Firmware update V1.2 (2009-17009)

[Stephen Mick]

Philip Bloom says he no longer uses a GH1 for pro work due to it's codec.

All due respect to Mr. Bloom, but I have a GH1, and I do use it for pro work (as in work for clients who actually pay me).

I agree a bump in the codec performance would be welcome, but I have yet to see a shot from my GH1 with "mud" that would cause a shot to be unusable.

 

[Ben_B]

I think the lack of HDMI live output is understandable really. To encode AVCHD at the same time as outputting it via HDMI in real time is asking too much. The camera can barely output full HD in playback mode - it has to buffer it for several seconds (but confusingly, misses the first few seconds of the clip altogether) and degrades the colour space.

Yeah that's why I'm fine with liveview composite out....that is such a simple feature and there's no way that it takes much more additional power...certainly nor more than autofocusing which I almost never use, bumping up the codec, etc.

As for mud messing you up during a shoot, I just won an Ikan monitor that I'll be using on my shoots with HDMI out to check shots really quick if I think there is a problem...sure it burns a bit of time but not as much as a reshoot.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

All due respect to Mr. Bloom, but I have a GH1, and I do use it for pro work (as in work for clients who actually pay me).

I agree a bump in the codec performance would be welcome, but I have yet to see a shot from my GH1 with "mud" that would cause a shot to be unusable.

I'll add to that...since Stephen is too modest ... I've seen quite a bit of the footage he's shot recently, and it's incredible - and it's what convinced me that I need to take these DSLR options seriously. The GH1 is most definitely capable of creating some incredible footage...which honestly can spank my HPX footage easily. No question it's ready for 'pro work.'

An improved codec is always nice.... but the current codec shouldn't be a limitation in the right hands, at all.

 

[John Caballero]

Try putting it on a steadicam, go to the park, see what happens

Been there, done that. No problem.

BTW: I don't think Philip Bloom used the GH1 for much pro work. He did some great testing footage with it and it looked great.

An improved codec is always nice.... but the current codec shouldn't be a limitation in the right hands, at all.

Exactly.

 

[Ben_B]

Philip Bloom never even liked the DSLRs as much (well he liked them but..well just finish reading the sentence) till he started drinking the 7D Koolaid and has always said that he (still does even with 7D) prefer his EX and letus setup.

That said this thread is getting derailed. Let's keep it about how much this crap blows...while remembering that NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE YESTERDAY...your cameras are still good and there still "maybe will be a fix for this sooner or later idk."

 

[Barry_Green]

I now strongly believe that Panasonic are artificially balancing performance across their range.

And what range would that be -- the PRICE range?

Look at the GF1 - is there any reason it should be stuck at 720p AVCHD lite?

And it's half the price of the GH1. As for "is there any reason", that's something we can't possibly answer, we don't know what engineering decisions went into it. Perhaps it uses less powerful hardware? We know the chip is limited to 30fps scanning, for example, so it's entirely possible that the processors aren't capable of extracting a full 1080p scan off of it in realtime, which would kind of defeat the point of having anything *but* AVCHD Lite on it...

Look at the GH1 - is there any reason it's AVCHD codec can't compete with a high end AVCHD camcorder from Panasonic, or indeed the pro-range of video cameras?

Body-only is about $900. There may very well be cost-related hardware performance issues that prevent it from being able to deliver the higher performance.

Do you truly expect the same performance out of a netbook, as you do out of an Alienware laptop? Price plays a very big part in all this, and we are basically talking about computers here. It is my speculation that the "CPU" in the GH1 isn't in the Intel Quad Extreme class, it's probably more along the lines of a Celeron or Atom (not saying they use intel chips in there, just giving a potential analogy).

Then look at the pro stuff from Panasonic - it all has faultless AVCHD.

And costs more.

These products are designed to hit a price point. If they put out a $3500 GH2, I can almost guarantee you it'd have the same AVCHD performance as the $3500 HMC150.

Or you could have 1/4" chips instead, if you went with the HMC40. Which would you rather have -- 1/4" chips and great recording, or a massive 4/3 sensor and the potential for mud? That's not a rhetorical question, that is actually the question that you as a consumer have to answer.

