Any GH2 news on the HDMI output front?

[Isaac_Brody]

I know that a lot of people say that the sensors aren't the same but from the standpoint of knowing the industry of fabricating CMOS devices that take millions of $$$ in design, prototyping, testing and packaging of both the product AND the machines that make these parts, I would have to say YES the possibility is very good that these sensors are the same. A company such as panasonic will not spend huge amounts of money to develop a part that will only be used in a single device(GH2) that they themselves claim is just a niche market. Same for the AF100, the expected sales of these products can't possibly cover the costs of all of that work. I'd expect that the sensors ARE the same and that designs for the next couple years will utilize the same sensors, just assembled on their carrier PCBs differently to change their characteristics.

Jan Crittenden has shot down that rumor. They are NOT the same sensor.

A company such as panasonic will not spend huge amounts of money to develop a part that will only be used in a single device(GH2) that they themselves claim is just a niche market. Same for the AF100, the expected sales of these products can't possibly cover the costs of all of that work. I'd expect that the sensors ARE the same and that designs for the next couple years will utilize the same sensors, just assembled on their carrier PCBs differently to change their characteristics.

The consumer photo and professional broadcast divisions are separate from each other and function independently.

 

[Svart]

And their sensor/CMOS fab is a separate division as well. It isn't going to stop them from using parts across platforms. I do it all the time.

My company has many divisions and each is a separate functional entity but we are directed from corporate to utilize as much from other divisions as possible to minimize costs associated with designs, stock levels and engineering time. This is regular business and has been at every engineering company I've worked for.

As I said, I may not be right but it would be HIGHLY unlikely that they developed a different sensor and spent huge amounts of money making two very similar sensors for little reason to do so. I would bet the silicon wafers are exactly the same but the PCBs they are bonded to are slightly different, probably revision resistors stuffed to set different versions.

Either way, one of their peeps isn't going to tell the whole story at all. Why would they say "oh yeah it's just the same sensor as the GH2" and potentially lose market interest in the AF100? Maybe there is some slight difference in model number, being a different division and all, and solely based on that, they think it IS different? Heck, would a marketing person know the difference at all? The marketing guys at our company tell our customers all the time that different product models are different inside when actually they are the very same but the software is simply set to define the model. They do this because some functionalities can fetch a higher price than others can and keeping them separate can drive sales.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying that spending millions on different wafer fabs for 2 separate but almost equal sensors doesn't make fiscal sense in the least.

 

[Barry_Green]

So the notion that they're different sizes, with different read/reset performance, different pixel counts, different fields of view, different aliasing performance, different moire performance, and different sharpness - all adds up to it being the same?

Sounds kind of different to me. And then when you add that Jan said it was different, well, that makes sense.

The broadcast division has always gone their own way. The hpx3xxx chipset was made specifically and solely for broadcast and isn't shared with any consumer product. Neither is the hpx2xxx chipset. Or the hpx500 chipset. Or the hpx370 chipset. Or the hpx170/hmc150 or hvx chipset. Every one of those lines had custom-designed chipsets with no overlap with the customer line. So why is it so hard to believe that the af100 chip isn't a repackaged gh2 sensor?

 

[Svart]

So you're saying that a M4/3 sensor which is defined as 18 mm × 13.5 mm, is different between the two cameras? You are also saying that when panny refrains from defining total pixels in their AF100 datasheets but only defines "effective pixels" that means they can't be cropping images from the full sensor? They can't hobble the GH2 read/write performance based on using a cheaper CPU and/or simply wanting slower performance than the AF100? How bout that well known different LPF for the AF100? It can't possibly make aliasing and moire perform differently and affect sharpness?

You could do all of this from the same CMOS wafer, slap a different LPF on it and set up the software drivers differently and get all of these changes. Doesn't make it different.

 

[ICD Films]

why is it so hard to believe that the af100 chip isn't a repackaged gh2 sensor?

...on the other hand, it would be kinda awesome if some bored tech nerd cuts them both up and proves it's the same thing... ;o) The world would come crashing down... for some! :grin:

 

[Barry_Green]

You could do all of this from the same CMOS wafer, slap a different LPF on it and set up the software drivers differently and get all of these changes. Doesn't make it different.

Perhaps you could -- but ... if it's a different pixel count, different size, different field of view, different skew performance, different EVERYTHING other than the lens mount -- why wouldn't that make it "different"?

 

[Danielvilliers]

Frankly I could not care less about which is which, my eyes tell me which one I really prefer. I hope that a hack can give us a clean hdmi output without the workaround from the other thread. At least we have it and it is stunning, unfortunately we loose the 422. Lets hope that the competition in the HDslr market continues. As it is the true motivator for affordable film-making. I hope that Canon just bring at least clean 10 bit HDMI (or thunderbolt) output to there next line of HDslr, it would force everyone else to follow.

