UPDATED:

Please shoot cinemode with custom setting contrast +1 and there will not be any loss in detail but still less contrasty and slightly softer then TV mode. It appears to be more accurate and no loss in detail.
If u shoot cinemode with custom setting and contrast 0 there is definitely a loss of detail.

That would be great, will test this today thoroughly! I'm sceptic though, as I notice such a huge loss of detail in some cases, it would be amazing if it'd all come back by upping the contrast.

I would appreciated to a see a comparaison between these 2 settings:

Cinemode with:
- Contrast +1 (to call back some details sharpened by the too high low contrast of the Cinemode),
- Sharpness +1 (to call back some details not enhanced between the raw sensor caption and the sharpness digital processing of the final picture),
- Brightness +1 (to call back some details in the dark areas, and because I think, IMHO, that the highlights are too much down giving a 'too much sad' image).

'Normal' mode with:
- Contrast -1 (to minimize the too much video style of the picture and to approach (just a little...) the Cinemode),
- Sharpness -1 (to approach too the Cinemode; people willing the more details as possible can stay at Sharpness 0),
- Brightness -1 (to avoid the lost of details as much as possible in the burned highlights of the 'normal' mode, and to avoid to much noise in the dark areas).

In every case, these 2 settings will not avoid corrections in post-prod, but maybe, depending of the personnal tastes of each of us, they will be more close to what can expect the majority of us, and they will permit us to spend less time in the post-prod process...

PS: It would be interesant too to test these settings in 24p and in 60i (or 25p and 50i) to see the real impact of each of the 'p' mode vs the 'i' mode, because I think that a part of the too strong softness report by some people are due too to the 'progressive' mode. But in which proportion?

You can look at my tests to see all -1. I didn't do all +1 at once, but I did do them individually.

If you want to do post, +1 should be avoided. It's quite artificial in all modes.

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

Also,
I did some tests of P versus I, and the sharpness was essentially the same, BUT, it took the camera much longer to focus.

Also,
I did some tests of P versus I, and the sharpness was essentially the same, BUT, it took the camera much longer to focus.

Thanks a lot for the screenshots. I wonder why are these sizes 856x879? Sorry if this was already answered in the other thread.

There's also a color depth setting and not sure what it does (probably gamma which probably would result in loss off mid-tone detail).

- They've been cropped to include just the chart, but they are full resolution, no scaling.

- COLOR DEPTH is essentially SATURATION. It's not directly related to gamma.

I just did a quick test and the +1 contrast DOES seem to bring back most, if not all of the detail.

However, this makes CINE MODE a lot less useful since the resulting image looks almost identical (at least on my cheap test monitor) to the TV mode -1 contrast image.

You can look at my tests to see all -1. I didn't do all +1 at once, but I did do them individually.I don't see the individual case Cimode with brightness +1.
And I woukd like to see all at +1 (to compare withe AE normal mode all at -1).

If you want to do post, +1 should be avoided. It's quite artificial in all modes.I many of us (I think...), I would like to have a 'not perfect but quite good' setting to minimize the time spend in post-prod for the majority of the footages, and, why not, to avoid any post-prod for the non important footages.

- I didn't do comprehensive tests with all of the image settings, just sharpness and contrast.

- "-1" is the most natural for ALL settings. "0" usually looks natural enough, "+1" looked artificial in every case to me. I'm saying more most cases leave the settings at -1, and for cases where you feel you need to emphasize, go up to 0.

If you don't like the +1 settings on the Cinemode I understand that you don't want to spend time on it.

Can somebody-else do a test with the 3 setting at +1 on the Cinemode (on comparaison on the same scene in Normal AE mode with the 3 settings at -1)?

Could be done not on colored charts but on real scenes...

Thanks by advance.

Which three settings? I did SHARPNESS and CONTRAST.

+1 yields ugly, artificial results in every case, I'd pretend it doesn't exist.

Joseph H. Moore,
You have provided +1 with Sharpness and Contrast, but separated, not combined.
And, personnally, I found test "Cinemode Sharpness +1" less sharp than the -1... (and I don't know on which basis, you can qualify this +1 as 'artificial').

So it's why I would like to see something else than charts, prefering real situations...

I'm going to do a better set-up today. Just for illustrative purposes I'll include all settings on +1 ... but it ain't gonna be pretty! ;-)

Here's the new set-up. It's got a little bit of everything in it, strong highlights, rich shadows, subtle textures, bold colors, subtle colors, etc.

I shot every different custom image setting through -1,0,+1 in both Tv and CINE mode.

I'm going to put them all together as one layered in Photoshop file, as that seems to be about the easiest way to compare.

(FYI, I'm heading out of town, so I might not be able to post it until late in the week.)

Joseph:

Great work, waiting for the your post.

