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.

Nope, it's about all of the above.

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.
Ian, I understand what you're driving at, but it's misleading to label CINE mode as an "effect" ... its a bit more complicated than that. It offers greater lattitude, it tries really hard to stay at 1/48th shutter, it opens the aperture before using gain, etc. Unfortunately, it also loses low contrast detail.

>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 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.Eugenia, if you check some old post here and in other forums back in April when users started uploading their videos in Cinemode you will see a lot of footage and comments about it being less sharp. I can remember some footage taken in the NYC streets of people walking towards the cam..it just seemed so muddied compared to the straight up TV mode footage. When I got this cam in mid April I stayed away from Cinemode due to the footage I seen and the comments that were made. It has been a month now that I have been using this feature and found some use for it. So like I have said....Cinemodes effects have been well documented....even before you surfaced here about a couple of months ago.

What I've seen people try to "convince" themselves with is the sharpening of Cinemode within the cam...I have been stating for the last 4 months or so that the sharpening in Cinemode does not have any effect on the picture (at east not noticibley as much as in TV or Aperture Priority modes..try it yourself and see).

You say "Soften the picure too much" is the debate....too much for who...me? You? Joe Blow? It's an effect....a tool. I've seen some of your footage (they are all nice by the way)...but the next guy can probably argue againts my very subjective opinion of your videos and state that he thinks they are oversaturated...or overly sharpened.etc.....it's "ALL" subjective.

I "like" what Cinemode does to the picture...so it's not "too much" soft to "me." I didn't like it 5 months ago.

>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.<

There you have it..... You don't have any use for it.

Oh...I agree with you to a certain extent in regards to the "Film Mode." I believe everything comes into play. Lately I've seen Soap Operas with great shallow DOF and color grading....but...guess what>??? they still look like Soap Operas.... The 24P cadence does (IMO) have a lot to do with the "Film Look." It's the combination of all these techniques that gives it that dreamy like film look.

Ian, I understand what you're driving at, but it's misleading to label CINE mode as an "effect" ... its a bit more complicated than that. It offers greater lattitude, it tries really hard to stay at 1/48th shutter, it opens the aperture before using gain, etc. Unfortunately, it also loses low contrast detail.
ok...when I say an effect...what i mean is that it is a setting (Placed in there by Canon)...which comes directly from it's big brother cam. I believe it's the setting #8 on the A1. On the A1 cam it is obviously tweakable.....so you can not call that an effect.....in this cam (HV20) it's not tweakable....for me it's not diferent than clicking on the black and white preset.....or the "Sepia" preset....or the "Cinemode" preset. Kinda like what you see is what you get.

I know what you are saying though....it's not necessarily like color grading or dissolves etc...cause it actually tweaks more parameters of the picture....and you are right. But as i mentioned above...if it's more like a what you see is what you get function....then i treat it like an effect. You can't do much with it in cam....in post is another story.

Edit: LOL...I call this "The Glass Half Empty and Glass Half full Mode." I think we are just coming to the same conclusion but from different perspectives.....I concede...you're right.

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.

[...]

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.

Thanks for the recap Joseph. I don't think you can have #1 without #6 though, on any digital camera. More latitude = less contrast. It's a good thing, as the contrast we add later can be much more bitchin'

-Stu

>8) A good compromise setting for 24P "film" shooters who want the extra detail might be Tv 1/48th, NEUTRAL image processing,

What do you mean by "neutral"? How do you get that?

You guys are putting way too much on this. It isn't even an issue really. Why do you think nobody noticed it before? Because you are all making this out to be bigger then it really is. I mean look at how you are testing the images by putting them side by side. If you have to look that close to see the difference then is anybody just watching the footage going to notice anything?

You are all making this out to be some kind of problem when it isn't. The raw tap from the chip without the electronic sharpness is going to be soft no matter what camera you use. The reason why 4K is desired is because you can have the raw feed without any sharpness added at all and still have a clean image.

Canon actually had the vision to think what film makers usually want and that is a clean but soft image. In my opinion super sharp images are a curse of the computer game and flash generation who think video should be as crystal clear as a flash animation. If the HV20 didn't have a normal mode nobody would have ever had a problem with the softness of the Cinema mode.

Give me an image from a live HDMI capture and I will try to give you a result close to what you can get in a normal mode. I cannot beleive out of all the details in the image the tiny window in the background is going to be pointed out that the cinema image cannot be sharpened as much. Did it ever occur to anybody that the reason the window may be softer is because the DOF is slightly different for whatever reason due to a change in the shooting modes? Clearly that window is more of a focus blur and not jut raw detail.

