GH2 Hacked : better than AF 100?

kprince

kprince

Well-known member
Put the camera in the BEST place possible for the picture, and put the mic in the BEST place possible for sound.

That being said I'm a big fan of double system sound, I like audio and videoland to to be two separate and freely mobile entities. Stay organized and post really isn't that big a deal.

I currently have a hacked GH1 and I'm very happy with it so far but would trade it for a GH2 based on the sole purpose of shooting 60p at 1080p. So...

If the GH2 does wind up getting hacked, would it be hypothetically able to produce images that would be indistinguishable when compared to the AF 100?

I'm not too saavy in the super sub tech world but what technology in the AF 100 is going to save the image from moire, aliasing, & jello that the potentially hackable GH2 couldn't accomplish?
 
It's a high possibility your hacked gh1 will produce higher images than the af100. time will tell.
 
kprince said:
I'm not too saavy in the super sub tech world but what technology in the AF 100 is going to save the image from moire, aliasing, & jello that the potentially hackable GH2 couldn't accomplish?
Click to expand...

An optical low pass filter is probably the answer to some of your question but whether or not OLPFs can be applied to the GH2 hasn't been explored. I believe Vitaliy mentioned it's possible given enthusiasm by the right optical company...
As they are a physical improvement, *simply* hacking the camera won't suffice.
Jello might also be problematic regarding improvement through a hack.
 
SonicStates said:
An optical low pass filter is probably the answer to some of your question but whether or not OLPFs can be applied to the GH2 hasn't been explored. I believe Vitaliy mentioned it's possible given enthusiasm by the right optical company...
As they are a physical improvement, *simply* hacking the camera won't suffice.
Jello might also be problematic regarding improvement through a hack.
Click to expand...

So AF 100 has OLPF's built in?
 
AF100 must have an OLPF for the new "virtual" pixel size of 1920x1080. Any modern camera has an OLPF but it's tuned to its regular pixel size, 4000xN pixels or whatever the camera resolution is.
 
kprince said:
If the GH2 does wind up getting hacked, would it be hypothetically able to produce images that would be indistinguishable when compared to the AF 100?
Click to expand...
No, never. Because of the aliasing and potential moire issues.

but what technology in the AF 100 is going to save the image from moire, aliasing, & jello that the potentially hackable GH2 couldn't accomplish?
Click to expand...
The AF100 is a video camera with video processing, a video-tuned sensor, and $4995 worth of hardware in it, versus a still camera with a still sensor and $900 worth of processing in it. They're just not the same.

I bet they could be made to look very similar, but they'll never be the same.

And, as far as a GH2/hack replacing an AF100, that kind of misses the whole point of the AF100, to wit:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2121512&postcount=1
 
Barry_Green said:
No, never. Because of the aliasing and potential moire issues.


The AF100 is a video camera with video processing, a video-tuned sensor, and $4995 worth of hardware in it, versus a still camera with a still sensor and $900 worth of processing in it. They're just not the same.

I bet they could be made to look very similar, but they'll never be the same.

And, as far as a GH2/hack replacing an AF100, that kind of misses the whole point of the AF100, to wit:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2121512&postcount=1
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are saying that the difference between a $900 pro-sumer camera and a $5000 pro camera is the warranty?

I really would like to see a test between the GH2 and the AF 100. I seriously doubt the difference in the footage will be worth $4000. I think the biggest limiting factor is the end compression and display resolution. You can record in 4:4:4 lossless 4k all you want. The end result is that your work will probably be seen on some crappy theatre screen, on an SD DVD, or on over-compressed streaming.


I will take a little moiré over compression artifacts any day.


Just curious but are there really that many people on dvx user that produce commercial Blu-rays?
 
mpgxsvcd said:
It sounds like you are saying that the difference between a $900 pro-sumer camera and a $5000 pro camera is the warranty?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'm saying the difference between using a purpose-built tool for the purpose it was designed, and using a hack, is that the hack can puke and fail on you. And if that happens in the middle of a job, you're SCREWED.

I will take a little moiré over compression artifacts any day.
Click to expand...
Everyone is free to choose their own priorities. I will take a fully-functional, purpose-built, professional camcorder from the broadcast division of one of the major manufacturers, over a firmware-hacked consumer camcorder, any day, and twice on Sunday. There is no possible way that a slight hack improvement here or there, can make up for ruining a job. None.

If someone's a hobbyist and experimenting, then by all means, hack away. I hacked my GH1, you'd better believe it, and I love it. But I would never, ever rely on it for a paying job. When there's paychecks involved I choose to leave the hack at home and go with properly-engineered purpose-built products that are absolutely rock-solid reliable. And if it costs more, it costs more -- but I find the prospect of a lost job, lost client, and lost reputation far more expensive than a more-expensive camcorder. Call it insurance, call it convenience, call it warranty, call it whatever you want, but that's how I set my priorities.

Any individual's priorities may vary. But that's how I set mine.
 