Here's the new set-up. It's got a little bit of everything in it, strong highlights, rich shadows, subtle textures, bold colors, subtle colors, etc.I shot every different custom image setting through -1,0,+1 in both Tv and CINE mode. I'm going to put them all together as one layered in Photoshop file, as that seems to be about the easiest way to compare. (FYI, I'm heading out of town, so I might not be able to post it until late in the week.)

Was this photo of your new setup taken with the HV20 in camera mode, pulled live, or off tape? Really nice pic and I was curious.

- Complete set-up with notes uploading right now (109MB.) I'll post when it is ready.

- Nathan, That's a Nikon D40x image as a control. You'll see how it's noted in the PSD file. You'd have to move up to the RED ONE to get a digital image like that in a moving picture! ;-)

Here it is:

http://files-upload.com/files/434996/Still%20Life.psd.zip

Thinking a bit more about why it is so that the CINEMODE does not have much detail on dark spots of the picture, it could be because professional film makers have VERY BRIGHT lights when they shoot a film -- even if the film ends up having a "dark look" at the end like "The Matrix". And so, when shooting in a place where everything is bright, the camera is able to "see" more detail and yet not blow up these highlights.

If that's true, then cinemode is great for professionals film makers who have their own lighting people and equipment, and a bit of a bummer for those of us who don't but still want the same film look.

Thinking a bit more about why it is so that the CINEMODE does not have much detail on dark spots of the picture, it could be because professional film makers have VERY BRIGHT lights when they shoot a film -- even if the film ends up having a "dark look" at the end like "The Matrix". And so, when shooting in a place where everything is bright, the camera is able to "see" more detail and yet not blow up these highlights. If that's true, then cinemode is great for professionals film makers who have their own lighting people and equipment, and a bit of a bummer for those of us who don't but still want the same film look.Funny you should bring this up Eugenia, because I was looking at Stu's blog-site and looking at some of the pics of the raw and unprocessed footage that he says is often included in DVD extras...and it makes you realize just how bright and well lit many of those scenes are and then how much darker they look after their post treatment. I've seen other extra footage like this on DVD's I own and had also thought about just how much post processing actually takes place in the film-world, and I think you hit the nail on the head about lighting and Cinemode being used together.

In making this test set-up, I spent a good bit of time looking at the different settings live via HDMI on a 1080P display.

CINE mode's low contast detail is lacking, even before HDV compression. After HDV, it's even less.

I'm left with the impression that a high-pass filter is being applied in CINE mode (as well as SMOOTH SKIN and probably elsewhere.)

Eugenia and Nathan,
"Low contrast" doesn't equate only to "dark." The same lack of detail can be found in high key areas with low contrast. CINE already maps the image to a flat, difficult to blow-out gamma ... I don't see any evidence that the camera is doing anything more specific to the shadows. (Remember, MPEG-2 compression beats the hell out of shadows.)

Regardless. To get the best out of Cinemode you need really bright lights IMO (much more than auto mode that is). Which is feasible for professionals, but not always for Indies.

Regardless. To get the best out of Cinemode you need really bright lights IMO (much more than auto mode that is). Which is feasible for professionals, but not always for Indies.

After two 48 Hour Projects, shot in Cinemode, with a Letus35a 35 mm adapter, I can attest that Cinemode will perform better in brighter lighting conditions..... It is most difficult in many unlit situations, to get the shutter speed to 1/48 and keep it there. Failure to do so, will, in my opinion, further degrade the image...

Regardless. To get the best out of Cinemode you need really bright lights IMO (much more than auto mode that is). Which is feasible for professionals, but not always for Indies.

No.

You just need enough light to avoid using gain. Any additional light will not improve image quality.

Right. And how much enough is enough for each scene? Without a light professional on location you will never know. Indie filmmakers try to do a lot of things by themselves, but light and sound are two "beasts" that it's very difficult to get them right.

Eugenia,
We always seem to argue! ;-)

I don't see any evidence that CINE mode has better or worse low light sensitivity than other modes.

Movie sets are lit to resolve shadow detail for the same reason the film is exposed not blow-out highlights ... you can't recover/manipulate something that isn't on the neg.

Right. And how much enough is enough for each scene?

Umh?? Enough light to get the image you want without using gain. Enough for the current shot.

BTW, If the goal is to get as "filmic" images as possible, usually one gets *best* results (with video cameras, especially small ones like HV20) using as little light as possible - the reason for this is to get as open aperture as possible, for shallow depth of field...

Umh?? Enough light to get the image you want without using gain. Enough for the current shot.

BTW, If the goal is to get as "filmic" images as possible, usually one gets *best* results (with video cameras, especially small ones like HV20) using as little light as possible - the reason for this is to get as open aperture as possible, for shallow depth of field...

Not if you are using a 35mm adapter....

