Achieving Best Color

[jmorton]

I have found that if you make sure that your HV20 shoot is with an aperture from 2.0 to 8.0 there will be no gain in low light and no filtering in bright light so your colors will come out perfect.

JM :hv20-smilie03:

[w.pasman]

There must be a bit more to it.
I just turned on my cam and it was at F2.4 no matter what shutter speed I picked. Seems like it goes not beyond F2.4 at the zoom level that I happened to be at :hv20-smilie03:

[ztrain727]

Don't you always get perfect colors? No, JK! :)

That's awesome though. I'll keep in mind.

[jmorton]

Here is how I noticed the color diviation in bright light. I was at the beach on a clear day shooting some surfers catching waves. As I panned to catch one surfer than the next I would often make a closer angle to the sun. As I did so the aperature would change.

When I watched the video on my HDTV with component hook-up you could clearly see that when the aperature changed form 8.0 to 11 or 14 the colors of the thin veils of water on the curling waves changed as did the overall colors. I know the aperature was changing because the F setting was being displayed on-screen.

The most accurate life-like and pleasing colors were when the aperature was 8.0 and below.

JM :hv20-smilie03:

[w.pasman]

As I panned to catch one surfer than the next I would often make a closer angle to the sun. As I did so the aperature would change.

Yes but if you get closer to the sun the colors will get pale anyway. And furthermore the lens gets a hard time if you gets close to the sun. I guess that the aperture change is because of the increasing amount of light when you get closer to the sun and is only indirectly related to the color quality.

[V10TDI]

I was filming surfers and I noticed the effect whenever a wave would break. In my instance, it had nothing to do with the angle to the sun (which didn't change) but the amount of incoming light. When the frame would fill up with the big white breakers, the aperture would clamp right down...

I'm a newbie and I really don't have much experience with this. I couldn't figure out how to compensate for this dynamic in Vegas Pro.

[Ian-T]

Use neutral Density filters maybe.??

[mattias]

um, the best way to get good colors is to know what you're doing. shooting in auto mode doesn't qualify. :-)

/matt

[jmorton]

um, the best way to get good colors is to know what you're doing. shooting in auto mode doesn't qualify. :-)

/matt

Yes. And here is what I recommend: lock your aperature. This is most applicable in a controlled situation such as on a set. Movement of your actors may cause an annoying aperature change. Locking your aperature will prevent what I describe above.

Here is some elaboration on the description of what I'm talking about: the aperature change occurs after the lighting changes. For instance, you move your camera and the amount of light entering the lense changes and you stop panning. Then the aperature stops down.

When you are viewing your video there is a moment when you stop panning and you can see the accurate color then the aperature stops down and you can see the change in color. Either the color before the aperature kicks in is accurate or after the aperature kicks in is accurate. You be the judge.

JM :hv20-smilie03:

[tootom]

When I watched the video on my HDTV with component hook-up you could clearly see that when the aperature changed form 8.0 to 11 or 14 the colors of the thin veils of water on the curling waves changed as did the overall colors. I know the aperature was changing because the F setting was being displayed on-screen.

The most accurate life-like and pleasing colors were when the aperature was 8.0 and below.

Was the white balance locked while you were shoting on the beach?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Colors are to get color-graded, not to get vividly captured, just like capturing video is subject to many cuts.

Put the camera in cinemode, go to the "color settings" and select "neutral" in order for the camera to capture as much DULL footage as possible. The more dull footage, the less sharpening/contrast/saturation has happened and the more dynamic range you get and the most spot on the color grading performs. Then, you white balance and you color grade on your editor.

[Ian-T]

Eugenia...you can still white balance while in neutral mode in cam.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I know that. But I am talking about color, not white balance. These are different things.

[africanmarty]

sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but i understand the best modes for colour grading are cinemode with the neutral filter. But what if you want a specific shutter speed... will TV mode (with desired shutter speed set ) and neutral filter on be just as good ??

[scotthampton]

Colors are to get color-graded, not to get vividly captured, just like capturing video is subject to many cuts.