There is no reduction in detail going on. There is no magic chip in the camera to perform a blur on the image. If there was it would be the first camera or hardware chip I have heard of to blur the image. Of course hardware blurring in the camera is going to be different then software blurring. Chances are the camera sharpens the video while it is still as a bayer pattern. The RGB image will be sharpened as it is created from the bayer pattern. This is something you could never do with a compressed HDV image that is already RGB or YUV. This is where you will still notice a little bit more detail in a sharp image from the camera and doing the sharpen yourself. If this slight edge in detail is your cup of tea then hey thats your thing I guess. If you want more detail with better control go out and buy a Cinealta F900 and quit trying to whine about a $1,000.00 camera not being perfect.

Amen Thomas! With much gratitude to those who have shared their test results with all of us, it's back to work for me...

-Stu

What do you mean by "neutral"? How do you get that?
In the "IMAGE EFFECTS" menu. Third option, after "VIVID."

I'm shooting another 48 Hour Film Project this weekend, using the HV20 with a Letus Adapter. In the last one, I shot in Cine mode. My feeling at the time was that color correction would be easier... Turns out we didn't have time to color correct, so this time I am going with TV setting, shutter at 1/60-- since the 48 Hour Film Project says " no 24p. I will let you know my impressions after that. I expect to lose some shadow detail shooting this way....

...since the 48 Hour Film Project says "no 24p."...

What? Then they should call it the 48 Hour VIDEO Project!

-Stu

Amen Thomas!

What he said ;-)


...Even though i agree that this is kind of silly nitpicking, I shot my own quick tests, these should clarify a bit which kind of artifacts we are dealing with when working with different settings. It's all a matter of picking what's important to YOU personally, and doing the best you can with that.

My workflow was the following: i took the raw .m2t to After Effects, and exported .psd files of all the frames i needed. On some of them, i did some simple curves adjustments and unsharp mask sharpening.

There's no additional compression in these images, only the HDV compression (I'm pretty sure Eugenia's "lossles video compression" is not really lossless) and of course the lossless .png compression of the final cropped images (crop to more manageable size was done preserving pixel per pixel detail).

Some detail has probably been lost when converting to RGB, but that should be minimal, and affect all the images the same way.

Here we go.

First, here's TV mode image at automatic settings. Highlights are blown out, and there's some clearly visible sharpening artifacts:

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

Here's TV mode exposed for highlights. the sharpening artifacts are still there, but there's good details in the highlights. Unfortunately, shadow areas are quite dark...

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

Here's Cine Mode at automatic settings. Some of the highlight detail is blown out, but we can see quite well in the shadows. Contrary to what i thought, there seems to be a tiny bit of sharpening also in this mode, seen i.e. at the balcony chair's legs near Otto The Cat's head. Also, when looking i.e. at the door details, it looks like the detail we get is about one pixel size - i wouldn't call that bad. The overall image looks less sharp than with TV mode.

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

Here's Cine Mode exposed for highlights. There's still some detail in the darker areas of the shot, and highlight areas are nice. This is how i would have taken this shot.

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

Next up: adjusted images

Here's the Cine Mode image with adjusted contrast only.

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

Here's the same image, with unsharp mask sharpening. Overall, this is rather close to the TV mode, IMO. There's some lost detail, visible especially in the shadow parts of the curtain. Note that i wasn't trying to make the image look "good", i tried to make it look like it was shot in TV mode auto exposure (the same goal as in my previous example, Not Pretty But Similar).

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

Here's highlights-exposed TV mode image adjusted to look like Cine Mode image. The overall look is quite close again, but there's a lot of noise, loss of detail and compression artifacts in the shadow areas, and the sharpening artifacts rear their ugly head. To me, this is a major turn-off, i find the sharpening in i.e. the balcony chair horrendous.

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

That's it - what's left is to pick your poison. *Lost detail in low contrast areas* versus *sharpening artifacts and noisy shadows / blown out highlights*.

It's all a matter of preference.

Edit: here's one more image - i took the highlight exposed Cine Mode image and the highlight exposed / curve corrected TV mode image, separated the luminosity part (lab color) and enlarged to 300% with nearest neighbour scaling. This comparision is of course a bit unfair for TV mode, because of the gamma adjustment which brought out the compression artifacts and noise. But it shows the compression-related loss of detail in cinemode, and the edge sharpening artifacts in TV mode quite well.

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

One more thing worth mentioning: all post sharpening in the examples so far has been done with simple algorithms, better looking results could probably be obtained i.e. with Virtual Dub's free warp sharp filter, or something like Focus Magic photoshop plugin (which is good but not free).

Eki thanks for that post.

As you can see when you sharpen the HDV cinema image it can get closer but it will never be the same. That is due to the fact that the camera sharpens a raw RGB image and that it sharpens it as it processes the image from the bayer pattern.

The realstream guys had the same issue with the modification to the DVX100. In that case however they were pulling a bayer pattern because of the pixel shift so they could work the sharpening back into the image during the image processing from conversion from bayer to RGB image. It really helped pull back in some sharpness.

