Firmware Update for the AF100

[Paul F]

Something to think about that hasn't been mentioned, but I think is valid from a manufacturer perspective. If a company changes it's firmware, then EVERYTHING they've written (training, manuals, literature, third party books) all has to change if those changes are significant enough. That may not matter to you, but there could be a substantial cost involved for some. Think about if they've already printed a few thousand manuals and then need to not use them. Sure, they could then create an addendum to include (or download) but then, ultimately, it will add to confusion. Think about books like Barry's that are now missing a bunch of information is changes are made.


One persons enhancement is another persons annoyance

Yes, and I mentioned that early in this thread. But let's remember that you don't have to take the firmware upgrade. You can attach the addendum to your manual. It's a choice. I hardly think anyone would have issues with referring back to the manual for their firmware improvements. Once you know the camera, you never look back. It's the same for the bug fixes they made.

 

[Steve R]

I'm saying it based on eight years of using their gear. They don't issue firmware updates to add features. And neither does Sony, and neither does Canon's camcorder division, and neither does JVC. It just isn't something that's done.

Now, three exceptions -- Canon introduced the 24p firmware on the 5D, but that's a consumer still camera, not a camcorder, and certainly not a camcorder from the pro line. Two, Sony is introducing a firmware update for the F3 that adds S-Log and 4:4:4 output -- but they're charging a list price of $4,400 for that firmware update. And three, Panasonic did introduce flash-band compensation as a firmware update in the HPX300, but that was something that was known from before the product was released for sale.

New features go in new products. Firmware updates are used to fix bugs.

I'm sorry Barry, but here's another exception. An immediate, obvious, clear example:

http://nao.sonyelectronicscommunity.com/blog_post/?contentid=7389864148481227835

This update is free. This update adds significant functionality and new features - not just bug fixes. Almost none of the newly-added features are things that were promised earlier, or when the camera shipped. Many of them are small tweaks, small User Interface improvements or convenience features - exactly like many of the things we'd like to see added to the AF100 in future firmware updates.

So the arguments that "Panasonic can't/won't do it because it just isn't done in the industry" and (more recently above) "adding new features would screw up documentation, training" etc. just don't hold water for me.

Clearly Sony is doing it. Again I say - c'mon Panasonic, follow suit.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Clearly Sony is doing it. Again I say - c'mon Panasonic, follow suit.

In principal a digital camera is a computer assigned to a special task. Taking moving pictures. Professional computer software is - in most cases - updated constantly. Features are enhanced or new features are added. Sometimes for free, sometimes for money. I won't care, I'd pay for certain things if the price is reasonable. So: If it can be done - start doing it.

Thank you Panasonic for listening.... ;-)

 

[dcloud]

its not gonna happen. deal with it.
p.s. the f3 firmware update has been announced even before the camera shipped, so it doesnt count.

 

[Barry_Green]

its not gonna happen. deal with it.
p.s. the f3 firmware update has been announced even before the camera shipped, so it doesnt count.

Just like the HPX300 firmware update that was announced prior to the camera shipping, that added flash band compensation.

Hey, look -- I'd love to be getting new free features all the time. But it simply is not a common practice in this industry. At least historically it has not been. Who knows what the future holds?

 

[Rolf Silber]

But it simply is not a common practice in this industry. At least historically it has not been. Who knows what the future holds?

True of course. And I am not complaining. I like my AG-AF as it is. But if the industry would "open" their cameras so someone could manage to apply certain "apps" I would pay for that. If it's technically possible at all.

 

[Rick Burnett]

True of course. And I am not complaining. I like my AG-AF as it is. But if the industry would "open" their cameras so someone could manage to apply certain "apps" I would pay for that. If it's technically possible at all.

Even Red is not open for apps. I doubt VERY MUCH that Sony, Panasonic, Canon or Red want ANYONE reverse engineering their code or really knowing how their system works. That is their intelectual property. While you might be willing to pay for it, the possible loss from exposing too much of their IP to others can hurt them. I work in chip design, I see this stuff ALL the time. I have to sign NDA all the time because I have to protect the clients I work with as well. In fact, there are MANY products that cannot be developed in countries with poor IP protection. Sure, once the device is out, someone can reverse engineer from that point once they buy one, but why would a company want to do all the work for you?

Camera systems are closed for ONE great reason. Increased dependability. They don't want you running some app that is hogging all the memory, using up all the CPU and screwing up your shot. I'm glad they don't waste time trying to add protections for poor programmers and instead hard code that power into the performance of the device.

 

[maxusa]

In principal a digital camera is a computer assigned to a special task. Taking moving pictures. Professional computer software is - in most cases - updated constantly.

