Some early spring exterior shots of Michigan comparing Cinetone and the normal setting of the Sony VG20:
Spring in Michigan, Sony VG20 Cinetone tests - YouTube


The Cinetone setting isn't useless - it's clearly doing something - but what exactly it is doing is anyone's guess. Def darker looking, and perhaps the blacks are a little crunchier. Didn't think it added any noise, which was my major concern about using the setting.

Shot in 24p, no color correction, and all settings otherwise equal. One cool thing about the menu system on the VG20 is that it remembers where you last were - making it easier to switch back and forth between normal and cinetone.

I can't really see much difference, even in the blacks. I wouldn't be surprised if the cinetone setting was quickly made preset from Sony which consisted of the same settings as the normal preset.

What matters to me is the colour space and settings, which unfortunately Sony will not change for the better on this camcorder.

True, although to be fair, none of the large sensor 8 bit video cameras on the market today (save for the $16,000 Canon C300) have a better on-board color space - they're all 4:2:0.

Now, you can use an outboard recorder to get 4:2:2 with the AF/FS100 and the F3, but you (may) be able to achieve the same with the VG20 - it does have clean HDMI out - so it is possible.

I don't have a Ninja, so I can't test as to whether the signal is true 4:2:2 or not.

But I agree - the Cinetone setting doesn't do much, one way or the other. In the end, you're buying this camera knowing the limitations. I'll say one thing, it handles highlights far better then some (far more expensive) video cameras do.

True, although to be fair, none of the large sensor 8 bit video cameras on the market today (save for the $16,000 Canon C300) have a better on-board color space - they're all 4:2:0.

Now, you can use an outboard recorder to get 4:2:2 with the AF/FS100 and the F3, but you (may) be able to achieve the same with the VG20 - it does have clean HDMI out - so it is possible.

I don't have a Ninja, so I can't test as to whether the signal is true 4:2:2 or not.

But I agree - the Cinetone setting doesn't do much, one way or the other. In the end, you're buying this camera knowing the limitations. I'll say one thing, it handles highlights far better then some (far more expensive) video cameras do.

I didn't know you could directly record from the HDMI, does the equipment to do so cost a lot of money? (providing its 4:2:2)

I was the one who posted a comment about the lens, I really like the shallow DOF and the bokeh. Do you adjust the apature on the FD lens it self? Im considering buying the same one but im just wondering, there are other FD lenses with larger apatures, surely these would have even better shallow dof or am I wrong?

Chris, far as an outboard recorder goes, I think the cheapest rig that actually works is around a grand. Ninja's a grand, but you still need a hard drive:
ATOMOS Ninja 2.0 Video Hard Disk Recorder ATOMNINJA002 B&H Photo (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=816082&Q=&is=REG&A=details)

Far as the lens goes, the apeture is as actually broken on my lens - it's stuck wide open... which is where you want it for biggest DoF. This is where having a relatively slow (3.5) lens helps when shooting outdoors - you don't need a ND filter as much.

Far as the quality of the bokeh, I agree, it's really creamy - very pleasing (for whatever reason) to the eye. Not bad for $50.

I have another FD lens (a F2.8 28mm) where the apeture is broken. Doesn't bother me in the slightest as I tend to almost always shoot wide open any way.

And you won't find too many zooms w/ larger aps - 3.5 is pretty fast for zooms back in the day.

What I was saying, would this the lens here
Canon FD 50 mm F 1.8 Lens | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/ctg/?_pid=101727249&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1428))
be better for shallow depth of field or would the one below
Canon 35 -105mm F3.5 FD - Very Nice! | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-35-105mm-F3-5-FD-Very-Nice-/130669265890?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1e6c7ec3e2#ht_500wt_1202)

Well... "Better" is a very subjective thing when it comes to depth of field as well as the quality of bokeh.

Faster lens make it easier to achieve shallow DoF, but tele lens can also help. That's why slow wide angle lens typically have large DoF, where fast tele lens don't.

Remember too that the Sony's sensor means your magnify what ever lens you are using by .5 - so, the 50mm you mention would perform as a 75mm (which should be more than fast/long enough to get you a very shallow DoF).

But, as the video shows, I'm getting very shallow DoF with the zoom you mention. Fact is, getting that look is relatively easy with a large sensor camera, esp using a 50mm or longer lens. But it's not just the amount of bokeh that will be an issue, it's the quality of that bokeh.

Some lenses will have a very angular, harsh, bokeh. Others, a nice creamy look that's almost dreamlike. A lot of factors can affect this, from number of blades and glass elements, as well as lens coatings. That 35-105mm zoom has crazy nice bokeh, whatever it's other features might be.