Put the camera in cinemode, go to the "color settings" and select "neutral" in order for the camera to capture as much DULL footage as possible. The more dull footage, the less sharpening/contrast/saturation has happened and the more dynamic range you get and the most spot on the color grading performs. Then, you white balance and you color grade on your editor.

Hi.
THere's been a lot of "Tests" that show that cinemode gets a wider dynamic range, but really soft images. The "tests" show that cinemode s inherently softer than Av ot Tv and the detail doesn't come back sharpening in post.

Any thoughts on that?

[Breeze]

Hi.
THere's been a lot of "Tests" that show that cinemode gets a wider dynamic range, but really soft images. The "tests" show that cinemode s inherently softer than Av ot Tv and the detail doesn't come back sharpening in post.

Any thoughts on that?

Good one, would like to know this aswell...

[scotthampton]

Good one, would like to know this aswell...

Hey, I wasn't be a smart aleck, just to let you know...

But I really DO wanna know :)

[Breeze]

Haha what made you think I didn't? I really do want to know this aswell :hv20-smilie81:

[Sagefox]

Scott, you´re correct. Sharpness is lost, and some dynamic range gained.
My feeling, after grading and testing quite a bit, is that you will get a superior image with TV mode.
To the original poster, quit the auto mode. And use some nd filter.

[scotthampton]

Yes. And here is what I recommend: lock your aperature. This is most applicable in a controlled situation such as on a set. Movement of your actors may cause an annoying aperature change. Locking your aperature will prevent what I describe above.

Here is some elaboration on the description of what I'm talking about: the aperature change occurs after the lighting changes. For instance, you move your camera and the amount of light entering the lense changes and you stop panning. Then the aperature stops down.

When you are viewing your video there is a moment when you stop panning and you can see the accurate color then the aperature stops down and you can see the change in color. Either the color before the aperature kicks in is accurate or after the aperature kicks in is accurate. You be the judge.

JM :hv20-smilie03:

J,
Can you lock the aperture if you're in Tv mode? Or are you talking about locking the exposure? If it's different I really want to know. I'm accustomed to full manual on my DSLR. THis semi-auto stuff is killing me.

[scotthampton]

Scott, you´re correct. Sharpness is lost, and some dynamic range gained.
My feeling, after grading and testing quite a bit, is that you will get a superior image with TV mode.
To the original poster, quit the auto mode. And use some nd filter.

Yes, I'm going to be using Tv mode these days. If I could just get this little baby to go full manual!

[suitelife123]

Hi.
THere's been a lot of "Tests" that show that cinemode gets a wider dynamic range, but really soft images. The "tests" show that cinemode s inherently softer than Av ot Tv and the detail doesn't come back sharpening in post.

Any thoughts on that?

./8.,

[Ian-T]

I have been going back and forth with using cinemode and TV mode for the last year…it seems like a never ending story. But one thing that I am paying close attention to is cinemode’s characteristics vs. film (online trailers). What I really like about “film’ trailers is the organic ‘soft’…yet ....”sharp” look of it. I can’t really explain it....but…it’s sort of like the footage was painted in every frame. It’s so unique from video. Video ..is so sharp…even when you turn sharpness all the way down… What I also notice in these trailers is that …though the images seem soft/sharp…the detail is still there….. but I often think there is also some missing information from film footage. What I mean is…just like cinemode loses some small “detailed” information…I think this also happens to film in post processing (or by the time we get to see it on screen or on the PC). This is just my best guess because like a lot of you I’m not professional. I’ve taken some of these trailers and ran then through a “Convulsion Kernal’ or “Un-sharp Mask” plug…and it comes out as sharp looking as video…nasty artifacts and all. What’s evident to me is that cinemode comes…oh so close to the look of those organic film trailers. Try doing and A/B comparison for yourself within your NLE… Look closely around the edges of moving objects…mostly (and more importantly) people…skin tone…light reflections etc.

