HV20: Cinemode Softness (loss of image detail) Pic

[Dale Backus]

Here's another interesting tidbit. I currently don't have a mini-sd card, so i can't really tell what's going on - but i shot two different takes, both using cinemode. One i pointed into the light, locked the exposure and bumped it up to get it as bright as i could. The second, i just let cinemode do everything - i guess "auto cinemode".

To me, the auto cinemode looks quite a bit better. Anyone know why?

www.dalebackus.com/moescup_cinemanual.png

www.dalebackus.com/moescup_cineauto.png

[Dale Backus]

While i'm at it... here it is using Tv Auto. (no manual exposure)

www.dalebackus.com/moescup_tvauto.png

and cinemode auto

www.dalebackus.com/moescup_cinemanual.png

I really think the cinemode wins. It doesn't have any LESS detail and it's just a much cleaner looking image to me. The Tv image just looks like it has unnecessary grain and isn't actual detail.

However, i'm now further convinced by these two pictures, that cinemode does have greater latitude. Look at the right side of both images on the wall under the mirror. Depending on your monitor probably, you can see a VERY slight gradient (from left to right) from light to dark in the Cine image. With the Tv image, you can't quite discern it as well. However i wanted to really test it, so i exaggerated the levels by quite a bit to really see what happens. The results are what i expected.

www.dalebackus.com/moescup_tv_latitude.png
www.dalebackus.com/moescup_cine_latitude.png

I guess if you're making a movie about wood grain or something, having the sharpened more contrasty image might be the better option.

But for me, as a result of these test i did just tonight indoors... cinemode wins.

More testing in more conditions will follow.

But remember, this is all using UNCOMPRESSED capture via the Blackmagic Intensity. Get yours today...

[Mikko Lopponen]

Originally Posted by Dale Backus

One i pointed into the light, locked the exposure and bumped it up to get it as bright as i could. The second, i just let cinemode do everything - i guess "auto cinemode".

To me, the auto cinemode looks quite a bit better. Anyone know why?

Because the shutter speed is faster if you lock it with a bright light. The camera will get less light = more gain to get brightness = more grain.

I really, really don't think you guys should compare any images that have gain because the smoothness of cinemode will get rid of it. Go outside to a bright place and then make comparisons as there would be no gain. Unless ofcourse you basically shoot in low-light.

[Ian G. Thompson]

Also, I really think you should get a mini SD card so that you can actually see what you are doing. Just pointing to a light source and then bumping up the exposure does not mean at some point you are not introducing gain Not all ight sources are equal so that would mean the same for your results.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Dale Backus

But for me, as a result of these test i did just tonight indoors... cinemode wins.

.

Now if we had a way to exert perfect control over shutter speed, gain and fstop in the mode, we would be set..

[Ian Hay]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Now if we had a way to exert perfect control over shutter speed, gain and fstop in the mode, we would be set..

Interestingly, I am recently coming to the conclusion that I am a perfect example of why Canon is unlikely to provide such control in the HV20 or its consumer-level successors. My experiences with the HV20 have been tremendously positive, but the reaction I have developed to the functionality ceilings built into the HV20, combined with my manual control-freak nature, is "heck -why don't I just buy the XH-A1". I haven't yet, but I'm seriously considering it. The HV20 is either or both of an excellent consumer-level camera, or an ingenious marketing ploy to get gadget-freak consumer hobbyists like me to buy their prosumer-level gear. Either way, i'm the perfect sucker, and Canon is unlikely to relieve me of my temptations by adding more control functionality within the HV20.

This whole thread is fascinating, but the killer for me are Robert Duncan's screen captures. I'm not sure they resolve the loss-of-detail issue, but my jaw really dropped at the huge and obvious difference in dynamic range.

Ian.

[Dale Backus]

Originally Posted by Mikko Lopponen

Because the shutter speed is faster if you lock it with a bright light. The camera will get less light = more gain to get brightness = more grain.

So when does cinemode decide to change the shutter speed from 1/48th to something else? I thought that was one of the things cinemode does.

I've heard that cinemode "tries" to force 1/48th, but when does it fail?

[Michael Jouravlev]

Originally Posted by Dale Backus

So when does cinemode decide to change the shutter speed from 1/48th to something else? I thought that was one of the things cinemode does.

I've heard that cinemode "tries" to force 1/48th, but when does it fail?

