HV20: Cinemode Softness (loss of image detail) Pic

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

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_c...omparision.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.

[Luc Fender]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/Eki_c...omparision.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).

[David Rice]

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

[David Parks]

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.

[Nathan Shane]

Originally Posted by David Rice

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!!!

[Eki Halkka]

Originally Posted by David Parks

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.

[Stu Maschwitz]

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

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

[Ian G. Thompson]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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!!!

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Stu Maschwitz

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..

[Reese Leysen]

Originally Posted by Stu Maschwitz

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.

[Ian G. Thompson]

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?

[Nathan Shane]

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.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Reese Leysen

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.

[Eki Halkka]

Originally Posted by Stu Maschwitz

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.

[Reese Leysen]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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.