This analogy is oversimplified in so many ways. A computer is very much modular and generic in that everybody and their mother manufactures a variety of essential components for it. It has a great deal of hardware and software abstraction. A typical computer O/S--like a swiss army knife--is so much more robust than anything running in a camcorder. Heck, there are software-only companies with decades of maturity in the computer world. A camcorder is not a lego (although it may appear so thanks to the rise of accessories). Case in point, not even every native M43 lens delivers consitent auto-focus across M43 bodies. In fact, the Pro Photo/Video industry struggles to distance itself from becoming generic. They try pushing away from cross-platform interop, standardization, and/or commoditization. Look at the number of lens mounts or batteries or storage, for example. The 43/M43 mount is an interesting experiment by the underdogs to enter/develop the segment. The current camcorder strategy seems to remain an optimized purpose-built appliance with minor field serviceability for legitimate reasons.

 

[Rolf Silber]

I'm glad they don't waste time trying to add protections for poor programmers and instead hard code that power into the performance of the device.

Good argument is a good argument. And technically - coming from "old school"-film - I may not be in the position to see all the negative implications. And sure I doubt I would "hack" my AG-AF like my GH1(3) because exactly the "dependability" is extremely important to me.

Yet - the thought of more flexibility "software wise" on a solid base is intriguing. Okay. Fantasy? Forget it.... ;-)

 

[dwiener]

Good argument is a good argument. And technically - coming from "old school"-film - I may not be in the position to see all the negative implications. And sure I doubt I would "hack" my AG-AF like my GH1(3) because exactly the "dependability" is extremely important to me.

Yet - the thought of more flexibility "software wise" on a solid base is intriguing. Okay. Fantasy? Forget it.... ;-)

That still doesn't rule out hacks. There have been hacks to the firmware of Canon's dslrs
starting with the Russian hack for the 300d

 

[Steve R]

its not gonna happen. deal with it.
p.s. the f3 firmware update has been announced even before the camera shipped, so it doesnt count.

No, the PAID update was announced. Show me where these convenience features that were added in the 1.1. FREE update for the F3 were announced before it shipped.

What are you going to say when Sony releases the 1.2 firmware update for the F3 with even more tweaks and value-added features for their users?

Are you still going to say "It just isn't done in the industry"?

Look, I'm not one of the people hoping for Panasonic to open this platform up to hackers - and I don't think it should be constantly updated over and over, nor have pre-existing documented features changed dramatically......but really, there's absolutely no reason Panasonic couldn't listen to their customers and come out with a minor firmware update that includes many of the minor tweaks and convenience features many are asking for.

I'm not saying it's GOING to happen. I'm saying there's no reason it SHOULDN'T or COULDN'T happen.

(BTW, I absolutely LOVE the "Planning Metadata" custom naming feature in the F3 firmware update)

 

[Barry_Green]

Are you still going to say "It just isn't done in the industry"?

I've been in this business for decades, and paying close attention to this prosumer handheld camcorder segment intensely for the last eight years. And in that time -- it has never, ever happened, other than the minor exceptions I mentioned. It's more likely that you'll see something like a paid upgrade, like Sony offered for its PDW700 and it now offers for its F3. JVC claimed to "upgrade" the HD100 to an HD100A, but if you look at it, it was in fact a recall, not an upgrade. They were fixing fundamentally broken things like the fact that the camera sometimes just wouldn't record at all, so I don't consider that a "free firmware update that added features".

but really, there's absolutely no reason Panasonic couldn't listen to their customers and come out with a minor firmware update that includes many of the minor tweaks and convenience features many are asking for.

Yes, there are reasons. Who would do the work? And do you think those people just sit around playing tiddlywinks during the rest of the year? The people who you are asking to spend time on making free firmware updates, are the same people who are currently hard at work making the HPX250. And when they're done with the HPX250, you may think that they should go back and make free firmware updates for the HPX170, but instead they'll likely go on to working on the next-generation HPX370 or the next-gen AF200 or the next-gen HMC40 or whatever else comes out next.

I'm not saying it's GOING to happen. I'm saying there's no reason it SHOULDN'T or COULDN'T happen.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, or that it's not going to happen. I merely pointed out that there is practically no precedent for it, ever, and that given the way these companies work, there is little reason to expect that they will suddenly change the way they've always worked.

Who knows, something may happen. Maybe they'll decide to hire more engineers and issue continuous firmware updates for all their products, I don't know. But I would not expect it.

The ideas that we have been gathering and proposing to them ARE being listened to. And the practical and possible ones will very likely be integrated into any future AF100A or AF200 or whatever comes next.