I’ll use Ayz Wariach’s recent short as an example. As great as it looked…there were still some of those “video’ looking moments. Close up on the main characters face showed a lot of sharpening details…that looked more like video than film. Another one is the close-up of where the character was about to die…. You could see the glowing sweat on his face reflecting the hard/light that they used to illuminate the scene…..very videoish. What I find with cinemode is…those types of scenes would have been dulled on the actor’s face…just like film would do. Film (and this is from my observations) would have produced a softer…or more subtle glow on the character’s face. I think that is because, with video, when it comes to whites or near whites….the image is threatening to blow out. Couple that with videos sharpening…your footage basically tells on you. What could help with video (IMO) would be the use of soft lights. This goes back to what plenty others have said…”lighting.” I’m really starting to believe that. Even with outdoor footage in film…reflectors are always used to create that “pleasing soft” look on an actor’s face.

Bottom line for me is…I think (once again) that I am starting to accept the softness of cinemode…. Because I believe film also loses the same type of detail in post. That softness around the edges I what I want. I absolutely hate using tools to try and soften the image…it comes out looking artificial (blur…etc.). But starting out with the softer image…and then sharpening in post produces that organic look that I’m after. I’ve sharpened many cinemode footage that came out looking like it was shot in TV mode. JM2C

[Braceface]

TV mode is where its at. Cinemode is strange because the shutter speed keeps changing on you, and alters the blur, the motion smoothness, and gives you jitter,and stutter sometimes. If you are careful, and use NDs/ or not (I usually don't although I have about 8 of them) your image will look sharper than cinemode, and have a nicer color (even for color grading). The best thing about TV mode is that since the shutter speed stays where you set it, the motion is smooth. So if you are shooting with a 180 degree shutter (48) of something that moves at that distinctively hard to get around stutter speed, you wont have a problem because the motion blur is consistent and natural looking. With Cinemode a lot of strange issues crop up with motion, clarity, and color. I've experimented extensively with both, and TV is easier to get a final graded nice looking clip out of.

[scotthampton]

Wow I've never seen anyone question/correct Eugenia, she's always the one to tell ppl what's right and wrong, Kudos Scott!:hv20-smilie77:

Whoah, whoah! Chill!
I'm not starting trouble, seriously. I'm greener than grass; I'm learning as I go. I just asked that for clarification. :hv20-smilie31:

[Braceface]

I have been going back and forth with using cinemode and TV mode for the last year…it seems like a never ending story. But one thing that I am paying close attention to is cinemode’s characteristics vs. film (online trailers). What I really like about “film’ trailers is the organic ‘soft’…yet ....”sharp” look of it. I can’t really explain it....but…it’s sort of like the footage was painted in every frame. It’s so unique from video. Video ..is so sharp…even when you turn sharpness all the way down… What I also notice in these trailers is that …though the images seem soft/sharp…the detail is still there….. but I often think there is also some missing information from film footage. What I mean is…just like cinemode loses some small “detailed” information…I think this also happens to film in post processing (or by the time we get to see it on screen or on the PC). This is just my best guess because like a lot of you I’m not professional. I’ve taken some of these trailers and ran then through a “Convulsion Kernal’ or “Un-sharp Mask” plug…and it comes out as sharp looking as video…nasty artifacts and all. What’s evident to me is that cinemode comes…oh so close to the look of those organic film trailers. Try doing and A/B comparison for yourself within your NLE… Look closely around the edges of moving objects…mostly (and more importantly) people…skin tone…light reflections etc.

I’ll use Ayz Wariach’s recent short as an example. As great as it looked…there were still some of those “video’ looking moments. Close up on the main characters face showed a lot of sharpening details…that looked more like video than film. Another one is the close-up of where the character was about to die…. You could see the glowing sweat on his face reflecting the hard/light that they used to illuminate the scene…..very videoish. What I find with cinemode is…those types of scenes would have been dulled on the actor’s face…just like film would do. Film (and this is from my observations) would have produced a softer…or more subtle glow on the character’s face. I think that is because, with video, when it comes to whites or near whites….the image is threatening to blow out. Couple that with videos sharpening…your footage basically tells on you. What could help with video (IMO) would be the use of soft lights. This goes back to what plenty others have said…”lighting.” I’m really starting to believe that. Even with outdoor footage in film…reflectors are always used to create that “pleasing soft” look on an actor’s face.