The GH1 deserves better firmware. I'd happily pay for it. I'd happily had paid 20% more for my GH1 if they spent that extra 20% on a proper AVCHD encoding chip and firmware.

I would gladly pay at least $2,000 for a broadcast version of the GH1, adding proper PH-mode AVCHD recording and a headphone jack. And that may be what it takes -- it may need new hardware, it may need a Core 2 Duo instead of an Atom, y'know?

I don't know that this is fixable by firmware, and I pretty much strongly doubt that it is. They might be able to up the bitrate, but bitrate alone isn't going to give it the performance of an HMC150.

And as far as I know, the 7D doesn't have B-frames either. It has more bandwidth, but it also costs more double (body-only to body-only).

It all just smacks of protecting their bottom line and segmenting markets so that they maximise the profits from each sector.

Yeah, and crippling netbooks with atom processors is all about segmenting the market to maximize profits for Alienware.

Or ... could it be, that more-capable stuff just costs more?

 

[Ben_B]

Well put Barry.

I for one am glad the GF1 has limited recording capabilities or we'd hear lots of complaints of "OH MAN I JUST BOUGHT THE GH1 AND NOW THERES THIS LITTLE CAMERA FOR CHEAP THAT DOES IT JUST AS WELL I AM GOING TO SELL MY GH1 BUT NOBODY WILL WANT IT CRY CRY CRY CRY."

Never gets old does it?

I don't know about anyone else here but I was fully aware of what I was getting myself into when I purchased a GH1 and still wanted it really badly so I got it...

I don't think you should base your purchasing decisions on the assumption that they will improve features with firmware updates later on or without realizing that something better will come out soon...you should make your decisions based on whether or not you need a camera now, what kind you need, what kind you want, and what's right for you, and then ultimately decide what the best one is....the GH1 was and still is the best camera for me...and if it wasn't for you than I'm sorry you bought it...but I'm not sorry I did.

 

[commanderspike]

And what range would that be -- the PRICE range?


And it's half the price of the GH1. As for "is there any reason", that's something we can't possibly answer, we don't know what engineering decisions went into it. Perhaps it uses less powerful hardware? We know the chip is limited to 30fps scanning, for example, so it's entirely possible that the processors aren't capable of extracting a full 1080p scan off of it in realtime, which would kind of defeat the point of having anything *but* AVCHD Lite on it...


Body-only is about $900. There may very well be cost-related hardware performance issues that prevent it from being able to deliver the higher performance.

Do you truly expect the same performance out of a netbook, as you do out of an Alienware laptop? Price plays a very big part in all this, and we are basically talking about computers here. It is my speculation that the "CPU" in the GH1 isn't in the Intel Quad Extreme class, it's probably more along the lines of a Celeron or Atom (not saying they use intel chips in there, just giving a potential analogy).


And costs more.

These products are designed to hit a price point. If they put out a $3500 GH2, I can almost guarantee you it'd have the same AVCHD performance as the $3500 HMC150.

Or you could have 1/4" chips instead, if you went with the HMC40. Which would you rather have -- 1/4" chips and great recording, or a massive 4/3 sensor and the potential for mud? That's not a rhetorical question, that is actually the question that you as a consumer have to answer.


I would gladly pay at least $2,000 for a broadcast version of the GH1, adding proper PH-mode AVCHD recording and a headphone jack. And that may be what it takes -- it may need new hardware, it may need a Core 2 Duo instead of an Atom, y'know?

I don't know that this is fixable by firmware, and I pretty much strongly doubt that it is. They might be able to up the bitrate, but bitrate alone isn't going to give it the performance of an HMC150.

And as far as I know, the 7D doesn't have B-frames either. It has more bandwidth, but it also costs more double (body-only to body-only).


Yeah, and crippling netbooks with atom processors is all about segmenting the market to maximize profits for Alienware.

Or ... could it be, that more-capable stuff just costs more?

I know the GH1 is great value for money.

But my issue is this:

Good AVCHD implementations are not expensive and Panasonic already had both the knowledge and hardware to do one.

