Jump to content

Cinema vs. Smooth


Joshua Csehak
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm finding that Cinema is actually a more useful setting than Smooth. Thought I'd share my results with you guys and get your take on things.

First, I did a pure dynamic range test, and Smooth seemed to come out a stop or two ahead (as did Nostalgic). But then, after a couple test shots, it seemed like light-colored objects looked more natural in Cinema, though the gamma crushed the blacks too much for my taste. So I shot a direct comparison.

The first attachment is on Cinema, the second on Smooth. No surprises there. But I adjusted the gamma of the Cinema clip (this is all in Color, btw) to match the overall brightness of the Smooth clip, which is the third attachment. Looks to me like there's no extra noise in the lows -- everything looks the exact same there -- and a lot more detail and range in the highs. The adjusted Cinema image looks flatter to my eye, and more natural. The Smooth image looks as if I took the adjusted Cinema image and applied some contrast. As we all know, you can always add contrast, but you can't really take it away, so I'm thinking, Cinema is actually the best choice for maximum image quality.

Of course, this depends on your application. If I was shooting stuff that wasn't going to go to a colorist, but straight to the web (or broadcast), I'd use Smooth for sure.

Thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
  • Administrators
Cinema just underexposes basically, to protect highlights. But the way it does so reduces tonality and dynamic range. You are far better off using Smooth with a lower ISO. The GH2 has trouble enough with crushed blacks and the Cinema film mode makes that worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew is right and I (and hundreds of others on personalview) have tested this extensively.

You never want to run any gamma/color profile that underexposes a digital sensor for the sake of a "look."  Adobe produced this PDF warning people about the problems associated with underexposure and how digital sensors are different than film. 

Also remember that exposure is heavily related to color depth as well - ie "raising shadows" not only introduces digital noise, but also increase the rate of false color and image posterization.  Ugly and makes productions reek of "cheap video."

[url=http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf[/url]

From what we can tell, smooth and nostalgic (lots of warmth however) give the most dynamic range - very important because that is "somewhat" a small weakness of the GH2's sensor. 

I am not arguing with your results - it does indeed look like your cinema shot after editing is flatter, but again I think that editing the smooth would produce a similar or better result.

Also remember that all these settings have adjustments you can make as well - Nearly all the GH2 "pros" shooting little productions I know of shoot Smooth -2,-2,0,-2 (leaving color alone because we need color information due to the 4:2:0 nature of the GH2 output)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear what you guys are saying, and I agree with you in theory. I understand about ETTR and stuff (thanks for the pdf link though, Sara -- they put it really well!). But it looks to me that in some cases, Cinema simply looks better than Smooth/Nostalgic, and I'm trying to figure out a) why, and b) if that means I should be using Cinema in spite of the fact that it technically has less dynamic range. After all, if it looks better, it is better, right?

Here are my dynamic range tests. They are with the Roadrunner hack. I used my "DR650" [url=http://www.magicgoggles.com/blog/?p=5]http://www.magicgoggles.com/blog/?p=5[/url], which is just a bunch of 1-stop NDs on top of each other. They probably don't show anything you don't already know, but maybe you'll find them useful. They are NOT shot at the same aperture. What I did was open the aperture until the brightest spot on the bulb blew out just a bit. So they're all normalized for the top end of the highlights. I feel like this accurately represents real-world situations, b/c when ETTR, oftentimes what you might do is open it up all the way, and close it down till the highlights (or at least, the highlights you care about) aren't blown out.

The first thing you can see is that -- just as you said -- out of the camera, cinema has about a stop less dynamic range on the low end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But now what if I take the Cinema shot and grade it with +1.33 to the gamma (and bring the lift down -0.04 to bring the blacks back to black). Now the darks match, the highlights blow out exactly the same, but the lights are much darker. Smooth is indeed smoother, but the lights, before they hit 100%, are much lighter and have less color information. It seems like, if you can keep your highlights from blowing out, cinema is the way to go, b/c you retain more information in the 2-3 stops below 100%.

But is it noisier in the darks? Not that I can tell. Playing the footage, the grain looks about the same to my eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conclusion so far: Nostalgic is the king of both color accuracy (pending further tests) and dynamic range. Normalized to a white at 100%, it has a stop more of information in the blacks. But since cinema applies a curve to everything, the lights end up with more color information. It just might be worth shooting cinema and bringing up your gamma +1.33 in post, since the noise gain so far seems to be negligible. The lights, which includes people with light skin tone, will look richer. But I need to do a lot more real-world testing before I'm sure of that.

Here's the key question: what if you shoot a scene with cinema, and again with nostalgic, but underexposed so that they're normalized to the darks, not the lights. Will the values at 70-95 look the same? Will it be basically the same, except with more headroom? That's my next experiment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.  Ill examine your files and run some tests of my own later tonight.  No doubt smooth gives more DR "before" an edit...but what happens to the files after ie noise, false color etc.

Sad that GH2 users don't have access to cinemagamma and flat type settings like what the Canon 5D has.  Something I hope the GH3 gets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through similar tests but was struggling to find a difference...and the change in color from smooth to cinema (punchy colors) almost makes it not worth it unless someone would "want" that color shift.  Frustrating that we have to deal with these gamma/color profiles and don't have acesss to something more neutral.  Sorry I couldn't find more of a difference.  Maybe someone else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=Sara link=topic=302.msg1962#msg1962 date=1330029396]
I went through similar tests but was struggling to find a difference...and the change in color from smooth to cinema (punchy colors) almost makes it not worth it unless someone would "want" that color shift.  Frustrating that we have to deal with these gamma/color profiles and don't have acesss to something more neutral.  Sorry I couldn't find more of a difference.  Maybe someone else?
[/quote]

Not following you. You mean you're struggling to find a difference between smooth and cinema?

Agree that the cinema colors are a bit too punchy, even at -2 saturation...

[quote author=Francisco Ríos link=topic=302.msg1988#msg1988 date=1330105682]
I found these.
Maybe can helps.

[url=http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?233022-Heads-explode-GH2-film-mode-test-charts]http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?233022-Heads-explode-GH2-film-mode-test-charts[/url]

Saludos!
[/quote]

Thanks Francisco! Those are pretty useful for color comparisons, but not so much for dynamic range. A piece of paper can transmit only 5 or 6 stops of brightness, which just about any camera can handle. That's why I rigged the ND gel DR tester.

Still messing around with these settings... It may be that all three (cinema, nostalgic, and smooth) have their place...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...