http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Eki_c...omparision.png

No ringing? A sharpness setting of -1 doesn't mean no electronic sharpen it just means it is lower. No camera I have ever known will go out of it's way to blur an image. It just doesn't work that way. Why would Canon spend the money to develop the worlds first in camera blur chip for a $1,000 camera? That is just the way images work from cameras. Eki prooved that you can bring back a good deal of the sharpness by adjusting contrast and sharpness. The rest that cannot be brought back is due to the fact that the image is already compressed and that the camera processes the sharpness right from the bayer information. Since the math is forming the new pixels from the bayer pattern it can process a new level of sharpness for those new pixels. Different bayer formulas create different levels of sharpness and detail. Give me a raw bayer tap from the HV20 chip and I will give you an image with just as much detail as the TV mode. Without working with the bayer pattern of course a sharpened cinema mode image will not look exactly the same as one from the TV mode.

Again though I cannot believe how much you are nit picking such a small thing on a $1,000 camera. This is not a defect and not a mass conspiracy from Canon.

I completely agree. And I haven't heard anyone mention this yet, but resolution is of course also dicated by gain, exposure, contrast and *white balance* so I think that would more likely explain a resolution loss (which I think is the case in the pattern example). Pretty much all consumer camcorders/cameras apply by default artifical sharpening (which I do like but right balance is completely personal preference).

Also search in this forum for someone posting a comparison of a kitchen shot in cinemode and normal. I love that it shows both strengths and weaknesses (window is overexposed in normal, but does show more perceived detail).

I personally find for sunny conditions I'd use normal mode, but in low-light I would consider using cinemode since I don't like the RGB noise caused by the high gain. So even if you're not a fan of cinemode, I think in low-light you might reconsider (provided it doesn't make the picture too dark).

Why does this all matter?

Whether you have a 99 cent paint brush or a $10.000 paint brush, it's still the artist who creates the masterpiece.

Dave Rice

Do you guys have too much time on your hands...
 

Everyone... this is good information but is now starting to get beyond understanding the limitations of your tools of choice. I don't think we took the JVC 100 and other HDV cameras through this much subjective testing and discussion last year.

I mean in the final analysis how many of you are going to project your HV20 footage on a 60 foot screen?? Not many. And no one watches television, HD or what have you, 6 inches away from a monitor. (The 200% blowup is out of context in my opinion)

Even if you're concerned about losing detail through post grading and correction and effects I'm sure for $1100 this camera will shine. Especially because it cost $1100.

If you need more quality and detail than this, spend more money or rent an F950 Cinealta.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Now back to our show "Subjectivity" here on DVInfo.

Cheers.

Your statement is correct to a point - but it does matter to understand the artistic tools you are using more fully. You can give an artist a paintbrush and blue paint, but you can't tell him to paint you something red. I think everyone has done a remarkable job in more fully documenting exactly what can take place using Cinemode, and this wider knowledge will help others understand their HV20 much better technically so that they can create their masterpiece. And as David, yourself, (and others) have rightly pointed out - it may be time to move on now and go and create with what we do have. It's all good!!!

...and be surprised at how similar the level of detail actually is.

Or rather allowing it to be trashed by the subsequent HDV compression, by not overhyping it to the point that it crosses over the threshold of what image information HDV tries to preserve.

(not that I have proof of that, but it's what seems most likely to me)

-Stu

Amen!! Now that's what I'm talking about!!!

Yeah, I was surprised.... And I'm changing gears again. After more thought, and after rendering to a Standard DV 29.97 wide screen file from the 24P material in a test last, I am backing up, and have decided to shoot it in 24p. It still looks fine that way. They'll get their 29.97, and I'll get a more filmic look. Cine mode will be in on some scenes too... expecially outdoor sunny extreme latitude scenes, where I think Cine mode is more valuable than in low light situations..

Well, while some argued that the differences in the images of the original post of this thread were too drastic to be only attributable to CINE MODE, I must say I have experienced very similar results. And such an immense loss of detail is probably unlikely to be caused by HDV compression.

I'm sure the compression has something to do with it but I think it's more plausible that Canon simply did a sloppy port of their CINE MODE from the A1, where the 'softening' worked perfectly with little to no loss of detail because it was finetuned for the A1's CCD's.

How about this (and maybe it has already been done...if so sorry i missed it)..can someone with an A1 run the same comparison in their preset #8 (not sure if it's called Cinemode)? I believe all the settings for this mode in the A1 are listed somwhere on this site (I have seen it a few times myself but don't know where to find it). This would tell us if Canon did a "poor job" of implementing it in the HV20. Just a thought....or is it overkill?

