HV20: Cinemode Softness (loss of image detail) Pic

Eugenia Loli-Queru · August 9th, 2007, 03:28 PM

Erik, I honestly don't see the point. Not only you indeed NOT recover any lost detail, but you lost MORE detail when you applied your contrast/sharpening. Here is my proof. Original cinemode image:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/2.png
Your modified cinemode image:
http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Cinem...nd_sharpen.png
Canon's Auto image:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/1.png

Notice the two windows on the building. The windows' details are very visible in cinemode because that shooting mode allows for such details (and that is the only good thing it has). But when you applied all the filters, all you ended up with is:
1. less detail in general, compared to auto
2. The same loss of detail on windows as with Auto mode.

So, I really don't see the point of Cinemode, sorry. You ended up with the same blow outs as in Auto, plus less detail in general.

As I wrote earlier, just buy a Contrast filter and an ND filter, and shoot either AUTO or TV mode -- depending on the situation. This will give you better quality than cinemode and it won't blow up the colors so you will still have the ability later to color grade with ease.

Joseph H. Moore · August 9th, 2007, 03:30 PM

Alright guys and gals, here it is:

www.12south.com/video/hv20/modes/index.html

Even though I've formed some strong opinions on what's going on after this test, for the moment, I'm going to hold my tongue and let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Any questions, let me know. If you really, really want a PNG of a particular set-up, let me know via PM.

Enjoy!

Eugenia Loli-Queru · August 9th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Joseph, thanks for all the hard work. However, I really don't like you saved them as JPEG though. It just won't help us make an evaluation, because JPEG's artifacts are very close to sharpening/mpeg2 artifacts in look. I am sorry for being anal about it since the beginning of the thread, but it's true. If you didn't have enough bandwidth/storage online, I could have helped. I also hope that you actually cropped the pictures rather than resizing them. Because if photoshop actually resized them instead, then the whole test is invalid, because this is not real frames we are seeing, but photoshop's algorithms.

My PNG pictures are unedited btw, grabbed from a lossless codec playback screen.

From what you have though, I still like the TV mode better.

Joseph H. Moore · August 9th, 2007, 03:49 PM

- Images are cropped. NO RESIZING. Exact pixels. Promise. I purposely didn't fill the frame with the chart so as to stay in the sweet spot. (The last set, the exposures, do use more of the frame, though.)

- The JPEG compression is VERY light. (If you like, I can post a difference image to show just how light.) The massive size increase to use PNG's just isn't worth it for a comparison of the same shot on the same camera. Because every take is compressed exactly the same way, minor JPEG artifacts or not, you can draw a valid conclusion between the any of the images as long as you are comparing within this group.

- If you want some particular shots as PNG's to study, just let me know. I can even make the transport stream available if you really want.

Joseph H. Moore · August 9th, 2007, 03:55 PM

Here's the difference. Negligible.

Stu Maschwitz · August 9th, 2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki Halkka

That is true - like you, i'm a visual effects guy, and i always shoot as low-contrast, sharpening free stuff as i can.

Except with Z1.

The footage is SO soft without sharpening that it's practically impossible to restore it decently after HDV compression.

So, i shoot with sharpening at 6 or 7 with that cam - luckily Sony's sharpening algorithm is really good, and there's not too much artifacting going on at this setting.

And that seems to be emerging as the real question here (to me anyway):

Given that this camera has so many factors that conspire to reduce detail, i.e. bayer filtering, low-pass filtering, and heavy compression, is some in-camera sharpening a good idea?

One question that then follows is, does CINE MODE take over the custom sharpness settings, or can they be used in conjunction with it? Could SHARPNESS be set to +1 in CINE MODE to get back a little detail?

And then the question would follow from there: Does this little bit of sharpening risk any ringing or other artifacting? Because while ringing makes video look "sharp," it also makes it looks like hideous video, especially when it gets converted to some other format, like film.

I ask all this in the context of CINE MODE rather than Tv mode, because my own testing and some I've seen here show unquestionably that the increased dynamic range of CINE MODE is something I'd hate to give up.

-Stu

Joseph H. Moore · August 9th, 2007, 03:58 PM

Stu,
I shot the different SHARPNESS settings in CINE. Check `em out for a first impression of what they do.

Stu Maschwitz · August 9th, 2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

Stu,
I shot the different SHARPNESS settings in CINE. Check `em out for a first impression of what they do.