In 24p mode Cinemode tries to stay at 1/48 as long as it is able to keep aperture within [f/8 -- f/1.8-3/0]. In 60i mode Cinemode is basically a "cinema gamma", it does not try hard to stay at 1/60. You can verify this yourself. Got a memory card?

[Dale Backus]

Gotcha - i'm getting a memory card today - i'd really like to see for myself.

There should be an abridged version of this thread simplified to the actual question of "What does cinemode do and when" and made into a sticky.

Just a thought.

[Ian G. Thompson]

Originally Posted by Ian Hay

Interestingly, I am recently coming to the conclusion that I am a perfect example of why Canon is unlikely to provide such control in the HV20 or its consumer-level successors. My experiences with the HV20 have been tremendously positive, but the reaction I have developed to the functionality ceilings built into the HV20, combined with my manual control-freak nature, is "heck -why don't I just buy the XH-A1". I haven't yet, but I'm seriously considering it. The HV20 is either or both of an excellent consumer-level camera, or an ingenious marketing ploy to get gadget-freak consumer hobbyists like me to buy their prosumer-level gear. Either way, i'm the perfect sucker, and Canon is unlikely to relieve me of my temptations by adding more control functionality within the HV20.

This whole thread is fascinating, but the killer for me are Robert Duncan's screen captures. I'm not sure they resolve the loss-of-detail issue, but my jaw really dropped at the huge and obvious difference in dynamic range.

Ian.

Yes Ian, I came to the same conclusion. The HV20 is just a big tease to push us over the edge and go for the A1.

[Robert Ducon]

I agree - a scrumptious tease. I also agree that there's a good chance the HV25 or HV30 will be scaled back.. Canon needs to *really* convince us HV20 power users to move to the XHA1.

[Daymon Hoffman]

You guys think they are only now 'teasing' us? They've been doing it for as long as i can remember, and not just with vid cams! I think i'm going to teach them a lesson though and unlike you guys considering getting its bigger brother... i'm just going to use my HV20 while i wait for RED to do something REAL. Then Canon will learn something!

[Steve Brady]

Originally Posted by Tip McPartland

I didn't like my new HV20 much because of terrible grain in even moderate low light conditions. But when I tried Cinemode, the grain was so much improved that I now love the camera. I've been watching this thread to see what the tradeoff is under close evaluation, but to my reasonably experienced eye, if Cinemode gives greatly reduced noise and only slightly reduced resolution, I'm fine with that.

The question becomes: Is there a way to get the better resolution of TV mode and the noise reduction of Cinemode for the best of both worlds?

Tip McPartland

If the light levels are low enough that you're seeing excessive noise in Tv mode, then it's highly likely that one of the reasons that you're seeing less noise in Cine mode is because Cine mode has lowered the shutter speed. If you're happy with the motion signature of your Cine mode footage, then lowering the shutter speed in Tv mode will reduce the amount of gain that the camera applies, and therefore reduce noise.

As some of the other posters in this thread have implied, it's not entirely clear how much of the extra sharpness in Tv mode is due to actual sharpening in the camera, and how much of it is due to Tv mode's higher contrast (because, that's all that sharpening is, really - an increase in local contrast). Regardless of the cause, the extra sharpness of Tv mode will naturally make the noise more visible, so even with gain, aperture and shutter at the same settings, Tv mode will always exhibit at least a little more noise than Cine mode under low light conditions.

Additionally, if you don't have the camera locked down and pointed at a stationary subject, then, in low light conditions, Cine mode's lower shutter speed will naturally increase the amount of motion blur, making the image look softer.

For me, personally, Cine mode is plenty sharp enough, and even if it was a little softer than I'd like, the increased dynamic range is a major benefit; I'd probably still use Cine mode. The only time I'd use Tv mode is when I need a faster shutter speed and a wide aperture.

[Corey Smith]

I can't use any other mode besides Cinemode and -1 contrast. It looks SOOO much more pleasing in shots because of the better latitude, especial for facial shots. They looks SO harsh in comparison. I test them out on myself and it looks the most film like by far. The other modes have obviously lower latitude, and on the face of a light skinned person it can be very harsh at times. Very video like. Cinemode gives a much more aesthetically pleasing color tone. Even if it's softer I'd rather have more pleasing colors tones, especially with skin.

[Martyn Hull]

Each to their own i hate 25p on my HV30 soft looking jerky pulp interlaced looks great.