Barry_Green said:
Everyone is free to choose their own priorities. I will take a fully-functional, purpose-built, professional camcorder from the broadcast division of one of the major manufacturers, over a firmware-hacked consumer camcorder, any day, and twice on Sunday. There is no possible way that a slight hack improvement here or there, can make up for ruining a job. None.

If someone's a hobbyist and experimenting, then by all means, hack away. I hacked my GH1, you'd better believe it, and I love it. But I would never, ever rely on it for a paying job. When there's paychecks involved I choose to leave the hack at home and go with properly-engineered purpose-built products that are absolutely rock-solid reliable. And if it costs more, it costs more -- but I find the prospect of a lost job, lost client, and lost reputation far more expensive than a more-expensive camcorder. Call it insurance, call it convenience, call it warranty, call it whatever you want, but that's how I set my priorities.
Click to expand...

People really need to realize this before making another thread in this same vein.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not at all. I'm saying the difference between using a purpose-built tool for the purpose it was designed, and using a hack, is that the hack can puke and fail on you. And if that happens in the middle of a job, you're SCREWED.
Click to expand...

I totally understand what you are saying. I was just pulling your chain a little. If I was getting paid for shooting I would do everything to make it perfect and reliable.

That being said. There are some Hack settings that are 100% reliable. When not pushed past its limits the hacked cameras can be just as reliable as the unhacked ones.
 
Ideally pixel density of the AF-100 would be 3840x2160 - with a high quality downscaler. The whole chip should get read out then scaled down in camera.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
I totally understand what you are saying. I was just pulling your chain a little. If I was getting paid for shooting I would do everything to make it perfect and reliable.

That being said. There are some Hack settings that are 100% reliable. When not pushed past its limits the hacked cameras can be just as reliable as the unhacked ones.
Click to expand...

I agree. I often build my own workstations and run the hardware at well over the stock settings. A hacker that knows what he is doing is essentially doing the same thing to the camera but knowing not to push the hardware past its safe area of operation. Which is still nearly always almost double the stock settings with proper cooling etc if we are talking processors for examples. Some of the side effects of higher operation may have not been taken into account in the original design thus you run into issues. So you buy a bigger fan or cooling for hotter run for more performance in the processor example. For the camera and In the gh1 hack i saw no serious bumps in temperatures or anything requiring hardware modification to run the camera safely at the new settings which were well below its danger zones, thus no danger in running it like this and expecting consistency.
 
You guys are missing the point. No hack is going magically give it a video tuned OLPF. You will have greater moire, aliasing and jello with the GH2/1.

The GH2/1 will look great in many situations, but in certain times it ruin the shot, which you can't afford to do when money is involved. It would be unprofessional and cost your reputation. Same with the T2i, 7D, etc.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
It sounds like you are saying that the difference between a $900 pro-sumer camera and a $5000 pro camera is the warranty?

I really would like to see a test between the GH2 and the AF 100. I seriously doubt the difference in the footage will be worth $4000. I think the biggest limiting factor is the end compression and display resolution. You can record in 4:4:4 lossless 4k all you want. The end result is that your work will probably be seen on some crappy theatre screen, on an SD DVD, or on over-compressed streaming.


I will take a little moiré over compression artifacts any day.


Just curious but are there really that many people on dvx user that produce commercial Blu-rays?
Click to expand...

Well would you buy a normal ratchet when you need an impact gun? they essentially do the same damn thing, but the impact gun is better for the job. Sure you could "hack/modify" the ratchet to give you more torque by using a pipe to extend the handle, but you are still going to be working harder for something that should have been easy.

If you are a hobbyist, the GH1/2 should suffice the normal consumer. Hell its great for what I do, but If I were to jump into paid gigs more so than what I do now, I would get an HMC150 or something.
 
Okay, on one hand, I'm sorry, the 176mb driftwood hack rules. It just does. It may not have the latitude of an alexa, it may not have the richness of a 5D, but it has a very high quality, distinct and compelling look that, in the right hands, is incredible (And I'm not even saying my hands are that good, but I'm pretty happy with http://vimeo.com/29930815). The form factor is incredible, I love I frame, and it has been 100 percent stable for me (and with the previous hack, I shot two full weeks on a serious nature doc).

On the other hand, yes, pro gear is pro gear, and I'm not comfortable rolling without duplicate sound, so having a camera that records uncompressed is a real asset.

Doing three shoots with 2 gh2s and 2 external sound recorders (one backup) over the next few weeks. We'll see.

Is the Gh2 better than the af100? There different cameras entirely. Does the Gh2 produce some great results with a distinct look that people will watch and enjoy? Absolutely.
 
Duke M. said:
You guys are missing the point. No hack is going magically give it a video tuned OLPF. You will have greater moire, aliasing and jello with the GH2/1.
Click to expand...

Actually the GH2 has been tested to have less aliasing/moire and slightly more resolution that the AF-100. It's just better down-sampaling. Better tech in the GH2.

And there is just no comparison to the all-I 175mb/s hack. It's just amazing. The AF-100 is probably a better "production" camera. But the image is nowhere near the hacked GH2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top