Bottom line for me is…I think (once again) that I am starting to accept the softness of cinemode…. Because I believe film also loses the same type of detail in post. That softness around the edges I what I want. I absolutely hate using tools to try and soften the image…it comes out looking artificial (blur…etc.). But starting out with the softer image…and then sharpening in post produces that organic look that I’m after. I’ve sharpened many cinemode footage that came out looking like it was shot in TV mode. JM2C

I wouldn't jump so fast to use his movie as an example. He heavily color graded it with layers, and all kinds of stuff, that I don't like. My TV footage looks WAY more organic, and filmic than his stuff and it never looks like any of his work (wether you like his or mine better is besides the point). But I get pretty close to looking like film now days. His looks like video, (but awesome video!!)

[suitelife123]

Whoah, whoah! Chill!
I'm not starting trouble, seriously. I'm greener than grass; I'm learning as I go. I just asked that for clarification. :hv20-smilie31:

wow. can you take a sense of humor that isn't oh so obvious:hv20-smilie87:, i'm guessing you're not familar with dead pan humor, i'll leave it alone, since i'm off topic

[scotthampton]

I have been going back and forth with using cinemode and TV mode for the last year…it seems like a never ending story. But one thing that I am paying close attention to is cinemode’s characteristics vs. film (online trailers). What I really like about “film’ trailers is the organic ‘soft’…yet ....”sharp” look of it. I can’t really explain it....but…it’s sort of like the footage was painted in every frame. It’s so unique from video. Video ..is so sharp…even when you turn sharpness all the way down… What I also notice in these trailers is that …though the images seem soft/sharp…the detail is still there….. but I often think there is also some missing information from film footage. What I mean is…just like cinemode loses some small “detailed” information…I think this also happens to film in post processing (or by the time we get to see it on screen or on the PC). This is just my best guess because like a lot of you I’m not professional. I’ve taken some of these trailers and ran then through a “Convulsion Kernal’ or “Un-sharp Mask” plug…and it comes out as sharp looking as video…nasty artifacts and all. What’s evident to me is that cinemode comes…oh so close to the look of those organic film trailers. Try doing and A/B comparison for yourself within your NLE… Look closely around the edges of moving objects…mostly (and more importantly) people…skin tone…light reflections etc.

I’ll use Ayz Wariach’s recent short as an example. As great as it looked…there were still some of those “video’ looking moments. Close up on the main characters face showed a lot of sharpening details…that looked more like video than film. Another one is the close-up of where the character was about to die…. You could see the glowing sweat on his face reflecting the hard/light that they used to illuminate the scene…..very videoish. What I find with cinemode is…those types of scenes would have been dulled on the actor’s face…just like film would do. Film (and this is from my observations) would have produced a softer…or more subtle glow on the character’s face. I think that is because, with video, when it comes to whites or near whites….the image is threatening to blow out. Couple that with videos sharpening…your footage basically tells on you. What could help with video (IMO) would be the use of soft lights. This goes back to what plenty others have said…”lighting.” I’m really starting to believe that. Even with outdoor footage in film…reflectors are always used to create that “pleasing soft” look on an actor’s face.

Bottom line for me is…I think (once again) that I am starting to accept the softness of cinemode…. Because I believe film also loses the same type of detail in post. That softness around the edges I what I want. I absolutely hate using tools to try and soften the image…it comes out looking artificial (blur…etc.). But starting out with the softer image…and then sharpening in post produces that organic look that I’m after. I’ve sharpened many cinemode footage that came out looking like it was shot in TV mode. JM2C

Ian, I feel the same. I'm going to use Tv mode right now, but since I "learned that color is to be graded", I'm willing to work with Cinemode from time to time. Tv gives me much better color right out of the camera, but I honestly do prefer to tweak my color. If I start off as neutral as possible I can push it where I want. I see this as shooting RAW (I know it's not). I find the other modes to be like JPGs: everything done for me. Whereas the colors are great, the image is sharp, etc, I prefer to do the color work myself.

So, yeah, like you, I'm back and forth on the Tv/Cinemode thing. Shux.

