After checking this post http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=92468

I get the impression that upping the sharpening all the way is a must, especially if you're using a lens adapter that's already softening the image.

But I know that sharpening is always something that you should normally stay away from...

Any ideas on this?

I've been pondering this issue as well...wondering if it would be better to sharpen in the camera or in post. At least sharpening in post allows you tons more control over the sharpening process, but I guess the question to ask would be...does the highest sharpen setting when in cinemode equal to what the camera does to the image in non-cinemode without any additional sharpening?

If you look at that post, you see that the sharpening actually reveals more detail, so this can not completely be mimicked in post.

I believe the reason for this is the following: with normal DV cameras the light is diffused with a special type of glass before it hits the ccd chips, this is done to make the image look more natural because otherwise it would look very jaggy/aliased. But the resulting image is then too soft, and special sharpening is applied to the raw signal before it is sent to tape.

I believe it's the same for the HV20, so the sharpening function is more powerful than any post production sharpening function.

But maybe there are serious disadvantages? Maybe maxing the sharpening reveals too much aliasing and grain?

If you look at that post, you see that the sharpening actually reveals more detail, so this can not completely be mimicked in post.

I believe the reason for this is the following: with normal DV cameras the light is diffused with a special type of glass before it hits the ccd chips, this is done to make the image look more natural because otherwise it would look very jaggy/aliased. But the resulting image is then too soft, and special sharpening is applied to the raw signal before it is sent to tape.

I believe it's the same for the HV20, so the sharpening function is more powerful than any post production sharpening function.

But maybe there are serious disadvantages? Maybe maxing the sharpening reveals too much aliasing and grain?

Sorry Reese but you have missunderstood the comparrison.
In the examples given I took the raw cine sample and sharpened it in post (using medium and strong presets in Vegas respectively)

As you say it does reveal more detail which is because the cine mode just doesnt use the same level of in camera sharpening. My conclusion is that you can do a medium sharpen in post without introducing any more noise to the footage than if you were to shoot in a non cine mode.

Hope this helps

Sorry Reese but you have missunderstood the comparrison.
In the examples given I took the raw cine sample and sharpened it in post (using medium and strong presets in Vegas respectively)

As you say it does reveal more detail which is because the cine mode just doesnt use the same level of in camera sharpening. My conclusion is that you can do a medium sharpen in post without introducing any more noise to the footage than if you were to shoot in a non cine mode.

Hope this helps

Wow, thanks, I read wrong indeed, this is great news. It's amazing what sharpening can do on HD footage apparantly!

FWIW - In some preliminary tests, I've had very good results sharpening HDV CineMode footage (shot +1 in-camera sharpeing) in Vegas 7 on "light" setting for SD DVD. (Also adding contrast and saturation in Vegas helps while still maintaining highlights.) Not sure what HD output looks like sharpened as I haven't tried it yet.

...furthermore, I think the incam sharpening is disabled once in cine mode, it seems to have no effect. I also read reports of this from others...

...furthermore, I think the incam sharpening is disabled once in cine mode, it seems to have no effect. I also read reports of this from others...

This is incorrect as I previously reported on.

Okay everyone, you asked for a photo showing the differences between the sharpness settings on the Canon HV20. It's actually a .BMP image at about 3.7MB, but when uploaded to Flickr, they turn it into a .JPG image...which actually hasn't lost any of the quality, so you are still able to see the sharpness differences.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/576313192_864dff12e5_o.jpg

For those that would still like to see the original .BMP image, you can find that here:

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian G. Thompson View Post
Well....I'll be a monkeys unc.... that settles that!!!! Now my question is...is this in the Cinemode setting?


Yes Ian, that is in CineMode. :o) But it also makes me think that it might be good to stick with a setting of 0 when in CineMode and just sharpen in post, which would give you far more control than doing it in-camera. As I said previously before posting the pics, it's a very subtle difference in sharpness, but you can actually see it in the LCD if you really pay extremely close attention as you step through each of the sharpness settings, but you do have to really look for it on the LCD, and it's all subject to something that will really let you see the subtle changes. Granted, having a nice large captured image makes it much more easier to see the differences than the LCD.

I stand corrected but couln't be more happy. Decreased sharpening was the last thing that kept me away from using cine mode more often. Thanks!

I stand corrected but couln't be more happy. Decreased sharpening was the last thing that kept me away from using cine mode more often. Thanks!Well....that was the same attitude I had about Cinemode before Nathan dropped that bomb on me.... I have not been out of that mode since. :-)

Now.....if I can only find my monkeys.....