It just occured to me (I'm not really much of a shooter, I'm a post guy) that aperture settings might affect focus. I know it definitely accounts for a shorter DOF, but isn't it also true that the more open the aperture, the softer the focus? I wonder how much of the difference in modes is attributable to differing f-stops?

Is everybody else also seeing that CINE footage seems to suffer the most visible MPEG-2 artifacts ... both color error noise and macro-blocking? Why in the world is this happening?

Conversely, though, CINE seems to have the most natural color response. Damn.

More testing, more testing.

Yup, if we could get TV mode's no in-camera sharpening with Cinemode's blunt colors, we would be in heaven. ;-)

I don't think the problem is the focus in the AE mode btw, from the pictures I saw it's sharpening artifacts that caught my attention regarding that mode, just like in auto mode.

Here's the chart I'm going to shoot. I'm going to try to be thorough and accurate with every mode.

http://www.12south.com/video/hv20/chart.jpg

P.S. My system is calibrated end-to-end so the color, while lab perfect, will be quite good enough to judge the merits of each mode.

One last test from me:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/comp3.png

The lower the shutter speed, the less noise exists it seems. I think shooting 24f with 1/48 TV mode is the best bet one has for *indoors* where the light is limited. For outdoor, the AE or P mode might be better. Under no circumstances I would go for Cinemode though.

As for color correction, I think that in this day and age we have tools to fix them, even if we are not shooting cinemode.

I had a long talk with my husband who is a prosumer photographer and has also studied some optics at the uni too. Apparently my tests, which indeed show that slower shutter has less noise, won't have the same results outdoors, or even if you... zoom in! In other words, in order to get the BEST quality out of an HV20, you need to spend an hour per shot going back and forth on your computer doing tests, because the camera does not let you control gain/aperture/exposure/shutterspeed all at the same time. I don't think that shooting and checking stuff all the time on a PC screen before deciding on the best settings is realistic.

Now, what's interesting is that while the user does not have access to the these controls, the *camera software* does.

And this is why shooting on P/Auto, which it might not *always* be the best, but it will be in most cases. If you don't like the contrasty video look, buy a $30 contrast filter, and you are done. Under no circumstances I would use Cinemode though.

Eugenia and Joseph, wow, thank you for your tests. I was a believer in CINE mode up till 5 minutes ago. My HV20 has been gone nearly a month now - warrenty (different problem) - when it returns, I promise I'll do my own tests, with an UNCOMPRESSED digital capture of the signal.

Regardless though, I think CINE mode is out for me.. I desire every ounce of resolution my HV20 can provide.

Thanks again!

I know this isn't completely scientific, but it works in the context of my video work (since I'm not a professional), but I took the nice color image Joseph provided and printed it out on 5x7 High Premium Glossy Epson Photo Paper. Then connected the Component Out (RGB) of the HV20 and connected that to my HDTV, then also had the firewire connected to the PC using HDVSplit for viewing on my monitor, then used the photo to compare what I saw on the HDTV to what I saw on my monitor and made a few minor color/setting adjustments to my pc monitor so that it came much closer to matching my HDTV.

Now before everyone jumps on this method, I am using the HDTV as my given standard to go by since I think that the Discovery HD Theater programs all look very well color-balanced when playing back as well as all the DVDs I play. So if I can match my footage to look like what I already think looks great on the HDTV, then my footage will be good for me. And having my pc monitor better match the HDTV now puts me closer in the ballpark of consistency. Anyway...this is all subject for another post.

So...I spent time going through all the different settings on the HV20 and came to these settings as looking best overall.

TV mode
AWB (or set it manually)
Custom Effect OFF (or)
Custom Effect:
Color Depth = 0
Sharpness = +1
Contrast = -1
Bright = 0

Now the interesting kicker is that when I switched the camera back to FULL AUTOMATIC - the results were very near identical. In other words, full auto actually does look suprisingly good for a set and forget setting. But I definitely came to even more conclusions that I DO NOT want to ever be using Cinemode ever again, it just softens the image too much. Now...you can get a very "slight" flavor of the Cinemode contrast if you use the NEUTRAL setting in the Image Effect. It's not anything drastic like Cinemode does to the contrast within an image, but it leans more in that direction.

