly contrasty bright sunny day, use Cinemode as it doesn't blow out the whites and has better shadow detail. Cinemode is also useful if you are shooting low light scene as it picks up more light. For normal day scene with not much bright sunlight, u may want to use TV mode for that extra contrast.
When i turned my sharpness for Sony Hc1 and Fx1 down, they look very soft too and appears to have lost some detail. But I stand firm on HV20 cinemode with custom contrast +1. There is no loss of detail but it does appears soft and less contrasty but I will use it for bright sunny day and low key scene.

August 10th, 2007, 12:38 PM	#138
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I should point out that even though the DVX100 is a 3 chip camera. The Reelstream device actually works as a bayer pattern. It does this by using the pixel shift for detail. By using the pixel shift the system ends up with a pattern similar to a bayer chip. It then constructs a HD image out of the pixle shifted SD chips similar to what a single chip HD chip could do. Basically its exactly what the HVX200 does. The bayer data from the chips is pulled before it hits the DSP and then processed with the Reelstream software as RGB 4:4:4. The whole point of this is to show what a raw bayer tap actually looks like before it is processed and it looks pretty much like what the cinema mode is doing.

August 10th, 2007, 02:35 PM	#141
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	So whose gonna step-up and do some HDMI recording? C'mon, pretty please! We all wanna know if CINE's missing detail exists prior to HDV compression.

August 10th, 2007, 05:18 PM	#142
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	http://www.siliconimaging.com/Digita...illimages.html Some more examples of high quality filmlike images from a much better camera then the HV20. This is from the Silicon Imaging camera. Notice how the images have the same style of softness as the cinema mode. Again proof that Canon knew exactly what they were doing when they made the cinema mode. like it or not this is exactly the sort of images a lot of film makers are looking for. The images from the Silicon Imaging camera also come from a bayer pattern single CMOS chip. The camera gives of a nice raw image from the chip before any other processing is done. It does it this way so the film makers can grade the footage the way they want.

August 10th, 2007, 05:34 PM	#143
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	If that's true, then it's a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer to look at the 21st century and cameras like the RED where everything is sharp and of great quality. Others, are free to look at the 20th Century and try to emulate the old non-sharp style. But I must say, there is a reason why professionals photographers go with Canon DSLRs that produce ultra-sharp images and not with Kodak's soft style. Because I am a review journalist I get free samples of hardware to play with from time to time. All of Kodak's digicams have an artificially-created "kodak look": aka soft. Their actual cameras are able to capture cleaner pictures, but Kodak artificially dillutes the result just so they achieve the kodak look that made them who they are 100 years ago. Sorry, I am just not a big legacy girl. I always look forward.

August 10th, 2007, 05:57 PM	#145
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I'm sure the people using the Silicon Imaging camera are not exactly bankrupt either. Trust me they get plenty of paid work doing the "old soft style" and I'm sure they have a more lucrative film career then the people trying to use a $1,000 camera. Besides the only reason why Red looks so good is because it is 4k. It still uses a raw tap from it's CMOS chip. You will notice on any of the 4k image samples that there isn't the insane level of sharpness that you will get from the HV20 in TV mode. The only way you can have greater true detail in to increase the resoltuion even more. If you want a 1080p image to be super crisp you will have to shoot 4k and downscale. My whole point here is to show that the cinema mode is just giving off a true tap of the raw CMOS chip as close as you can get in a HDV tape system. It isn't any different then highend cameras that cost well over $10,000.00 that give off the same raw look. The cinema mode is named for a reason. It has the most cinematic look to tweak the footage. If that style of "old school" film production isn't your thing then of course you shouldn't use the cinema mode because you are not trying to create cinema. You are trying to create video. For those of us who like that style it really has nothing to do with an "old school style." We just like clean footage that we can work with. Anybody can say what they want about a style or look but the raw style is hands down easier to tweak to get a certain look you are after. It also usually has less artifacts to deal with when adjusting or keying that footage. While the sharpened HV20 footage from the TV mode may look awesome to some of you that doesn't change the fact that it is a modification of what the CMOS chip is really doing. It's cool that some of you like that look but it is also cool for some of you to prefer the cinema look as well. Lets all just pick what we like and get our butts out there and start creating some stuff. Stop trying to make things that look different into something that is wrong. I have given plenty of examples of where that look is prefered. It just so happens that a lot of those people are the ones working on film projects and making big bucks in doing so. I have nothing wrong with detail just as long as it is clean detail. Sure I would like an extra detailed image but I'm not going to settle for a fake sharpened image to get there. When we can buy an 2/3" 4k camera from Canon for $1,000.00 I will be happy with the high detailed raw output. It isn't that we like soft images. We just like clean images.

August 10th, 2007, 06:06 PM	#147
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Salah, Sent what to Stu? If you've got images, share!

August 10th, 2007, 07:47 PM	#150
Calvin Tan Tourist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: singapore Posts: 3	ok, this is what i found out. I compared my HC1 , Fx1 and Hv20 and i can say that there is no loss of detail at cinemode if u use custom contrast +1. Yes it appears soft and less contrasty when compared to TV mode but I stand firm that there is no loss of detail when use custom contrast +1. I shot same footage on far distant objects and compared again and again on actual footage captured to my computer and studied the details over and over again using all my three HC1, Fx1 and HV20. What to do then? Well i suggest if you are shooting in a highly contrasty bright sunny day, use Cinemode as it doesn't blow out the whites and has better shadow detail. Cinemode is also useful if you are shooting low light scene as it picks up more light. For normal day scene with not much bright sunlight, u may want to use TV mode for that extra contrast. When i turned my sharpness for Sony Hc1 and Fx1 down, they look very soft too and appears to have lost some detail. But I stand firm on HV20 cinemode with custom contrast +1. There is no loss of detail but it does appears soft and less contrasty but I will use it for bright sunny day and low key scene.