I know that this was asked early on in these postings, but weren't there some HV20 owners here that also owned the Intensity (Pro) card that could actually test without any compression for us? I called a local video supply store here in Dallas, TX (the only store that Black Magic lists are carrying their Intensity cards here in town) to buy an Intensity card and all they had in stock was the Intensity Pro and I couldn't see spending the extra hundred for it.

Yeah because being a consumer camera, having lower quality smaller glass, and a single bayer pattern CMOS chip would have nothing to do with it at all of course.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I sent them to Stu...

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

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."

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.

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.

Thanks Cal

UPDATED:

Please shoot cinemode with custom setting contrast +1 and there will not be any loss in detail but still less contrasty then TV mode.
If u shoot cinemode with custom setting and contrast 0 there is definitely a loss of detail.

This is my last post on the matter. As I am writing this, I am sitting in front of my HDTV and watching "Syriana" in HD. This movie in particular reminds me a lot of Cinemode's look. It has no real details, it's extremely bad on dark conditions but not too bad on highlights. Personally, I don't like that look. Not pleasing. Comparing Syriana to some new digitally-shot movies, it feels like it's 1991 all over again. I guess, one could shoot for that look on purpose though.

Is there an increase of detail by increasing the contrast setting?

http://www.12south.com/video/hv20/mo...e_contrast.mov

Personally, I love the look of cinemode. The colours, the extra detail you get from the increased dynamic range. As Eki has proven in some of his tests here, cinemode clips can be fixed in post. Shooting in AE, TV or Auto modes, you can't fix what's not there afterwards. For example if you've got a shot where there are clouds in the sky that are blown out, there is no way you'll be able to restore that detail. Likewise if you under expose to compensate, you'll end up losing detail in the dark areas. That's why cinemode is important to me.

In regards to the extra sharpness, remember you're all comparing still images here. The HV20 is primarally a video camera, not a still camera. Played back as video is that so called extra detail or sharpness really going to be that visible? I know if I was watching a movie, I would much rather see something like this http://osnews.com/img/vegas/2.png where the reflection in the window up in the top right corner is actually visible. As opposed to this http://osnews.com/img/vegas/1.png where there is hardly any reflection in the window at all. It's mostly just white. To me that's more of a consumer video look that I would rather avoid.

The only time I'll ever use TV mode is if I shoot something where I'll need a higher shutter speed, like for a slow motion style clip where each field will become an individual frame. The rest of the time the camera just remains set to cinemode.

Ha... that's what happens when you become more and more of a video techie...you start to have that critical eye of everything you watch. It's happened to me also...I can't just go to the movies anymore and watch a feature film without being critical on how it was filmed...I find myself saying.."look at all that grain"..."that scene is way too dark"..."what was the director thinking" "ohh...blown out highlights" etc....etc...

Thank God for my wife though...she brings me back down to earth with a big ol' "Shut Up Ian!!!" which leaves me with a pre-programmed response.."Yes Dear."...sadly...she's trained me well....

Of all HV20's modes, cine mode is the closest to RED output.

http://www.red.com/gallery-still.shtml

If you look at the stills at full resolution, you will see that the sharpness characteristic is very close to that of HV20 cine mode. There's just four times more pixels to play with.

CineForm captured at FS1 from intensity pro
F1.8 1/48 no ois

http://www.salatar.com/hv20chart/hdmi24pcf.psd
has 2 layers one Cine other tv.

Salah,
Many thanks for that!

The high contrast detail seems to be there pretty nicely in CINE, and has a tad bit more ringing in Tv.

Unfortunately, a bit difficult to judge what's happening with low contrast detail, though, since that bit of chart doesn't really have any.

Any chance of doing the same thing with an image that has subtle texture? Cloth, wood, etc.? Or maybe with the whole chart I used? I'd love to see the 4:2:2 HDMI rendition of the pure RED and GREEN circles.

Salah, yes thank you. That chart helps.. it doesn't show any drawbacks of CINE to me. Gives me more faith in CINE actually - the PSD histogram proves there is more latitude, which will help with post (as we've always believed).

I agree with Joseph, we need something with *very* subtle detail. A piece of cloth, or custom/recycled paper.

I'd do it myself, but my rented HV20 had to be returned early - Canon is taking their sweet time repairing mine. A month without...