I think Panasonic conspired to cripple the GH1 in order to keep a clear gap between their market segments. From a purely artistic point of view, when I use my GH1 and it gives me an incident of mud, I feel that this isn't fair behaviour from Panasonic and the lack of a fix in the firmware updates has made my mind up. They've done it on purpose.

Look, even the SD1 has B frames. It hardly takes an Alienware image processor does it?

 

[commanderspike]

I don't know about anyone else here but I was fully aware of what I was getting myself into when I purchased a GH1 and still wanted it really badly so I got it...

A sense of perspective and a disclaimer before I continue:

I love the GH1. It's a game changer.

But I did not for a moment expect it to have such a dodgy codec before I made my decision to purchase it. I made my decision based on Philip Bloom's sample videos and common sense. I haven't regretted it, but I do regret Panasonic not improving the image quality in any meaningful way in BOTH subsequent firmware updates.

 

[Barry_Green]

Good AVCHD implementations are not expensive and Panasonic already had both the knowledge and hardware to do one.

Yes, but do those all go together? Toyota has the knowledge and hardware to make hybrids and pickup trucks, but I don't see a hybrid pickup truck from them. So they could make a good still camera, even one with a 4K sensor, or they could make a great AVCHD implementation in a professional (and only in their professional) broadcast camera. Yes they can do those things. But do they go together?

I think Panasonic conspired to cripple the GH1 in order to keep a clear gap between their market segments.

What market segment? The GH1 is the top-of-the-line DSLR from Panasonic. There's nothing above it!

What are they trying to protect?

From a purely artistic point of view, when I use my GH1 and it gives me an incident of mud, I feel that this isn't fair behaviour from Panasonic and the lack of a fix in the firmware updates has made my mind up. They've done it on purpose.

Because they're meanies? Because, deep down, they hate their customer and want to see him squirm? What possible benefit is there to them to take an attitude of punishing the customer?

They designed a 4K sensor interchangeable-lens camera that shoots 720/60p and 1080/24p and priced it at about $800 body-only, $1500 including lens. That's 1/3 the price of the Canon 5D Mk II and 1/2 the price of the Canon 7D. You don't think some compromises had to be made along the way? I certainly do.

Look, even the SD1 has B frames. It hardly takes an Alienware image processor does it?

The SD1 is a video camera, not a still camera with video features. And the SD1 has 1/4" chips. Perhaps the overall processing requirements of handling a 4K chip and downsampling to HD video has somehow offset the processing power of the AVCHD chip?

Naw, let's just say that they're meanies. It's much more popular to decide that they're just punishing us, the dumb consumer.

 

[Barry_Green]

I love the GH1. It's a game changer.

Absolutely agree.

But I did not for a moment expect it to have such a dodgy codec before I made my decision to purchase it.

Absolutely agree. But I've found that for the purposes I want, it simply has not been an issue. I remain aware of the potential, but so far it's been fine.

I haven't regretted it, but I do regret Panasonic not improving the image quality in any meaningful way in BOTH subsequent firmware updates.

I would never buy a product expecting that it will get better. I buy electronics products expecting them to be superseded or obsoleted. If some firmware update comes along that actually makes my product better? Hallelujah, what a great surprise.

But I do not now, nor ever, expect any firmware update to come along for the GH1 ever again. And if it does, I do not expect it to add any new features or improve anything about the camera. I would expect that new firmware updates would add support for new lenses or things like that.

Anything else? An unexpected bonus.

 

[commanderspike]

I dislike conspiracy theories as much as you do Barry but I do find it fishy that:

A) They're still using smaller sensors in the pro camcorder range
B) They knew of the GH1's potential and had to protect their professional broadcast division.

The GH1 undersells (with it's low price) what is an amazing piece of technology, especially the sensor.

Of course they were worried about it's impact on the more profitable niche products, i.e. the pro camcorders.

Maybe the GH1 is the absolute pinnacle of what they could reasonably do for the consumer market, given the price point and the time & investment available to them. Maybe.

Maybe they are refining the technology and adding B frames, etc. and once this large sensor video CMOS chip technology is jello free, mud free and refined to the Nth degree, then they will feel comfortable putting it in pro kit. That makes sense to me.