Very interesting Nathan, thanks. However, you might want to draw a long cable and shoot with the HV20 outdoors while still watching the signal on your HDTV. My husband said that outdoors the TV mode *might* not be the best mode, but rather the P or AE. Although it indeed seems that the lower the shutter speed, the best the quality.

Very interesting Nathan, thanks. However, you might want to draw a long cable and shoot with the HV20 outdoors while still watching the signal on your HDTV. My husband said that outdoors the TV mode *might* not be the best mode, but rather the P or AE. Although it indeed seems that the lower the shutter speed, the best the quality. Thanks for that bit of additional insight and advice. I guess I should have mentioned that my settings were for indoors. Yes, I would think that once outdoors the equation lends itself to change, but if there is any definite in all that has been shared today amongst ourselves - it's that Cinemode is a NO GO MODE. :o)

...Stu is a sucker for color grading...

True. Me and the entire film/television industry.

Interesting tests.

-Stu

I am a sucker too: http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/08/08/color-grading-tutorial/
However, clarity of picture is every bit as important. ;)

Stu,
Care to share some thoughts on why you chose CINE over Tv on your recent shoot?

Euginia,
Yeah, the AUTO mode and strong natural light don't mix all that well. Oversaturated colors and blown-out highlights are what I've noted. Maybe Tv mode with a contrast filter and and ND filter (or 2) will be the answer.

With any luck I'm going to do the more careful, comprehensive testing today. I'm going to use a lot of well balanced light.

Stu,
Care to share some thoughts on why you chose CINE over Tv on your recent shoot?

I did, here (http://prolost.blogspot.com/2007/08/taming-toy.html).

-Stu

Thanks, Stu. yes, I had read your entry previously. I was curious if there was anything other than the gamma response that attracted you to CINE. What's your opinion on the apparent low pass filtering and poor compression that's going on?

My opinion is that I need to do some tests of my own. What it looks like to me is that the HDV compression, which is significant, is clobbering the high frequency detail in CINE MODE. It seems to me that Auto mode adds enough sharpening that the heavy compression has a harder time obliterating it.

An interesting test would be to compare the modes via HDMI out, so we could take HDV's gnarly compression out of the equation.

I'm not convinced that any softening is being added by CINE MODE, but that's just a hunch.

One downside of sharpening in post is that it happens after compression, wheras the camera's sharpening happens before.

I realize that tack-sharp images are or paramount importance to some people, but if I were one of them I a) wouldn't be shooting with a 35mm adapter and b) wouldn't be shooting to a highly compressed format with a sub-$1K consumer camera.

-Stu

I did 53 set-ups this morning, including a reference file from a DSLR. Gonna take me some time to edit and compile, but when done, I'll post here.

Alas, I could not record via HDMI, but I was able to monitor it via HDMI at 1080P, and I think that there might be something to Stu's theory about the compression sucking away the low contrast detail ... that's definitely a common side-effect of MPEG/JPEG style compression schemes.

Still, I think people will be able to garner alot about the different characteristics of the different modes, even with the HDV compression. I'll post as soon as I can, but I want to do this right. ;-)

It seems unlikely that the cinemode is really lowering resolution. Typically like cameras a lot of pp sharpening is applied to make the picture look sharper. But looking at Nathan's pictures that's not the case (there's definitely resolution loss).

So did anyone check if the gain is equal? If you crank up the gain I can see the CCD sensor would capture more resolution yet also more noise (and you can clearly see additional chroma noise in some of the posted pictures)?

So I'm curious how does the comparison look like in bright sunlight? Are the resolution results still that different?

Luc

Stu, please post your findings when you do your tests. Either here, or on your blog. Thanks.