[Braceface]

You can color grade TV mode footage too. I do it all the time. The important thing is to shoot it in a way that gives you enough leverage. TV mode gives you less leverage, but if you shoot it properly, it gives plenty of room to grade, plus you get better motion.

[scotthampton]

You can color grade TV mode footage too. I do it all the time. The important thing is to shoot it in a way that gives you enough leverage. TV mode gives you less leverage, but if you shoot it properly, it gives plenty of room to grade, plus you get better motion.

Brace,
Are you referring to lighting it enough, perhaps, so the blacks have enough illumination and the whites aren't blown out?

[Kyleman]

I would use Cinemode but you have no control over your manual settings except the Microphone and Exposure. I like how Cinemode gives you more of the much needed "Negative" film for color grading but it's just not worth it. So far, I haven't had too many problems with Color Correction using Tv Mode. :hv20-smilie77:


-Kyle

[Braceface]

I would use Cinemode but you have no control over your manual settings except the Microphone and Exposure. I like how Cinemode gives you more of the much needed "Negative" film for color grading but it's just not worth it. So far, I haven't had too many problems with Color Correction using Tv Mode. :hv20-smilie77:


-Kyle
Right, because the way Cinemode keeps your whites from blowing out as much is it changes your shutter speed automatically making it faster when it gets brighter, and slower when it gets darker. That fluctuation is the cause of a bunch of problems with the image quality of moving pictures. If you are shooting a flower, or a garden, or something without much movement, then Cinemode works brilliantly, otherwise like you said, its not very good for the final image. You can search this forum, and vimeo to get an understanding of what I'm saying. Don't just believe me.

[Braceface]

Brace,
Are you referring to lighting it enough, perhaps, so the blacks have enough illumination and the whites aren't blown out?
No. Because wether or not you use Cinemode, or TV, as long as you don't overexpose, you can correct a little bit for exposure after the fact with TV, but you cant undo a rapidly changing shutter speed that causes weird blurring, or stuttering for fast motion because of using Cinemode for clips with motion, and changing light strength. Another point that I forgot to mention about White Red Panic, is that he shot it at 60 shutter speed, which isn't as filmic as 48, so that also contributes heavily to the videoish look it has.

[scotthampton]

wow. can you take a sense of humor that isn't oh so obvious:hv20-smilie87:, i'm guessing you're not familar with dead pan humor, i'll leave it alone, since i'm off topic

Oh, yes, sure, but covering my butt.:hv20-smilie77:

[Ian-T]

FYI, just to let you all know...the HV20 in cinemode (with light trick applied) does not change shutter speed...at all. For example...when I film indoors ...I set my shutter speed first by using the light trick (to 1/48)...then...I just simply..lock it into place. From there I set the Aperture to where I want it..(usually to f 2.0 where there is absolutely no gain)...and I'm set. No fluctuations at all ...in any lighting condition. I'm not sure by some of these comments that you all understand that everything you set in cinemode (using the light trick)...can be static.

[Ian-T]

I think the combination that some of you are forgetting is...locking your settings into place... if you don't lock it...you will get shutter fluctuations etc.

[scotthampton]

FYI, just to let you all know...the HV20 in cinemode (with light trick applied) does not change shutter speed...at all. For example...when I film indoors ...I set my shutter speed first by using the light trick (to 1/48)...then...I just simply..lock it into place. From there I set the Aperture to where I want it..(usually to f 2.0 where there is absolutely no gain)...and I'm set. No fluctuations at all ...in any lighting condition. I'm not sure by some of these comments that you all understand that everything you set in cinemode (using the light trick)...can be static.

Ian,
I'm not 100% sure, but it does sound to me like this is a hacked way to force the HV20 into full manual mode. Set the shutter speed, set the aperture, that's manual in my book!

Now does anyone use a meter, not the built in meter? I prefer incident meters, not reflective.

How, exactly, do you do your light light trick setup thing to set your exposure? (I'm asking here because to sift through all of the threads, man, is a nightmare!) And would anything else work, besides the light trick? Suppose I pointed the camera at a constant light source of f/2. Or f/2.8...?

