Joseph:

Great work, waiting for the your post.

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...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.

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.

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...

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.

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....

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.