To me your cinema image looks much better and more natural. It looks almost photographic although slightly soft. It really does down to personal choice though. Some people like me love the natural soft filmlike look of the cinema mode while others want the extra sharpness. Look at the comparison image for example. In photography there should be a natural transition between edges into the background. The normal image has too harse of an edge and isn't natural at all plus it creates a ring that shouldn't be there. For compositing the normal image will never have as clean of a key as a cinema image would. You will either have to live with a ring around your subject or mask the edges which already screams out fake composite. I learned from a compositor from ILM who told me that the edge should always look exactly the way it would in nature which means no sharpening or matte chokers. If you do have to use a matte choker make sure the edges look how they would if you photographed that subject in front of that background for real.

It needs to be said though that the cinmea mode is not killing or stealing detail. It is just that the normal modes add in a lot of sharpened detail which make the image look like it is more detailed. For a lot of consumers this is great because they may not want to sit around and adjust all their footage.

Again like I said however we really do have to give Canon props for having the vision to actually give film makers a choice on how they want their images to look. While the camera is aimed at the consumer market it is clear that Canon also wanted to tap into the budding film market as well.

So for any new people...

1. Cinema mode is softer which is the natural way it is supposed to be. It is not a reduction in detail but the lack of added electronic sharpness.
2. Normal modes are sharper because the DSP can work with the raw image to add sharpness to the raw image.

You choose which mode works best for you and which one gives the most pleasant look for you.

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.

Nope, it's about all of the above.

Lol

You've taken the words right out of my mouth. Above and below, all included with no exceptions.

Canon's cinemode is the best way to get it.

Thomas,
There is no "NORMAL" mode. ;-) That implies the CINE is an abnormal choice. There are several program modes, of which CINE is one.

Sorry I was just too lazy to write out all the other modes. :)

the 48 Hour Film Project says " no 24p.
You should be able to still shoot 24P and deliver it "telecined" in the 60i HDV stream. (That is to say, shoot in 24P mode, but edit it as 60i. Works great, keeps the feel, everybody's happy.) I think they just don't want to deal with the vagaries of a bunch of different formats.

There may be another reason for using Cinema mode for 24p shooting.

The reason why some people find 24p from digital cameras to not be as smooth as 24p from film cameras is due to the edge sharpness and DOF. unnatural sharp digital edges make 24p motion seem a little bit more jittery then film. It is a little bit more subtle effect something like how 24p animation with motion blur will always look better then 24p animation without motion blur. The soft natural edges of the cinema mode help transition each frame by not creating an abrupt sharp change in position. It is subtle but it can help.

Just another thing to keep in mind about the cinema mode if you plan on shooting 24p.

It needs to be said though that the cinmea mode is not killing or stealing detail. It is just that the normal modes add in a lot of sharpened detail which make the image look like it is more detailed.
Gonna have to call you out on this one, too. ;-)

I didn't want to believe it, but for whatever reason, CINE is trashing low contrast detail, real detail, not artificial sharpening.

Compare stock CINE mode footage to Tv footage with -1 SHARPNESS. The high contast details will be virtually identical (little to no ringing in the Tv image) but the Tv footage will have preserved more low contrast detail, generally yielding less MPEG-2 artifacts.

I wish it weren't so, but it is.

1. Cinema mode is softer which is the natural way it is supposed to be. It is not a reduction in detail but the lack of added electronic sharpness.
2. Normal modes are sharper because the DSP can work with the raw image to add sharpness to the raw image.

You choose which mode works best for you and which one gives the most pleasant look for you.

Exactly.

And i totally agree with everything else you wrote too ;-)

Gonna have to call you out on this one, too. ;-)

I didn't want to believe it, but for whatever reason, CINE is trashing low contrast detail, real detail, not artificial sharpening.

Compare stock CINE mode footage to Tv footage with -1 SHARPNESS. The high contast details will be virtually identical (little to no ringing in the Tv image) but the Tv footage will have preserved more low contrast detail, generally yielding less MPEG-2 artifacts.

I wish it weren't so, but it is.

http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Eki_cinemode_tvmode_comparision.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.

http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Eki_cinemode_tvmode_comparision.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..

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

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.

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.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!!!

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

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

I didn't want to believe it, but for whatever reason, CINE is trashing low contrast detail, real detail, not artificial sharpening.

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

You guys are putting way too much on this. It isn't even an issue really.... If you want more detail with better control go out and buy a Cinealta F900 and quit trying to whine about a $1,000.00 camera not being perfect.Amen!! Now that's what I'm talking about!!!

What? Then they should call it the 48 Hour VIDEO Project!

-Stu

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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.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.

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.

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_thumbs.php?gallery_type=0&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.

To me canned look right out of the box is kind of like paint by numbers while cinema mode is a blank canvas.

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 ;)

As far as I know there is no such thing as a hardware blur filter inside of a camera.
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/DigitalCinema/gallery_stillimages.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.

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.

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.


I sent them to Stu...

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

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

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."

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.

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.