[Ian-T]

You don't have to actually use the light trick (I wrote about it several months ago)... But it might be helpful to ...get there. Like Braceface states…the camera will fluctuate its shutter every which way when in different lighting conditions. The trick is…capturing the “optimal” shutter and aperture levels. Cinemode tries its best to stay in 1/48 shutter….so….. to take advantage of that…what I personally do…is:

1. Turn on the camera’s led light
2. Put my hand in front of the camera and watch the shutter change (according to how far or near I have my hand in front of the camera)…
3. Once I see the shutter reading 1/48 I lock it into place. I do this by clicking the joystick up once until the – and + indicator turns fully white.

For example…if I use this trick…and it shows 1/48 with an aperture of f 2.4 I’ll lock it. At this point I don’t care about the aperture…I just want to capture a 1/48 shutter.

4. Now that it’s locked…I use the same joystick to navigate to f 2.0… and in the example above I would just click it about two times to the right.

Now I have my complete settings at 1/48 shutter…..and f 2.0 aperture. You can also click one more time to the right in this scenario and get f 1.8 aperture and 1/48 shutter. If you click one more time…you will get f 1.8…but now a 1/40 shutter (not good for what we are trying to do). It’s really as simple as that. And yes…it’s sort of a pseudo full manual control.

Edit: Just be sure you don't click the joystick downward after making these settings while the - and + indicator is showing on your screen or you will unlock what you just set. To avoid accidently doing that just press the joystick "in' once to take it off the screen.

[scotthampton]

You don't have to actually use the light trick (I wrote about it several months ago)... But it might be helpful to ...get there. Like Braceface states…the camera will fluctuate its shutter every which way when in different lighting conditions. The trick is…capturing the “optimal” shutter and aperture levels. Cinemode tries its best to stay in 1/48 shutter….so….. to take advantage of that…what I personally do…is:

1. Turn on the camera’s led light
2. Put my hand in front of the camera and watch the shutter change (according to how far or near I have my hand in front of the camera)…
3. Once I see the shutter reading 1/48 I lock it into place. I do this by clicking the joystick up once until the – and + indicator turns fully white.

For example…if I use this trick…and it shows 1/48 with an aperture of f 2.4 I’ll lock it. At this point I don’t care about the aperture…I just want to capture a 1/48 shutter.

4. Now that it’s locked…I use the same joystick to navigate to f 2.0… and in the example above I would just click it about two times to the right.

Now I have my complete settings at 1/48 shutter…..and f 2.0 aperture. You can also click one more time to the right in this scenario and get f 1.8 aperture and 1/48 shutter. If you click one more time…you will get f 1.8…but now a 1/40 shutter (not good for what we are trying to do). It’s really as simple as that. And yes…it’s sort of a pseudo full manual control.

Edit: Just be sure you don't click the joystick downward after making these settings while the - and + indicator is showing on your screen or you will unlock what you just set. To avoid accidently doing that just press the joystick "in' once to take it off the screen.

alright, I'm going to give this a try. Headed to lunch. talk to you guys later.

[Braceface]

right, but that is a huge pain in the butt, not to mention that if you are filming outside, and lock (using for cinemode) at 48 shutter, you will have an unusably overexposed image, unless, after you lock exposure you put a VERY strong, or 2, ND filter, by which time you end up at a point where you could have just used TV mode, quicker. I don't know, but I think Cinemode is over rated. I color grade TV mode stuff all of the time and it seems I can get the same bang for the buck with it. Even while locking exposure in Cinemode the camera fights you all of the way, so you have to be a ninja on that little joystick because one millisecond later, you missed your shutter speed and you have to retry to lock again. AND end up with overexposure outside. There are a bunch of ways to skin a cat though, and everybody has there own special way.

[Braceface]

Oh scratch that, I just played around with the camera and Ian is absolutely correct. When you lock down Cinemode at 48, THEN adjust the exposure, the shutter speed stays locked. I forgot about that!!!!!!. Good to know again!.. But, I still think TV mode gives better results after grading, at least in my personal experience.