To evaluate yourselves in full mode, here is the normal picture:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/1.png
and here is the cinemode one:
http://osnews.com/img/vegas/2.png
The pictures are true 1:1, but they are not 1920x1080 just because I grabbed my visible screen while having frame-by-frame paused a progressive LOSSLESS version of the video rather doing it inside Vegas which does not let me grab in 100% quality/size (so I had to export in lossless first and then grab my screen).

I took the cinemode image you posted and adjusted the contrast and added some sharpness and it ended up looking much closer to the normal image.

I really do (at least from these samples listed above) think it is just a lack of electronic sharpness that is going on here. I will try some of the other images.

For what it's worth as a visual effects artist I have always shot video with the sharpness turned all the way down or off. To me it create the most raw image I can work with for FX work. I would rather have a soft raw image to key then one with a black or white ring around my subject.

I have to give props to Canon for at least having the vision to think of giving people the option of having as close to a raw mode as you can get with a HDV camera.

I have seen unprocessed film footage and it isn't pretty either. In fact even a lot of Hollywood SD DVD's will be sharpened because after the film transfer they still are not sharp enough. I remember similar threads with the JVC HD100 camera. In it's normal settings the images looked sharp but you could tell there was a lot of sharpening going on in the camera. With the electronic sharpness turned off the image became super soft almost out of focus looking. No the JVC camera was not softening the footage either. It is just how a chip readout looks like in it's raw form. The SONY Z1 has the same thing going on. Most people will tell you who have tried it that if you turn the sharpness off on the Z1 the footage becomes almost too soft to use. The fact that the HV20 still looks like a nice HD image even with the sharpness turned off says a lot about the level of raw detail from the chip.

>it ended up looking much closer to the normal image.

Well, upload the fixed image so we can conclude that ourselves too. IMO, this is lost detail, not recoverable, no matter what sharpen algorithm you use. Please, prove me wrong. :)

I really do (at least from these samples listed above) think it is just a lack of electronic sharpness that is going on here.

Unable to test my own cam, and rather using what I've seen here, I agree.

The HDV encoding happens AFTER the CINE mode (or after the footage would be sharpened, or not). RAW IMAGE > PROSESSED BY CUSTOM SETTINGS (incl Tv or CINE mode) > HDV compression. If it's not sharpened before it gets hit by HDV compression, it'll be gone - though it was there.

The HDV encoder is thinking "nah, there's not enough detail there.. they won't notice - lets make that area one large mass of blur to save data space in case I need it for the next frame of footage".

We need to find out if it's the HDV compression that's causing this! Someone needs to bypass HDV and do an HDMI LIVE capture for this to be proven!

Here's what I think.

If the HV20 (and maybe other HDV cams) work with the same principle as Wiki describes for DV cameras, then the following is true:

"To avoid aliasing, optical low pass filtering is necessary (although not necessarily implemented in all camera designs). Essentially, blurry glass is used to add a small blur to the image. This prevents high-frequency information from getting through and causing aliasing. Low-quality lenses can also be considered a form of optical low pass filtering.

Sharpening is often used to counteract the effect of optical low pass filtering. Sharpening can be implemented via finite impulse response filters."


This would mean that the 'in-camera sharpening' is actually necessary to get a decent image. HV20's CMOS is bigger than 1920x1080 so a soft image from a higher resolution that is sharpened as compensation for its bluriness and then downscaled to 1920x1080 would actually preserve detail that would otherwise be lost by downscaling an image that's slightly blurred and low contrast in the first place.

Well, upload the fixed image so we can conclude that ourselves too. IMO, this is lost detail, not recoverable, no matter what sharpen algorithm you use. Please, prove me wrong. :)

Here's what i ended up with simple curves adjustment and smart sharpen filter in Photoshop:

http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Cinemode_curves_and_sharpen.png

Not ALL of the detail is as sharp, probably due to the compression. But i'd say it's close enough.