 

[Ian-T]

So you're saying that a M4/3 sensor which is defined as 18 mm × 13.5 mm, is different between the two cameras?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the GH-X series cameras M4/3 sensor was slightly oversized?

 

[Barry_Green]

The "standard" is 17.3 x 13. The GH-1 and GH-2 use an oversized sensor which we think is 18.9 x 13. The AF100 uses 17.8 x 10.0.

 

[Svart]

Read those specs again, the "valid image range" is 17.8 x10 for the AF100.. and 17.3x13 for the GH2.. They have been and are being dodgy with the actual size of the sensor surface and with the total pixel counts and only state "effective elements" at around 12mp. I have not seen a hard number for it like they show for the GH2 sensor.

http://ag-af100rental.com/pdf/AG-AF100.pdf

page 15.

Just sayin..

 

[Barry_Green]

Read those specs again, the "valid image range" is 17.8 x10 for the AF100.. They have been and are being dodgy with the actual size of the sensor surface.

http://ag-af100rental.com/pdf/AG-AF100.pdf

page 15.

"Dodgy"? They've told you it's using 17.8 x 10.

Hey, believe whatever you want, nobody's holding your feet to the fire to make you believe one thing or another. I've just pointed out a number of ways that they're different, the most obvious being the dramatically reduced skew on the AF100. Between the skew and the aliasing and the moire issues, the imagery between the two units is different. Isn't that enough?

EDIT -- okay, let me rephrase this -- what are you trying to prove? Are you trying to say that the GH2 and the AF100 are the exact same camera, but one is 5x the price? Because if that's what you're trying to say, it's patently not true.

Or are you trying to say that the actual basic silicon is sourced from a common ancestor? If so -- so what? I mean, I don't know if it is or not, but even if it is -- what does that mean to anyone? The results in the footage aren't the same, so what would it matter if the silicon does or doesn't start out in the same plant? If someone was to try to convince a client that they are going to get the same results from a GH2 that someone else would get from an AF100 "because they use the same sensor" -- that would be deceptive. They're not the same results, they perform differently.

So -- I'm at a loss to understand what the goal is here?

I'll grant that the lens mount is the same -- they both use the Micro Four Thirds lens mount. As far as I'm concerned, everything that happens behind that mount is different. Whether it starts life as the same melted sand or not, the end results are different, so -- what would it matter?

 

[AdrianF]

Is it possible that they took a G1 or other m4/3 sensor and modified it for the AF100? I don't have the camera so can't make a direct comparison, but if there is a slight difference in FOV, then that could explain it??

 

[Svart]

"Dodgy"? They've told you it's using 17.8 x 10.

They said "valid image range" which is different than "actual sensor range". This could mean they crop from a larger sensor.

Hey, believe whatever you want, nobody's holding your feet to the fire to make you believe one thing or another. I've just pointed out a number of ways that they're different, the most obvious being the dramatically reduced skew on the AF100. Between the skew and the aliasing and the moire issues, the imagery between the two units is different. Isn't that enough?

Hey I'm just playing the devil's advocate. From cropping a smaller image out of a larger sensor, using better processing/CPUs and clocking the sensor faster, sure you could greatly reduce skew. You're pointing out anecdotal evidence that they are different, I'm trying to point out technical ways they could be exactly the same, that's all.

EDIT -- okay, let me rephrase this -- what are you trying to prove? Are you trying to say that the GH2 and the AF100 are the exact same camera, but one is 5x the price? Because if that's what you're trying to say, it's patently not true.

No, it's obvious the processing is much different inside the camera. My original comment was simply to point out that the sensor design is too complex and expensive to do twice for very similar usage. It's not something that most people would know so I thought it might be an interesting tidbit of info since I deal with the stuff daily. I had no idea people would be so adverse to the idea.. (think of the Pentium vs. Celeron situation. EXACTLY the same chips. one was crippled somewhat to preserve market shares)

Or are you trying to say that the actual basic silicon is sourced from a common ancestor? If so -- so what? I mean, I don't know if it is or not, but even if it is -- what does that mean to anyone? The results in the footage aren't the same, so what would it matter if the silicon does or doesn't start out in the same plant? If someone was to try to convince a client that they are going to get the same results from a GH2 that someone else would get from an AF100 "because they use the same sensor" -- that would be deceptive. They're not the same results, they perform differently.

Yes, I was saying that the silicon is probably exactly the same. In my previous replies you'll notice that I said that the carrier PCBs(the boards the silicon is bonded to) is probably different which determines how the sensor is setup.

So -- I'm at a loss to understand what the goal is here?