[Ian-T]

That's cool...to each his own I guess. But think about this... though I'm not a professional in this business (I'll be the first one to tell you)...I bet the pros go through a heck of a lot more settings in their cam to get the picture they want. They of course have more options….but…we are more point and shoot type of people compared to those who tweak each and every scene the way they want it. Because of the HV20’s tag as a consumer camera…we are way limited in what we can do “in the field.” So …if you think this is a pain…imagine trying to use a more professional camera.

Also…there is no reason why one couldn’t shoot…let’s say…1/48 and f 5.6 out in sunny weather while using cinemode. I do….but it all depends on the lighting where I set the aperture. In some cases you might need ND filters…but all that comes with the territory. You are going to need them with pro cameras too…

Braceface…I’m not trying to say that you are doing things wrong… but I’m just trying to let folks know there are options and that there are some misconceptions about cinemode. It really boils down to what you like. People are going to make up their own minds regardless. I look forward to your finished project.

[Braceface]

Exactly correct Ian. You reminded me too, about locking shutter speed in Cinemode!!
I'm not done yet, with Cinemode, I'm juts going through a phase, ya know. My opinions on how things look vary over time. I used to shoot only Cinemode, and I actually did know about locking the shutter speed back then, but I've been shooting TV for so long now that I forgot!!!!! Thanks!

[scotthampton]

Alright, back from a good long lunch. I tried it, but think I did something wrong.

Now, from a still photographer's perspective, f/2 at 1/48 is an unusual exposure. In still, the wider the aperture, the faster the shutter. Heck, I may shoot f/4 at 1/500th outside. So the video exposure had me scratching my head. But that's what it is. OK.

So IAn, what mode do you start this process with? Do you start off in Cinemode? I was in Aperture priority and Shutter priority with the LED light on (by pressing the LIGHT button by the LCD, right?), moving my hand around, but didn't see the shutter fluctuate.

[scotthampton]

Also, this is confusing me:
"For example…if I use this trick…and it shows 1/48 with an aperture of f 2.4 I’ll lock it. At this point I don’t care about the aperture…I just want to capture a 1/48 shutter."
You get to see the shutter and aperture on the same screen?

"Now that it’s locked…I use the same joystick to navigate to f 2.0… and in the example above I would just click it about two times to the right."
How do you see the aperture number change?

[Ian-T]

Yes ...you see the shutter and aperture on the same screen. My example is while using cinemode.

In order to see the aperture you need to "lightly" press down the photo button (as if you were about to take a snapshot). This is only going to work if you have a mini SD card in the camera. If not..then you will not be able to see the aperture/shutter.

[scotthampton]

Yes ...you see the shutter and aperture on the same screen. My example is while using cinemode.

In order to see the aperture you need to "lightly" press down the photo button (as if you were about to take a snapshot). This is only going to work if you have a mini SD card in the camera. If not..then you will not be able to see the aperture/shutter.

Aah. I have to get a card then. Thx. I'll try that tonight!

[Sagefox]

Ian, about the sharp quality of film that differs from video, I know exactly what you mean. Here is what I found: I think what is different between them is how the contrast affects the sharpness. It appears to be a less blatant sharpness, but still as detailed. Well, I found that if you drop contrast significantly, and then use the luma curve to reapply filmlike contrast by dropping the lows and the mids, you will acheive this organic look that cinemode tries to go for, but fails in dropping the sharpness so much.

I think of it as eliminating the characteristics of video´s gamma curve before applying the preferred film curve. The tell tale sign: look at the one-pixel bright details (sparkles). These should stand out less afterwords.

[lordtangent]

You can turn up sharpening when in Cinemode also you know. I have yet to do grabs to compare the level of sharpening to TV modes default sharpening level though. Another thing I often do is turn up the saturation when I'm in Cienmode as well. I know everyone says "make a flat image" but the way I look at it (I've been a professional computer graphics artist for over 13 years) As long as none of the channels are clamping, it's OK. And none of the channels clamp when I turn up saturation in Cinemode.

So, my "stock" setup for Cinemode is +sharpness +saturation and -Contrast. It makes a pretty flat image. But it's not overly sharp or dull with a lot of room for tweaking.