I don't see any evidence that CINE mode has better or worse low light sensitivity than other modes.

Movie sets are lit to resolve shadow detail for the same reason the film is exposed not blow-out highlights ... you can't recover/manipulate something that isn't on the neg.

Joe is right. Cinemode is nothing more than a flat Gamma Curve. All of the Professional HD Cameras have a "Cine" gamma setting. It affects some highlight and shadow detail as it was designed to do. Movie sets are lit to set a mood. The lighting dictates the mood, the depth of field, and what you see and what you don't want to see including blowing out highlights if need be.. Not the other way around. You start with a base exposure and light to that exposure/ Then some guys will open up a smidge on the camera for safety. Or a lot if they want a dense negative. There are many ways to do it but you've got to have a starting point. What's your base exposure.

Typically HD sensors are light hogs and do need more exposure so I sometimes open up 1/4 stop. That's not a rule of thumb. That's just me.

But that is very over simplistic. Whether you have 5k HMI's , a couple of Kinoflos or a small Lowell kit with 650's and a 1k it all starts with a light meter. And that starts with how your going to rate your film stock or in this case your camera setting. And if you don't know what I'm referring to then you might want to study up on how to use a light meter and achieve good exposure. Otherwise it is all a big guessing game. Which that is what seperates the professionals from the consumers. I know this is a consumer camera, but you guys seem to want it to look like an F950.

I'm sure this does not apply to the majority of the people on this forum, but when we start reducing terms (and our craft) to "Big Bright Lights", then you should hire a Gaffer, a couple of grips, and a 3 ton grip truck to make you look good. If not take a photography class, learn about exposure, get a light meter. You don't have to be a professional. And you don't always need big lights , just a good baseline exposure.

I'll shut up now.

Not if you are using a 35mm adapter....

In that case, if you already have enough, the additional light won't affect the resulting image in one way or another.

You add light - and then adjust camera's exposure to darken image... the result is the same.

Right. And how much enough is enough for each scene? Without a light professional on location you will never know. Indie filmmakers try to do a lot of things by themselves, but light and sound are two "beasts" that it's very difficult to get them right.
If that's what it takes to get the right picture then it just forces us to become better filmakers. I want to know how to manipulate light better to get the shot I need. I am greatful that they put this feature in this "consumer" cam.

Umh?? Enough light to get the image you want without using gain. Enough for the current shot.

BTW, If the goal is to get as "filmic" images as possible, usually one gets *best* results (with video cameras, especially small ones like HV20) using as little light as possible - the reason for this is to get as open aperture as possible, for shallow depth of field...Wouldn't this just add gain to the picture which increases grain? I would think you need as much light as possible but then start using ND filters to control the incoming light.

I want to know how to manipulate light better to get the shot I need.

This is a good place to start:

http://www.efplighting.com/

Wouldn't this just add gain to the picture which increases grain? I would think you need as much light as possible but then start using ND filters to control the incoming light.

As little as possible to get correct exposure / the image you're after without using gain. In some cases, it might be truckloads, in others just a 40W light bulb.

If you add a lot of light and then use ND the result is exactly the same as using less light in the first place.

***note: when i talk about "more light" and "less light" i talk only about the intensity of the light in a technical sense, not i.e. the amount of light sources***

This is a good place to start:

http://www.efplighting.com/
Thanks.it was really more rhetorical in nature...but good info anyways.

Just for the hell of it.
Have a Pre-release psd to keep interest up.

I’m going on Vacation; Stu has files, settings, and cam info....


http://www.salatar.com/hv20chart/hatediscontent.psd

the name of psd should give you my slant on it.

Salah,
Those green and red circles are things of beauty. A Blackmagic Design Intensity capture station is in my future!

btw, Salah, did you notice the BRIGHTNESS control doing anything?

Here's the new set-up. It's got a little bit of everything in it, strong highlights, rich shadows, subtle textures, bold colors, subtle colors, etc.

I shot every different custom image setting through -1,0,+1 in both Tv and CINE mode.Great job, Joseph.
Wait impatiently for the publishing of your results on your web site at the end of this week.
I feel now a little guilty to have push you. Hope you don't feel offended ;)

Bruno,
It's already done. You can download it here:

http://files-upload.com/files/434996/Still%20Life.psd.zip

You will need Photoshop, or another application that can read layered PSD files.

Link unusable (you have copied it as short text with its '...' inside instead of the corresponding long path text)

Fixed. It's also linked on page 2, btw.

http://www.salatar.com/hv20chart/charttest2.psd

guess Stu is to busy

Thanks for posting those, Salah. Did you happen to record to tape, as well. It would be interesting to compare of just one of the settings with the same shot after HDV compression.

I have to wait between posts
Sorry I dont recored to tape.
I either use a g1(hsdsi) or hv20(hdmi) to aja or BM via converters