GH2 and once more: SMOOTH vs CINEMA ???

Ben, i used both modes today outdoors and it seemed to me that cinema was overblowing highlights a lot faster than smooth.
i ended up underexposing 3 "clicks" for smooth all the time.
 
Thanks Fotograf. I´ve tried to match nostalgic to cinema somewhat with in-camera-settings (under-exposure). But it seems that´s not possible because the gamma curve of "cinema" is too steep. But in post, with separate adjustments for higlights and shadows, it isn´t a big deal. - Its difficult for me to make a final verdict so far - its too early. At the moment I prefer nostalgic because there is more dynamic range for post production. I don´t like the crushed blacks of cinema from the get go. But of course, I could also imagine to use it for some (light) situations...
 
Uwe,

It all comes down to personal taste. Based on your test, I actually like Cinema better. Nostalgic seems overexposed and washed out by comparison. Of course, if you didn't adjust your exposure at all when switching to Nostalgic, it's going to look hotter. BTW, really nice footage. You have a good eye and your video gives me confidence in the footage I'll be able to get from my GH2.
 
Thx dvbrother!
It all comes down to personal taste
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
Nostalgic seems overexposed and washed out by comparison
Click to expand...
I agree, but I especially paid attention to avoid every highlight clipping at the nostalgic shots. So, there is more room for color grading in post imo...
 
roei z said:
hey - Uwe..
what about smooth.. gave up on it ? :)
Click to expand...

Haha..., no! To be honest, every clip I´ve made so far was shot with "smooth". Only the last 2 or 3 days I was busy with "nostalgic" and "cinema" to become more familiar with the differences of the various film modes...
 
oh.. well,
let me know of any pros and cons on smooth vs nostalgic.
i start to fell that cinema is too contrasty for me, even when overexposed
 
Uwe Lansing said:
It still does. For sure "Cinema" has more detail in the highlights but at the expense of crushed blacks (shadows) and pretty heavy green-reddish noise, banding, artefacts... I don´t know how to call it. Take a closer look at Ben´s own test images:

left side: cinema
right side: nostalgic



So, what about the blown highlights in nostalgic? To my mind it could be quite easily fixed with under-exposure while shooting... hopefully. Nothing else does "cinema". But at the end of the day, if I personally had to choose between

a) slightly blown out highlights
b) crushed blacks, green/reddish banding + artefacts

most likely I would choose "a" so far...
Click to expand...

The problem with simply underexposing Nostalgic is that you're ignoring the implications of that...less light and less data reaching the sensor. Think about it, with the same amount of light coming in, same aperture, same shutter speed, Cinema produces a dimmer image and nostalgic produces a brighter one...yet cinema has better highlight falloff which should not be possible simply by dimming the image. 100 IRE cannot cleanly be brought back, and when you examine the images it is clear that it there is actually detail in those extra areas of highlights cinema retains, maybe not on here but I have seen it on clouds, etc. This means that nostalgic (and the others) are brightening the image across the board, reducing in degraded quality in the shadows, etc, and blown highlights. When you underexpose to compensate for the blown highlights you're letting in even less light, which it continues to brighten up to an appropriate level to match cinema with more light....and your image is further degraded.


roei z said:
hmmm.. what are those banding artifacts??
only on cinema?
weird.

Ben?
Click to expand...

Oh these photos were me taking a picture of a monitor (to get the 100 IRE peaking shown.) That's just moiré from taking a photo of the pixels on the monitor, probably not in one but in the other due to slight movement of the camera and monitor between taking pictures.
 
Ben_B said:
The problem with simply underexposing Nostalgic is that you're ignoring the implications of that...less light and less data reaching the sensor. Think about it, with the same amount of light coming in, same aperture, same shutter speed, Cinema produces a dimmer image and nostalgic produces a brighter one...yet cinema has better highlight falloff which should not be possible simply by dimming the image. 100 IRE cannot cleanly be brought back, and when you examine the images it is clear that it there is actually detail in those extra areas of highlights cinema retains, maybe not on here but I have seen it on clouds, etc. This means that nostalgic (and the others) are brightening the image across the board, reducing in degraded quality in the shadows, etc, and blown highlights. When you underexpose to compensate for the blown highlights you're letting in even less light, which it continues to brighten up to an appropriate level to match cinema with more light....and your image is further degraded.
Oh these photos were me taking a picture of a monitor (to get the 100 IRE peaking shown.) That's just moiré from taking a photo of the pixels on the monitor, probably not in one but in the other due to slight movement of the camera and monitor between taking pictures.
Click to expand...


i'm still puzzled because today i had a hard time using cinema with 3 "clicks" up on exposure. didn't give me enough space to work with. still squeezed between blacks and 100IRE..
while smooth gave me more options when it was 3 clicks down..
 
On the GH13, I find Nostalgic great for extracting the most midrange detail out of a limited amount of incandescent light, i.e. at night. Nostalgic does tend to blow the highlights, but I can live with that easier than the noise I'd get from pushing the camera above ISO 400. I think high-contrast is a good look for dark, artificially lit scenes where you don't expect to see a broad tonal range.

Which film mode is closest to Cinema on the GH1?
 
Ben_B said:
The problem with simply underexposing Nostalgic is that you're ignoring the implications of that.....
Click to expand...

Hi Ben, thanks for pointing out your opinion. If you like the images with cinema most don´t hesitate and take it whenever you want. As mentioned several times here before there is no right or wrong in case of film modes. It just depends on personal tastes and preferences. I personally don´t care for any "implications". I just take a more closer look at real life footage (no charts or something like that) and after that I mostly know what image looks more pleasant to my eyes and which settings I have to take for it.

I´ve shot quite a few clips so far with "cinema" and "nostalgic", correct exposed and under-exposed. I couldn´t perceive any degradation with under-exposed nostalgic footage. And if I got some warning for blown out highlights at the evf or lcd (zebra function) I just stopped down a bit and the clipping was gone. But for me, the most important thing is: I still have a lot more details in the shadow areas for post work by comparison to the cinema mode.

That's just moiré from taking a photo of the pixels on the monitor
Click to expand...
Ok..., the problem ist that I´ve often seen some small amount of green-reddish artifacts in shadow-areas, with every film mode. But with "cinema" it was most noticeable and with "nostalgic" the very least. So for me personally, "nostalgic" and "smooth" are still my favorites but that can change in a few days, weeks or months when new facts will turn up...
 
I still feel like Smooth is the most neutrally balanced. It's not as dark as Cinema, and its not as bright and yellow as Nostalgic. But I agree with Ben, I liked the Cinema scenes in Uwe's film better than the Nostalgic, although they could have been a touch brighter. The clouds were really what made it for me.

I think the better majority of my shooting will be with Smooth, unless I'm doing epic scenery or such where I feel Cinema will give greater range.
 
roei z said:
so when exactly would cinema give you any advantage? what epic scenery?
Click to expand...

Well like the scenes in Uwe's video where you have lots of clouds and buildings or fields, where having something more contrasty but without losing information could be nicer. I mean you can always do that kinda of adjustment in post from Smooth, but it might just be easier and less detail loss if shot in Cinema in camera. Just my .02 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top