HV20: Cinemode Softness (loss of image detail) Pic

[Joseph H. Moore]

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

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

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/Cinem...nd_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.

[Ian Holb]

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 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.

[Mathieu Kassovitz]

Originally Posted by Nathan Shane

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...e_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.

[Nathan Shane]

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.

[Robert Ducon]

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.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

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.

[Ian G. Thompson]

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?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

>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.

[Joseph H. Moore]

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.

[Joseph H. Moore]

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.

[Joseph H. Moore]

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.

[Ian G. Thompson]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

>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 G. Thompson]

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

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.

[Stu Maschwitz]

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

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