 

[Kenny_G]

The only way it could happen is that someone from a country where one cannot be sued starts a business with the sole purpose to hack the AF100. Problem is, he will not make money with it.
So, will it be wise for all the owners of the AF100 to support such a foundation?
The final question is: who is willing to support that and make a donation??????
IMO the only modification that will make sense is a higher bitrate. Barry says no, but I think it can improve the picture overall.
I exported a 15 minute production edited with Prempro cs 5.5 to m2t 40mbs/CBR and it looks as good as the original.
With 24mbs it looks softer and with VBR 1 pass it looks even softer. For SD I used a DVD encoding software in the past: Cinecraftencoder that could be set to do 3 or even 5 passes in VBR. The result was very good.

 

[Barry_Green]

Why do I say "no"? Of course a higher bitrate could make the codec more robust.

 

[Stu Siegal]

The ideas that we have been gathering and proposing to them ARE being listened to. And the practical and possible ones will very likely be integrated into any future AF100A or AF200 or whatever comes next.

I hope this is not the case. Many of the requests being made are features that owners feel should have been in this iteration of the camera. I don't know what the cost would be to implement those that are feasible to address, but I would hope that a cost/benefit analysis would be conducted to determine the value of implementing some of them in the 100 vs. a 100A or 200, taking into account the impact this would have on marketing and brand loyalty. Putting features that a vocal and brand-loyal slice of the market feel should have been there in the first place into a new version of the camera and charging for them would be punishing the early adopters, in some sense treating buyers of the first version as paying beta testers. For sure, a hew and cry would go up, one other manufacturers would be wise to capitalize on. What Panasonic, or any other manufacturer, for that matter, has done in the past is irrelevant. The market changes, evolve your model or risk the consequences.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Putting features that a vocal and brand-loyal slice of the market feel should have been there in the first place into a new version of the camera and charging for them would be punishing the early adopters, in some sense treating buyers of the first version as paying beta testers.

Please.

That is more than a little harsh and unfounded.

This isn't a RED camera that when it came out didn't even have the audio enabled.

 

[Stu Siegal]

Matt, don't get me wrong, I'm a very satisfied owner. But some of these fixes would really be irksome to not see addressed in a firmware update, simply on principle.

 

[Barry_Green]

Here is how it's been done: you buy a product that does what you want. You don't buy a product that doesn't do what you want, hoping that someday in the future the manufacturer will change that product, for free, to become what you wish it was.

Evaluate the product for what it is. If it does what you want, at a price point that you find acceptable, then buy it. If it doesn't do what you want... don't buy it.

You have all the power in this relationship. Just don't buy what doesn't do what you need.

At least, that's the way it's always been -- and that's the only thing that makes rational sense to me. They do not owe you updates, and risking/banking your business on the hope and prayer that the company will, for no discernable reason, improve your product for free -- I just don't go along with that. That seems like extreme silliness. And it's one of the reasons I didn't stick with the Red One. It was unusable as I got it, and while over the course of three years they did sort out most of the issues, I'm not gonna wait three years and go through numerous updates and revisions and whatever. No thanks, period.

Now, with that said -- it does seem that today's instant-gratification-zero-patience society may indeed be more interested in "getting something NOW", whether it does what they need or not. Maybe the new business model will be to rush whatever you can onto the market, and promise that you'll make it work over a period of several months and revision after revision...

... but if that's the future, no thanks. If that's what the business model evolves to, I think I'm done evolving.

The AF100 worked 99.998% right out of the box, with only one egregious issue (the lack of warning about not recording audio during overcranking). They fixed that. It's done now. I do not expect them to add more to it. I wish they'd go providing more and more, sure -- just like I wish my bank would arbitrarily raise my CD rate to 10%, even though when I bought the CD we agreed on a rate of 3%. I'm sure the bank would get great customer loyalty out of it, I'm sure they'd get great press out of it, I'm sure they'd be pioneers for doing it, and I'd love for them to do it.

But they're not gonna.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Matt, don't get me wrong, I'm a very satisfied owner. But some of these fixes would really be irksome to not see addressed in a firmware update, simply on principle.

That's because they are NOT fixes, they are enhancements, which is a BIG difference. EVERYTHING that Panasonic has said was in the AF100 function wise that they announced works. Period. That is why your statement makes NO sense and is unfounded.

And Barry, that's still an enhancement. Panasonic never said they'd tell you audio wasn't being recorded!

 

[Steve R]

Yes, there are reasons. Who would do the work? And do you think those people just sit around playing tiddlywinks during the rest of the year?.

I think (would hope) they would have no different a business model or resource planning than the companies that supply the dozen or so other products I own that:

1) Develop and release a brand new product every year or two...

2) While at the same time releasing value-added firmware updates to the existing model.