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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Yes, to each their own. I tried shooting in 60i and quite simply, I really don't like it....at least for certain situations. The motion is so ugly and news like if you are doing any kind of filmmaking. Looks too much like home video to me. I just get that home video feeling when I see that motion. It's sharp and clear, but that motion ruins it for me when it comes to filmmaking. I honestly don't like shooting family videos with it either. I just am not a fan of that 60i motion.

Of course I got the camera for the film look and feel and 60i, in an instant, takes me out of that feel with the motion alone. Every movement of the camera or movement in front of it screams "home video".

I'd gladly take 30p over 60i. Even it looks more filmlike. To each their own. :)

Cory you and i would never agree you hate life like interlaced as much as i detest jerky soft progressive, but i have to say progressive from consumer cams like the HV30 does not look like proffesional cinema,we are 25p here but it does not work for me.
Anyway good luck with your filming all the best.

It isn't just about the camera. Progressive shooting is a totally different style of shooting. It isn't because professionals use more professional cameras it is because they themselves are more professional.

The professionals manage to put out poor stuff at times,but if it is not the cameras they could save us some money and and use cheap machines.Anyway i am amateur but with 40 years filming i know what i like as do others no doubt.