Personally, my eyes hurt when watching overly sharpened imagery, i'd be perfectly happy with much softer images than cinemode without sharpening, as long as i can keep my highlights intact for color correction, and my edges fringe free ;-)

To me, cinemode was the number one reason for getting this cam, and i haven't changed my mind yet...

It was rather easy to make this Cine Mode shot look similar to the TV mode shot. But it would have been simply impossible to do it the other way - one can't get back the detail from blown out highlights, and getting rid of the sharpening artifacts (fringe, ringing) in the edges is very hard if not impossible too.

So, it's cinemode all the way for me ,-)

The SONY Z1 has the same thing going on. Most people will tell you who have tried it that if you turn the sharpness off on the Z1 the footage becomes almost too soft to use.

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.

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/Cinemode_curves_and_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.

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!

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.

- 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.

Here's the difference. Negligible.

http://www.12south.com/video/hv20/modes/difference.png

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

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

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

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

-Stu

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.

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

http://vettaville.com/images/canon%20hv20%20sharpness%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.

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

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

> 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.

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/Cinemode_curves_and_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.

stu, i'm out and about right now, but i'll double check my links when i get back.

I am sorry Ian, but that just doesn't make any sense. Look at the treated image (and I have seen this problem on my own tests too):
http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Cinemode_curves_and_sharpen.png
Look at the wood at the bottom and see how much it has noise-color. There is one big patch of grey in there (that also exists in the original cinemode picture, it's just that it's not as visible yet just because the colors/contrast were not boosted yet), so I doubt that this is "cinematic". It's more of a bad blur to me, with fewer colors.

Look. We can go on with this for ever and ever. I *ask* anyone around here, especially Stu who has a lot of experience with color grading, to get this cinemode image: http://osnews.com/img/vegas/2.png
and make it look as good as possible. And then get the original auto image ( http://osnews.com/img/vegas/1.png ), and try to "fix" it too. And then, we can decide if treated cinemode is better than treated Auto or TV mode.

Use your own outdoors or otherwise well-lit picture too if you don't like mine. Offer us, the previous, after, in both cinemode and auto/TV mode.

At this point, I have made up my mind against cinemode, but what I am waiting to see is ACTUAL WORK from the pros to treat the image as they would their own movie/image for a professional job. Because, at the end of the day, the FINAL cut is what matters. That's what people are going to see.

So, surprise me.

Eugenia,

I like the cinemode image as it is, "unsharp" and all. I understand that you want to sharpen cinemode images so it is as sharp as auto mode, but it's not as simple as picking low hanging fruit.

The second image (http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Cinemode_curves_and_sharpen.png) has been sharpened post-HDV compression, whereas auto mode has been sharpened before hitting the HDV compression. Trying to get the images (cinemode and auto) to have same or similar sharpness is a fruitless endeavor. This has been mentioned in the past posts, so I don't see the debate over whether one needs to use cinemode or not. If you feel sharpness is most important to use, then use TV mode. If you want added latitude and zero sharpening artifacts, then cinemode is the logical choice. This is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too... perhaps it is... HDMI uncompressed might provide such.

Hey everyone, I've been growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of sharpness in the image details with the HV20 - using Cinemode all the time, so I thought I'd do a quick check to see if Cinemode was softening the image and boy was I suprised. Check out the comparison pics I posted.

http://www.vettaville.com/canon_hv20_cinemode_softness.htm

That said, mon ami, you found grosso modo the difference between le cinéma et la video . . . That's why this Canon, more than a videocamcorder, it is a true cine camera. Its price is just an addvalue, a democratic one. Not a liability. And the camera is still a cine camera, anyways. To be or not to be a little one (consumer) is completely irrelevant. It's the juice what counts. This kind of juice counts.

I have the perfect (and true-life) analogy for all of the differing opinions regarding Cinemode...it's like unto a painting, some like to see the painting - others like to see the brush strokes. For me, I like seeing the finer brush strokes because the overall painting will still always be there to look at. If you can have both the fine details and overall image, that's more of a plus than just overall image alone. But as we all know, artistic and visual perception of what we find appealing is all individually subjective.

