GH1 firmware research volunteers required

I love the look of the film, I know this is off topic but I need to know where I can find those Anamorphic lens. Thanks.
 
Strait off the cam, AVCHD looks far better then MJPEG. While it's great we can modify it so much, why modify the lower quality option to be higher when we could change the high quality option to be higher?

JPEG is infamous for being a very artifacty compressed format.
 
Strait off the cam, AVCHD looks far better then MJPEG. While it's great we can modify it so much, why modify the lower quality option to be higher when we could change the high quality option to be higher?

JPEG is infamous for being a very artifacty compressed format.


If that were true there wouldn't be countless threads complaining of mud and the "rembrandt" effect. Are we looking at the same footage? Show me where this is true.

Take a look at the footage from this post with comparison footage between mjpeg and avchd.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2005410&postcount=1855

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2007277&postcount=1972
 
If that were true there wouldn't be countless threads complaining of mud and the "rembrandt" effect. Are we looking at the same footage? Show me where this is true.

Take a look at the footage from this post with comparison footage between mjpeg and avchd.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2005410&postcount=1855

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2007277&postcount=1972

Well, I personally think it's fruitful to pursue both paths and get the most out of each. As I mentioned before, if we can fix some of the H264 encoding flaws of the GH1 in addition to raising the bitrate, the AVCHD should look better or as good as the MJPEG while taking up less space on card... providing there isn't very heavy full frame motion in the scene.

I'm not sure how the AVCHD processes work inside the camera, but if very high bitrates with shorter GOPs are achievable with the AVCHD then if there's quality or levels of clean footage to be had past our current MJPEG results, then AVCHD will achieve it in many scenes. For quick multiclip applications like filmaking, the MJPEG is managable, but for other applications like event videography, documentaries, etc etc.. where recording times and card space are more important convenience factors, MJPEG doesn't cut it in all workflows.

I think if both movies modes are tweeked to their full potential, there would be practical uses for each.
 
Last edited:
I think if both movies modes are tweeked to their full potential, there would be practical uses for each.

Sure, but people wants to get rid off mud, and now we're soooo close. Only the problem with the 30->24fps hack remains in order to have the holy grial for many mud-frustrated GH1 owners... :violin:
 
I have totally given up on the AVCHD component for this camera. It's not going to compete with the mjpeg.


Isaac, the Mjpeg just handles even over/under exposures entirely different. Reminds me of my S16 scans, however no grain.

This was shot a day apart, however it demonstrates in an unscientific manner between Mjpeg and AVCHD at 17Mbits from the GH1


Pappas
 

Attachments

  • MJPEG VS AVC.jpg
    MJPEG VS AVC.jpg
    437.3 KB · Views: 0
I think if both movies modes are tweeked to their full potential, there would be practical uses for each.

There are some people claming that they have given up on AVCHD modes (FHD, SH) on GH1, but the good news is tester13 hasn't given up on them. And when tester13 starts making progress on improving AVCHD Mbps up to its potential, people will come around.

If tester13 says he is giving up on AVCHD modes and there is nothing he can do to improve, then well.. I hope that day never comes. Perhaps you can facilitate the process by testing out AVCHD variables in the patch.
 
there are some people claming that they have given up on avchd modes (fhd, sh) on gh1, but the good news is tester13 hasn't given up on them. And when tester13 starts making progress on improving avchd mbps up to its potential, people will come around.

If tester13 says he is giving up on avchd modes and there is nothing he can do to improve, then well.. I hope that day never comes. Perhaps you can facilitate the process by testing out avchd variables in the patch.

+1
 
Isaac, the Mjpeg just handles even over/under exposures entirely different. Reminds me of my S16 scans, however no grain.

This was shot a day apart, however it demonstrates in an unscientific manner between Mjpeg and AVCHD at 17Mbits from the GH1


Pappas

It does appear that the MJPEG has a better grip on dynamic range, but the lighting in those two shots is so different you really can't compare them, unfortunately. The AVCHD looks sharper to me, but I like the way the MJPEG seems to really have a better dynamic range...but I could be wrong on that and the lighting may have been really flat and uncontrasty that day and that's why that image looks that way, by comparison the AVCHD one has very harsh highlights and shadows.