Awesome! Looms like the first and third in that sequence link to the same image though. Could you check?

-Stu

Stu Maschwitz · August 9th, 2007, 04:07 PM

But I found the missing image by guessing the name. They kinda look the same to me—what do you think?

-Stu

Eugenia Loli-Queru · August 9th, 2007, 04:08 PM

Stu, I have seen tests of Cinemode in +1 sharpness. It's almost negligible, it does not bring any real detail, neither it makes the image terribly worse either. It's like being neutral to cinemode. Just use an ND and contrast filter to simulate cinemode.

Nathan Shane · August 9th, 2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Maschwitz

Could SHARPNESS be set to +1 in CINE MODE to get back a little detail?-Stu

http://vettaville.com/images/canon%2...%20capture.bmp

Here is a .BMP image I had posted here in the forum several weeks ago showing that the sharpness setting does indeed have an effect upon the image in Cinemode. I couldn't begin to answer about your other more technical questions, but at least I can definitely say that the sharpness setting does work in Cinemode. That's what I had been using originally: Cinemode with Sharpen +1 and I got used to capturing footage like this until this past weekend when I started re-evaluating everything.

I'm really keen on looking into Eugenia's suggestion of using at least a Low Contrast Filter Lens - though I'm not sure if an ND in addition to that would always be necessary, but I think she brings up a good alternative plan worth investigating.

Stu Maschwitz · August 9th, 2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

Just use an ND and contrast filter to simulate cinemode.

I wish it was that simple. Low-con filters are just broad diffusion. Not a bad idea, unless you're doing effects work. Also, the effect is very similar to what happens with 35mm adapters. But there's no replacement for real dynamic range.

-Stu

Stu Maschwitz · August 9th, 2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

So, I really don't see the point of Cinemode, sorry. You ended up with the same blow outs as in Auto, plus less detail in general.

I'm sorry, but this is a spurious conclusion. Eki's point was to show that if you add contrast back to a CINE MODE image, you increase the perception of detail. You can add contrast without clipping highlights, but that's not what he was trying to show. And even if your choice is to clip highlights, better to make that choice in post where you can control exactly how you clip, and then change your mind later!

Not everyone is obsessed with image sharpness. To some, other factors, such as color fidelity, are more important. That's OK, and it doesn't make you wrong for liking the crisp look of Auto mode.

Recently I spoke to a very well-known film DP who confessed that when he knows that a movie will have a 4K DI, he adds diffusion to the camera because he feels the 4K images show too much detail and make actors look unattractive! All these tests and charts and opinions ultimately boil down to information one should use to create images that evoke a particular feeling. This is a highly subjective process, and different folks will assuredly prefer different settings.

It's just too bad that this fun little camera so often puts us in the position of having to trade one feature for another.

-Stu

Eugenia Loli-Queru · August 9th, 2007, 04:45 PM

> if you add contrast back to a CINE MODE image, you increase the perception of detail

Yes, but not by much. Detail is not totally recoverable and I think everyone agrees to that.

> he adds diffusion to the camera because he feels the 4K images show too much detail

Yes, but the HV20 is not 4k. It is a consumer camera with quite some hard compression on it, and so the more detail we can squeeze out of it, the better it is.

> It's just too bad that this fun little camera so often puts us in the position of having to trade one feature for another.

Which is exactly why I will put up with the HV20 for 2-3 more years, and when AVCHD will have taken the market (simply because of its user convenience rather than picture quality) and the format/NLEs have matured more about AVCHD, and pro cameras have become more commoditized, I will put put down $4000 and buy a semi-pro camera that comes with a Canon lens adapter. By then, such cameras should be available for that price range.

Until then, it's TV mode for me, with 1/48 shutter speed on the HV20 for my music video clip work and 1/60 Auto for my travel/dog home movies.

Ian Holb · August 9th, 2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

Erik, I honestly don't see the point. Not only you indeed NOT recover any lost detail, but you lost MORE detail when you applied your contrast/sharpening. Here is my proof. Original cinemode image:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/2.png
Your modified cinemode image:
http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Cinem...nd_sharpen.png
Canon's Auto image:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/1.png

The first image looks the nicest. Very cinematic. Great image for film-out. If your final output is TV and DVD, then auto may be the best choice.

I think you're placing too much emphasis on sharpness. Overall picture quality... I'd give the edge to CINEMODE.