Joseph, thank you for your work in putting those images up - I agree, the JPEG format is fine at 100%. There is just too much information there to process, but I think we've concluded you really do have less detail with CINE mode using the standard in camera HDV recordings. Surprised we didn't all notice before, but thank you all for posting. CINE mode is out for me. Perceived attitude was why I used it.

Well said Nathan. If detail was not as important, cameras like the 4k digital ultra-sharp $20,000 RED wouldn't be considered as the next big thing in cinematography that it's here to kill off the $120,000 panavision film cameras.

As I mentioned in another forum using cinemode is no different than a professional (or whatever) using his/her favorite external filter on their cams. Some add certain colors..softens the image with less finer detail.....helps with latitude etc... etc. Bottom line... it's an effect. Love it or hate it.....it's what you do with it that counts. We all knew from day one that Cinemode softens the picture.....but...that's what its supposed to do. So..what's the debate about????? Cinemode is not for everything....but it is a rather nice effect on the image and very useful for "certain" things.

When Pros use some of those Tiffen..ProMist..softening filters on their lens...don't they do the same thing????...soften the picture???....taking away facial blemishes..wrinkles...etc???....These are things you can't get back in post....yet professionals use these filters all the time.....what makes Cinemode any different??? It's a tool...among many other types of tools. If you don't like it...don't use it. If you use it on everything you shoot.....then you will get sick of it.....human nature .....right?

>We all knew from day one that Cinemode softens the picture

I am sorry, but this is not true. We have had many forum posts about people who were claiming that this was not true. They were simply not accepting the fact.

>So..what's the debate about?

That cinemode softens the picture too much and that detail is NOT recoverable in post.

And for me, I see no real reason to use cinemode. As soon as I color grade it, I end up with the Auto/TV picture, so I just don't see the reason of shooting in cinemode in the first place.

IMO, the "film look" is not about 24fps, or shutter speed, or contrast, or latitude or grain. It is about DOF and shallow focus and how well lit your subject is. That's all there is to it, everything else is a myth and an old perception. And this camera can't do good DOF without a 35mm adapter. Everything else is fixable in post, so as a filmmaker, all I am interested is a 35mm adapter and I am good to go. I just don't see cinemode as a good shooting mode.

1) I fixed the incorrect link Stu found. (If anybody notices any others, let me know.)

2) One thing I learned from the tests is that the -1 option for all of the image options is the "true" setting, or as close to the true, unaltered signal as you can get from the cam. Going up to 0 usually yields a more or less natural result, but +1 almost always looks artificial.

3) It's not correct to imply the CINE mode is just an artistic tweak. Neither is it mana from heaven. Nor is it from the devil. Each of the modes is a whole collection of settings, some of which aren't attainable any other way. Each one requires certain compromises. Some settings record more detail, CINE records more lattitude, and is less likely to be accidentally blown out. Nothing subjective about that, it's just what it is on a sub $1k consumer camcorder.

4) HDV sucks. Big surprise! ;-) These tests really drove it home for me though. The image I monitored was so much better, makes me want to cry what HDV is doing to the little wonder's image.

5) CINE is not lacking in true high frequency detail. Adjusted for the same levels, high contrast areas are virtually identical between modes.

6) CINE mode loses mid to low frequency detail (contrast.) Whether this is because of a design decision on the part of Canon that is inherent in the signal, or if it is merely the fact that low contrast details are being obliterated by MPEG-2 compression is not entirely clear yet.

7) I REALLY wish I could record via HDMI. If there is anybody who can, I'm sure that we would all love to knew definitively if the loss of low contrast detail in the CINE mode picture is an intentional filter, or an artifact of HDV compression. This is a really big deal to me.

8) A good compromise setting for 24P "film" shooters who want the extra detail might be Tv 1/48th, NEUTRAL image processing, and all image settings set at 0. Just have to watch your exposure closely.