But Panasonic are a closed book. They will never tell us the technical reasons for leaving out B frames. They will make us guess.

I cast a jealous eye over the 5D Mark II hack which added a zebra and audio monitoring, and also I am jealous of their firmware update which added manual controls.

I just want what's best for the GH1 and for Panasonic to improve the breed, be more transparent and to be better at listening to enthusiasts and not just the mass market. We want that higher bit rate, we want that HDMI out, we want it now!!

So far they have given us what we don't really need and locked use of 3rd party batteries which verges on anticompetitive behaviour.

Okay I may be being commercially naive here, but the GH1 is so close to being an even greater professional video camera than it is, if it wasn't for what seems like some rather unfortunate and unnecessary cuts.

Consumer cameras like the GH1 are designed for the mass market. And boo hoo to anyone who wants more specialist features from it. Let's literally walk into Panasonic's design office, place $2000 each on their desks and make them design a custom GH1 for indie film makers It's the only way...

 

[AdrianF]

We are, after all, talking about a consumer product. I find the "pro" features of the GH1 somewhat amazing just as they are considering the primary target audience and the price.

Couldn't agree more.

But I do not now, nor ever, expect any firmware update to come along for the GH1 ever again. And if it does, I do not expect it to add any new features or improve anything about the camera. I would expect that new firmware updates would add support for new lenses or things like that.

I think you might be right. I was expecting a firmware update to coincide with the GF1, but I wasn't that surprised to see that the update was for just lens functionality.
This is actually good news in my opinion, as the 20mm pancake looks like a great addition to the GH1 from the samples I've seen.

 

[Park Edwards]

how come you never hear people say "ohh man, my video camera takes shitty pictures, whens the firmware update coming so I can take better pictures?"

 

[commanderspike]

how come you never hear people say "ohh man, my video camera takes shi*ty pictures, whens the firmware update coming so I can take better pictures?"

Because it's not about that. It's above improving upon already great potential.

Anyone who thinks camera firmware updates will have such a dramatic impact on photographic talent is seriously deluded. Nobody really thinks that way.

My concern is that when I was following the singer around a tree in a music video, and I got the footage back, I had plenty of mud, artefacts and lost detail despite the footage being well shot and a steadicam used.

This is actually good news in my opinion, as the 20mm pancake looks like a great addition to the GH1 from the samples I've seen.

Agreed. The pancake lens is gonna be a great addition. I can sell my huuugely bulky Leica 25mm F1.4 lens now for almost the price I can buy a GF1 body with 20mm F1.4 pancake outright.

 

[AdrianF]

So far they have given us what we don't really need and locked use of 3rd party batteries which verges on anticompetitive behaviour.

The battery blocking is the big issue which will piss off a much larger user base. I think the video codec issue is probably only really an issue amongst a very small minority of users.

 

[Barry_Green]

A) They're still using smaller sensors in the pro camcorder range

... and so does everyone else, so ... ?

Pro camcorders have three chips. Every broadcast camera out there has three chips... broadcast/pro video is a different world than digicine or DSLR.

B) They knew of the GH1's potential and had to protect their professional broadcast division.

This I find absolutely profoundly not credible. The GH1 will sell, by itself, probably at least 10x if not 100x as much as the entire broadcast division's revenues put together. And secondly, the broadcast division's customers are not going to be tempted, in the slightest, to go shooting on a DSLR.

Did you read the Alan Roberts' BBC evaluation of the 5D Mark II? The DSLR that many people are claiming is the best/holy grail of DSLR video so far? For broadcast purposes they wouldn't even touch it, so much chroma patterning, moire, and aliasing that he didn't even bother to run any other tests, proclaiming it completely unsuitable for broadcast.

So the GH1 competing with broadcast? Nope.

