A lousy codec is a bug, not a feature. It must be fixed. As it is simply a computer code, it can be fixed by releasing a better firmware. If there is a conflict of power resources, say codec vs stabilization vs face recognition vs whatever else, then priorities must be reordered, and codec should be given a higher priority than before.
You have no idea to what extent the codec is hardware or software. The main problem with the codec is its lack of B-frame support, not its bit rate. If the hardware could support B-frames, then why didn't Panasonic release the camera without that limitation?
How exactly support of B-frames depend on hardware?
Yeah, I see what you are saying. After 3 years of successfully making AVCHD camcorders Panasonic pulled a crippled encoder chip from an obscure third-party vendor, or maybe they had a stock of unused chips sitting in a warehouse collecting dust, and they thought it would be a great idea of putting these bits of rusty silicon to work and get some cash back.
Okay, deal -- you get JVC, Sony, and Canon to recall every HDV camera ever made and get them to "fix" it, and I'll work on Panasonic to fix the GH1's codec.
You don't know that. If the codec is a self-contained hardware chip, there's no way that firmware could change it.
All of those provided more than people had paid for.
Panasonic tried that idea (paid-for updates) right at the start, and got their fingers burned. That was the original FZ1. A firmware upgrade was sold by Panasonic which turned an FZ1 into and FZ2 (added significant new features). Of course in no time, the upgrade leaked onto the net and a great many people who hadn't paid for the update got it for free on the backs of the people who had paid for it.
This is apples and oranges. HDV codec in the products of the above companies works to the spec, though I would like to see less macroblocking from Sony. Canon's HDV codec is as good as it gets. GH1's codec, on the other hand, does not use all AVC features, but only a subset of them, which makes the end result looking worse than HDV at times. If HDV looked like this it would have never been accepted by professionals. What is the point of using superior encoding scheme only to get inferior results? Ah, I see, Panasonic has never been a member of HDV club, it has no implementation of MPEG-2 codec. So AVC was the only choice.
Yes, I don't know that. It may be a 4-year old chip that was sitting in a warehouse and was repurposed in the GH1 because after all it is a still camera with some video capabilities tacked on. Being an owner of a 2006 Panasonic consumer AVCHD camcorder I know that they could have done better with the GH1.
So? It's still defective as they fail in many circumstances. Just because the spec is deficient, does that let them off the hook?
So I take it that you're going to take this same campaign against Canon for their h.264 implementation, which uses the exact same subset of tools as the GH1 uses, and also looks as bad or worse than HDV at times, right?
Less bandwidth, more recording time per card. Can't think of anything else.
You do realize how ignorant this statement is, right? Because even in the GH1 itself, they offer MJPG. They had choices, obviously. They made the choice they made.
Of course they won't. But, dude, please have some consistency here -- you know that the HDV implementation in the Z1U is a lot better than that in the FX1, right? Why aren't you actively campaigning for Sony to "fix" their substandard HDV codec for all the FX1/Z1U buyers?