I'll grant that the lens mount is the same -- they both use the Micro Four Thirds lens mount. As far as I'm concerned, everything that happens behind that mount is different. Whether it starts life as the same melted sand or not, the end results are different, so -- what would it matter?

There was no goal. it was just information that I thought someone might want to know but apparently it upset people enough to jump on my case.

So much for having a fair trial eh?

I'll bet you a dollar that if you can get a hold of a CMOS designer at panasonic they will say that they are the same chip..

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, if it's a purely intellectual exercise, then -- exercise away. I'm looking at it as far as -- what does it actually mean, to the end user? And there's potential deception here if the end user is led to believe that the imaging is the same because at some point, somewhere deep in their family tree, there was shared silicon. Monkeys ain't humans, and a GH2 isn't an AF100 -- they're different. Whether or not they have common ancestral DNA is really, as a practical matter, totally irrelevant, isn't it? Are you going to ask a gorilla out on a date because she's 99% the same DNA as a human woman? And that's infinitely closer than a GH2 is to an AF100.

I was trying to understand what the point was because there seems to be a contingent out there that is convinced that the tooth fairy is real, that you really can get something for nothing, and that an AF100 is the same thing as a GH2 and those who pay more for the AF100 are just "stupid" for doing so. It's mind-boggling...

 

[chauncythedog]

I think maybe the point is, that if enough of the guts are the same, panasonic may have taken steps to further delineate the GH2 from the af100( aside from the obvious extra functionality of the af100)- intentionally crippling some of it's potential.

There's enough difference between the af100 and gh2 they didn't have to not have things- like no 25p.

But they made a marketing decision.
Some of us might think that is unethical.
Because it is.

It's good they are strong voices that keep this board from becoming a fanboy site.
Others paid directly or indirectly by panasonic would have us all toting the company line.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I think maybe the point is, that if enough of the guts are the same, panasonic may have taken steps to further delineate the GH2 from the af100( aside from the obvious extra functionality of the af100)- intentionally crippling some of it's potential.

There's enough difference between the af100 and gh2 they didn't have to not have things- like no 25p.

But they made a marketing decision.
Some of us might think that is unethical.
Because it is.

It's good they are strong voices that keep this board from becoming a fanboy site.
Others those paid directly or indirectly by panasonic would have us all toting the company line.

It's not unethical at all- If you don't like the features a camera offers, there's a simple solution - DON'T BUY IT. PERIOD.
These cameras are not "video first" cameras either....you get what you pay for and all that jazz.

 

[chauncythedog]

unfortunately no one is really offering much competition in my view. It's the best out in that space. I love the thing.

But that in no way excuses it's shortcomings. Or the ignoring what their consumers want. C'mon no 25p.
Just because companies have no ethics, doesn't mean their isn't such a thing.

When you're an international company you have a responisiblilty to produce what consumers want. Not stick them with what you want.
Market compettion is pretty much a joke. Too few companies with muscle to create viable solutions.

 

[pulpfiction007]

unfortunately no one is really offering much competition in my view. It's the best out in that space. I love the thing.

But that in no way excuses it's shortcomings. Or the ignoring what their consumers want. C'mon no 25p.
Just because companies have no ethics, doesn't mean their isn't such a thing.

When you're an international company you have a responisiblilty to produce what consumers want. Not stick them with what you want.
Market compettion is pretty much a joke. Too few companies with muscle to create viable solutions.

I agree no 25P was lame on Panasonic's part - but it is not a matter of ethics. An unethical move would be for xxxx CORP. to sell cameras with flawed sensors and then try to deny it. Not offering 25P was just like Sony not offering 24P in any of it's high end consumer cams until recently - A poor move.
I do hear you in that there's not much competition for the GH2, but that speaks to how good of a camera Panasonic produced. You get 25P in the Canon DLSRs, but you also get a host of problems.
I don't agree however that Panasonic has a responsibility to give us what ever we want. I want full image parameter adjustments and a higher res screen - guess what Panasonic didn't offer it.
A lot of people want a high bit rate codec that can be edited without the hassles of AVCHD - no to that as well.
I don't think there's anything wrong with letting a company know loud and clear what the customers want, but calling them unethical for not providing feature xxxx leads to nothing.
And on the bigger picture - If we can't produce good work with what's available to us today....it's not the cameras/company's fault. You don't HAVE to own a GH2....you choose to own a GH2.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I agree with you that Panasonic isn't unethical for, for example, not giving us the higher resolution LCD that many would have wanted. But that's a cost-adding feature that was genuinely excluded.

The issue of using firmware to artificially exclude features the hardware is already capable of (such as 25fps [or any framerate 1-30 for undercrank], or the much higher bitrates that have been enabled via hacks) to protect or increase sales of their higher-end cameras is very different.

And it IS an ethical issue.