And I of course light everything very carefully, which is the true secret to making stuff look good!

[bluesgeek]

Oh scratch that, I just played around with the camera and Ian is absolutely correct. When you lock down Cinemode at 48, THEN adjust the exposure, the shutter speed stays locked. I forgot about that!!!!!!. Good to know again!.. But, I still think TV mode gives better results after grading, at least in my personal experience.

I'm just trying Cinemode for the first time and when I lock the shutter at 1/48 I can only get about 1 or 2 clicks of exposure change before the shutter speed changes (not even that, just two notches with the same calibration).

Example: (zoomed out and locked at 1.8 1/48) I minus over one and get the same, but when I minus over one more I get 2.0 1/60. Plussing over I get the same two notches at 1.8 1.48, then 1.8 1/40.

Am I missing something? Thanks.

[bluesgeek]

Ah, I just figured it out. I was in 30p. You have to be in 24p. My bad.

[bluesgeek]

To complete the statement, it would be 1/60 for 30p.

[badhairdude]

how do you make things " + sharper " ?

[bluesgeek]

Image Effect > Custom > Sharpness

[HueyNRolf]

I think Cinemode is the best... mind you, I haven't tried tV mode so maybe I should some day.

In low light I lock the exposure with the cell-phone trick... then by advancing exposure and half pressing the photo button I can find the maximum point where 1/48 is maintained.

In bright light I lock exposure on something dark, the back of the cell works but you could use your hand, a book or whatever. this opens the aperture right up. So I use the half push to find f1.8 1/48 and use a variable ND (two polarizing filters) to expose the shot using the zebra stripes. Great for shallow DOF.

[diffid]

Cinemode tries its best to stay in 1/48 shutter….so….. to take advantage of that…what I personally do…is:

4. Now that it’s locked…I use the same joystick to navigate to f 2.0… and in the example above I would just click it about two times to the right.

Now I have my complete settings at 1/48 shutter…..and f 2.0 aperture. You can also click one more time to the right in this scenario and get f 1.8 aperture and 1/48 shutter. If you click one more time…you will get f 1.8…but now a 1/40 shutter (not good for what we are trying to do). It’s really as simple as that. And yes…it’s sort of a pseudo full manual control.



After doing steps 1 to 3 when I try step 4 and adjust my exposure a couple to the right my apeture stays the same 2.8 but the shutter drops to 1/40 or 1/33 depending how far to the right, if I adjust exposure to the left I keep 1/50 and apeture increases to 3.4 as you would expect. So what am I doing wrong I wonder?

HV30 PAL HDV25 + Cinemode

Thanks

btw I've been doing as Braceface TV 50 but also knocking down the shaprness, brightness and colour depth using the custom settings to get the same sort of image as cinemode because I was of the understanding that Cinemode doesn't guarantee a fixed shutter speed dropping in lower light. But your setup allows you to lock the shutter. So if I can get this to work I intend using your method, after testing.

Are you using custom settings with cinemode? Do you also find the need to use an ND filter outdoors generally with cinemode to avoid clipping?

I seem to end up with a x8 on always outside but can suffer in more darkly or unevenly lit areas, like under tree cover but with bright skies, think I need a graduated ND filter for such situations.

[SeventhSeal]

Colors are to get color-graded, not to get vividly captured, just like capturing video is subject to many cuts.

Put the camera in cinemode, go to the "color settings" and select "neutral" in order for the camera to capture as much DULL footage as possible. The more dull footage, the less sharpening/contrast/saturation has happened and the more dynamic range you get and the most spot on the color grading performs. Then, you white balance and you color grade on your editor.

Eugenia...Thanks for the info. I use iMovie11 and can always add more vivid colors thru editing.

[BLP88]

Sorry to bud in with no input but It goes with topic. Anybody know why my colors and video looks good on the "live mode" screen on my T2i but then when I put it on computer it looks darker and grainy? I can fix it with effects but was just wondering why this happens. Also in video mode I have it set to "auto exposure" which means ISO is auto too I'm assuming

[Dr. Benway]

I'm assuming...

gain?

[BLP88]

gain?

I don't know what you mean by your question. Sorry