Are you using the Panasonic LGA7200 for your anamorphics?
 
I see more detail in the mjpeg clips posted, detail which just becomes a smudge in the AVCHD mode. Of course I'd be happy with a better AVCHD mode. Bring it! :)
 
Panasonic have blocked four thirds Olympus teleconverters ec-14 and ec-20 from working with G cameras but they work with E-p cameras although it is not recommended by them.
 
Last edited:
I think what Isaac and I (and perhaps others) are saying is: we're not asking for the moon, and we don't expect tester13 to move heaven and earth. We'd be happy with a mud-free razor sharp codec. So if tester13 wants to focus his efforts on one approach, rather than trying to keep them all in play, that's fine with us. Whichever is more feasible and easier to accomplish: great MJPG at 720/24fps, or great MJPG at 1080/24fps, or great AVCHD at 1080/24pN.

So far it seems like we have great MJPG at 720/30p, and the beginnings of a possible 1080p MJPG, but really not much in the way of improvement in the AVCHD mode (other than the excellent 24pN conversion, which eliminates the goofy pulldown!)

So, there's three different modes, and any one of them would be ideal, if we could get any of them "finished" -- meaning, the great bitrate improvements of the MJPG mode but also at 24fps, or the 24pN of the AVCHD mode, but also with the quality improvements that the MJPG mode has shown.

So far we don't have a finished version of any of the three potential paths, and yes of course we'd love to have all three. But I'm saying "hey, whichever's easiest, if you want to focus on that then please do, because we really only need one of 'em!"
 
So far we don't have a finished version of any of the three potential paths, and yes of course we'd love to have all three. But I'm saying "hey, whichever's easiest, if you want to focus on that then please do, because we really only need one of 'em!"

No one knows which is the easiest one.
AVCHD way is good as it have all problem solved except bitrate values.
As for mud - take a look at latests tests video. Even static shots are complete mud at low bitrate. Problem here is that AVCHD is more like afterthought for this models, so we can have many limits on each stage.
MJPEG have famous 2Gb limit, size and framerate must be changed.
This involves sensor setup. And this is very risky parts, as any error in this part and you have bricked camera due to fact that GH1 do not have separate play mode on power up (like TZ5).

So here is small plan:

We'll go for both MJPEG and AVCHD routes.
For MJPEG we'll try to make limit at 4Gb.
For AVCHD we'll make many small AVCHD patches to understand encoder behaviour.

Our problems

We need compilers and, especially, service software.
Service software is invalueable, as all we have is interface strings.
And interface part is highly separated from functional in Panasonic cameras.
Even understanding of service mod (with three letter addreviations can help us).
 
two shots is so different you really can't compare them, unfortunately. The AVCHD looks sharper to me, but I like the way the MJPEG seems to really have a better dynamic range...but I could be wrong on that and the lighting may have been really flat and uncontrasty that day and that's why that image looks that way, by comparison the AVCHD one has very harsh highlights and shadows.Are you using the Panasonic LGA7200 for your anamorphics?



I didn't like the difference in lighting either. So I just went down the street and shot them both again, at the same time...











Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Anamorphic GH1 Frames
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2006938&postcount=1956
 
Last edited:
Tesselator and other development guys

How about making a tool to find pictures and icons inside firmware?
I want small tool that allow you to travel on binary firmware image and see its contents in various modes (1bpp, 2bpp, 4bpp, 8bpp, 16bpp, 24bpp, 32bpp) on screen (plus all information, like offset, etc).
With ability to shift viewing window, go to specified offset, etc.
Window must have ability to change size as required.
Looks pretty similar to old games development.

Note that old firmware extraction tool link is www.pentax-hack.info/firmware/pan/ptool_old.zip .
 
I didn't like the difference in lighting either. So I just went down the street and shot them both again, at the same time...






Wow, okay - now we're talking - there's no question the MJPEG mode outshines AVCHD here. More detail, better DR (if only slightly and may be due to the additional detail and not really DR - I don't know for sure)

The colors in the MJPG file appear more vivid - were your exposure settings identical?

Now we just need 24p!
 
In the first two comparisons, I saw more detail in the AVCHD stills. In the motion comparison it wasn't even close, MJPEG wins.

Randy
 
Back
Top