So here's the part where I don't get -- follow along with me, let's walk through the scenario, and you tell me which response makes the most sense:

The boss of Panasonic sits in his ivory tower on top of his throne made entirely of bricks of cash, rolling in gold like Scrooge McDuck, and in walk two department heads -- the head of Broadcast, and the head of Consumer. And the boss of Panasonic asks for a report. And the head of Broadcast says "we have had an excellent year, we have captured 80% of the market, and our revenues are the highest ever, we are up to one billion yen." And the boss of Panasonic says "very good. And Consumer?" And the boss of Consumer says "we have introduced a new GH1 with video capability, and it will sell one hundred billion yen this year." And the head of Broadcast says "wait -- no! You can't do that! It will cannibalize our sales!"

So there sits the wise and all-knowing boss of Panasonic, up on his throne. He has to render a decision. Does he "protect" the one billion yen, or does he take the 100 billion yen? Hmmm... Do you think he will say:
1) Mr. Consumer Division, you must unnecessarily cripple your product. I cannot have you competing with our Broadcast division. Please make some boneheaded and stupid decisions so that nobody serious will want to buy your product."

or

2) A hundred billion yen versus one? Broadcast... too bad. If you think I'm gonna turn down 99 billion yen, you're crazy. You'd better get on the ball and produce something the broadcasters would rather buy, and fast!

Sorry, but I patently reject the "crippling to protect" line of reasoning. Look at the HPX300 vs. the HPX3000 -- the 3000 is, comparatively, screwed. So? They're selling plenty of HPX300s to make up for it...

Of course they were worried about it's impact on the more profitable niche products, i.e. the pro camcorders.

I think they're far more worried about making sales, and crippling your product is not a good way to make sales.

Maybe they are refining the technology and adding B frames, etc. and once this large sensor video CMOS chip technology is jello free, mud free and refined to the Nth degree, then they will feel comfortable putting it in pro kit. That makes sense to me.

That is what I expect. That'd better be what they're doing, if they know what's good for them.

But Panasonic are a closed book. They will never tell us the technical reasons for leaving out B frames.

I'd dare say it's probably the same reason Canon left them out too.

Okay I may be being commercially naive here, but the GH1 is so close to being an even greater professional video camera than it is, if it wasn't for what seems like some rather unfortunate and unnecessary cuts.

Here's where I disagree. The GH1 is nowhere near being a professional video camera. It's a consumer still camera that just happens to shoot fantastic video too. But if it was marketed to professionals, as-is, it'd tank. The problem is that it's soooo tempting, it's soooo good at what it does, that we want to push it further than it was ever designed to go. That's our fault, not its.

Let's literally walk into Panasonic's design office, place $2000 each on their desks and make them design a custom GH1 for indie film makers It's the only way...

I am doing exactly that. Well, I haven't put the cash down, but I've told every broadcast representative and engineer in every country and every territory that I visit, to do exactly that. I have spelled out the weaknesses, the good parts, what we want, what we need, what's wrong with the current implementation, and that we'd happily pay $2000 for an upgraded pro version.

 

[pailes]

Man this issue has been discussed over and over again. I have some technical background about codec implementation and my guess is that the DSP in the GH1 is simply not powerful enough to encode B-frames in realtime on the fly. Period. Convince me otherwise but leave out conspiracy theories. They will NOT improve codec performance. Just forget about the idea.

I'd be happy if they would solve that dropping frames bug in the PAL version but that's about it.

 

[Ben_B]

Is the GH1 all P-frames?

I really don't see how B-Frames would improve the image performance over P-frames...I thought they were mainly just to save additional space vs P and I frames?

 

[Barry_Green]

Is the GH1 all P-frames?

It's an I-frame followed by a bunch of P-frames.

I really don't see how B-Frames would improve the image performance over P-frames...I thought they were mainly just to save additional space vs P and I frames?

Well, yeah, but saving space is the whole point of a codec. The more efficient it is, the more original raw quality you can cram in.

Consider that in the GH1 or 7D or 5D (as I understand it) the GoP looks pretty much like this:

IPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Whereas in the HMC150, the group looks more like this:
IBBBPBBBPBBBPBBB

The more efficient you can make the rest of the group, the more data you can allocate to the I-frame, which means the more accurate the source image will be. Plus, the more data can be allocated to each individual frame within the group, making all the predicted and bidirectional frames more accurate.