August 9th, 2007, 04:07 PM	#84
Stu Maschwitz DV Rebel Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 19	But I found the missing image by guessing the name. They kinda look the same to me—what do you think? -Stu __________________ theorphanage.com prolost.com

August 9th, 2007, 03:28 PM	#76
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	Erik, I honestly don't see the point. Not only you indeed NOT recover any lost detail, but you lost MORE detail when you applied your contrast/sharpening. Here is my proof. Original cinemode image: http://osnews.com/img/vegas/2.png Your modified cinemode image: http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Cinem...nd_sharpen.png Canon's Auto image: http://osnews.com/img/vegas/1.png Notice the two windows on the building. The windows' details are very visible in cinemode because that shooting mode allows for such details (and that is the only good thing it has). But when you applied all the filters, all you ended up with is: 1. less detail in general, compared to auto 2. The same loss of detail on windows as with Auto mode. So, I really don't see the point of Cinemode, sorry. You ended up with the same blow outs as in Auto, plus less detail in general. As I wrote earlier, just buy a Contrast filter and an ND filter, and shoot either AUTO or TV mode -- depending on the situation. This will give you better quality than cinemode and it won't blow up the colors so you will still have the ability later to color grade with ease.

August 9th, 2007, 03:30 PM	#77
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Alright guys and gals, here it is: www.12south.com/video/hv20/modes/index.html Even though I've formed some strong opinions on what's going on after this test, for the moment, I'm going to hold my tongue and let everyone draw their own conclusions. Any questions, let me know. If you really, really want a PNG of a particular set-up, let me know via PM. Enjoy!

August 9th, 2007, 03:39 PM	#78
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	Joseph, thanks for all the hard work. However, I really don't like you saved them as JPEG though. It just won't help us make an evaluation, because JPEG's artifacts are very close to sharpening/mpeg2 artifacts in look. I am sorry for being anal about it since the beginning of the thread, but it's true. If you didn't have enough bandwidth/storage online, I could have helped. I also hope that you actually cropped the pictures rather than resizing them. Because if photoshop actually resized them instead, then the whole test is invalid, because this is not real frames we are seeing, but photoshop's algorithms. My PNG pictures are unedited btw, grabbed from a lossless codec playback screen. From what you have though, I still like the TV mode better.

August 9th, 2007, 03:49 PM	#79
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	- Images are cropped. NO RESIZING. Exact pixels. Promise. I purposely didn't fill the frame with the chart so as to stay in the sweet spot. (The last set, the exposures, do use more of the frame, though.) - The JPEG compression is VERY light. (If you like, I can post a difference image to show just how light.) The massive size increase to use PNG's just isn't worth it for a comparison of the same shot on the same camera. Because every take is compressed exactly the same way, minor JPEG artifacts or not, you can draw a valid conclusion between the any of the images as long as you are comparing within this group. - If you want some particular shots as PNG's to study, just let me know. I can even make the transport stream available if you really want.

August 9th, 2007, 03:55 PM	#80
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Here's the difference. Negligible.

August 9th, 2007, 03:58 PM	#82
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Stu, I shot the different SHARPNESS settings in CINE. Check `em out for a first impression of what they do.

August 9th, 2007, 04:08 PM	#85
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	Stu, I have seen tests of Cinemode in +1 sharpness. It's almost negligible, it does not bring any real detail, neither it makes the image terribly worse either. It's like being neutral to cinemode. Just use an ND and contrast filter to simulate cinemode.

August 9th, 2007, 04:45 PM	#89
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	> if you add contrast back to a CINE MODE image, you increase the perception of detail Yes, but not by much. Detail is not totally recoverable and I think everyone agrees to that. > he adds diffusion to the camera because he feels the 4K images show too much detail Yes, but the HV20 is not 4k. It is a consumer camera with quite some hard compression on it, and so the more detail we can squeeze out of it, the better it is. > It's just too bad that this fun little camera so often puts us in the position of having to trade one feature for another. Which is exactly why I will put up with the HV20 for 2-3 more years, and when AVCHD will have taken the market (simply because of its user convenience rather than picture quality) and the format/NLEs have matured more about AVCHD, and pro cameras have become more commoditized, I will put put down $4000 and buy a semi-pro camera that comes with a Canon lens adapter. By then, such cameras should be available for that price range. Until then, it's TV mode for me, with 1/48 shutter speed on the HV20 for my music video clip work and 1/60 Auto for my travel/dog home movies.