GH2 GH3: Panny: YES uncompressed HDMI, firmware focus peaking....

[Per Lichtman]

@tipota [EDIT: Section deleted because I missed the joke].

As to the point of their receptivity to VK's hacks, I will simply offer some of the limited data we have on their position so far (as opposed to suggestions about how to interpret it).

- With the GH1, attempts were made to lockout the hacks in successive models, up until VK made all known GH1s hackable last year.
- When Panasonic updated the firmware for the GH2 to v1.1, they did not put in additional protections to block VK (who had publicly hacked the earlier firmware version at that point).
- Several Panasonic employees have been quoted in the blogs as saying that they "expect" that the GH3 will be hacked as the GH2 was.
- No Panasonic employee has publicly explicitly endorsed future hacking in a fashion that has been circulated on the major message boards or blogs.
- Several employees have been quoted as saying that they are "impressed" by what the hackers were able to do.
- Panasonic made comments following the recent Zacuto shootout (where the hacked GH2 with a version of Driftwood's Quantum 9 or 9b was used) to promote themselves on their Facebook.

Take my comments for what they are worth - I am not really one of the "magicians" you referred to, just a member of the support team responsible for helping with a lot of the testing that goes into some of the settings (for instance certain Driftwood settings) and the creator of the modified audio settings used by essentially the major settings authors at the present time.

 

[Rolf Silber]

@Per: You were not the main addressee of my (slightly ironic, I hoped) posting.

If Panasonic would not exactly raise again hurdles for Vitalysation and Driftwooding the GH3 - under the assumption that you loose warranty, which is okay me thinks and the risk of the owner - this would be good and probably even wise by them.

On the other hand I wait for the mayor companies to make their product maybe more flexible in the future either for third parties or by themselves - adding focus peaking, for instance, a bit later. Anyhow: Interesting times for someone like me coming from "old school".......

 

[Per Lichtman]

@tipota Sorry, I missed the joke. Earlier comment edited to reflect that.

Anyway, I certainly agree with your assessment.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Germans come across a bit like Huns at times when they use the Anglo-saxon dialect.... and: I am a Hessian (but no Walken-style horsemen)... ;-)

I am eager to work as a guinea pig early on with the GH3 as by now I have developed a - maybe naive - trust in the company after having been over-critical in the beginning with the GH1.

For me cameras need to have - apart from the tech-specs - good practicability as I do like taking stills (and sometimes video) under conditions that need a compromise between using a smaller camera and having one that is more rugged. So the GH3 seems to be the perfect choice for me.

Hope weather sealing applies also - at least to a degree - in conjunction with other lenses like Voigtlaender's.

 

[Gary Huff]

Gary. You don't know anything about my professional background.

Because you're posting anonymously, obviously.

I know what a ridiculous game the software business is because I was steeped in it for years. Long after the core R&D has been recouped, software companies have for 20 years been gouging customers. But sure, the reasonable cost of any commodity is set by the market. If the market can't bear it, it wont pay. I'm not ignorant of the fact that retail 25 years ago, in the analog days was around 400% - 500% of wholesale, which BTW is not the same as cost. Today, retail runs at between 700% and 1000% of wholesale. In software, that margin is way bigger. Remember that HW is made from atoms, but software is made from bits. Bits cost next to nothing to duplicate. So when when BMC 'bundles' what they allege to be $1,250 worth of software into the camera, they are really bundling what costs them ZERO per unit.

So how much should they be charging for Resolve/BMCC and what data do you use to base this on so that Blackmagic Design can pay its employees, its monthly bills, and other expenses so that it doesn't go bankrupt? What is that number explicitly? (hint: if your answer is "I don't know" or just a number you make up on the spot with no supporting evidence, then how can you claim you are doing anything but trolling?)

Now when it comes to HW, this stuff has been in robotic mass production for decades, with fewer and fewer hands in Quangdong touching anything. I mean I could go on but I know that you are not as ignorant as you suggest that I am so you get it right?

You're right...I'm not as ignorant as you are coming across because I understand that companies have to make more money than just the cost of raw materials. It has also been explained to you by others, and yet you continue on this path of making general accusations of "gouging" customers without being able to back up your arguments with anything but empty words.

The BMC ploy of tricking customers into thinking that 'including' Resolve adds anything over a few pennies of value is hilarious.

Again, how much should Da Vinci Resolve cost the customer in order for Blackmagic Design to remain in business as a company that pays its debts?

If you're going to call me out as a troll because it's convenient for you, go ahead. I'll check your LinkedIn profile later

It's convenient for me because I don't feel like trying to explain to you how the sky is blue if you stubbornly insist that it's orange. And, yes, you may very well check my LinkedIn profile quite easily...since I'm not posting anonymously like you are.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

Because you're posting anonymously, obviously.



So how much should they be charging for Resolve/BMCC and what data do you use to base this on so that Blackmagic Design can pay its employees, its monthly bills, and other expenses so that it doesn't go bankrupt? What is that number explicitly? (hint: if your answer is "I don't know" or just a number you make up on the spot with no supporting evidence, then how can you claim you are doing anything but trolling?)



You're right...I'm not as ignorant as you are coming across because I understand that companies have to make more money than just the cost of raw materials. It has also been explained to you by others, and yet you continue on this path of making general accusations of "gouging" customers without being able to back up your arguments with anything but empty words.



Again, how much should Da Vinci Resolve cost the customer in order for Blackmagic Design to remain in business as a company that pays its debts?



It's convenient for me because I don't feel like trying to explain to you how the sky is blue if you stubbornly insist that it's orange. And, yes, you may very well check my LinkedIn profile quite easily...since I'm not posting anonymously like you are.

I give up. Pay whatever you wish for software and hardware and please feel free to discuss the absolute merits of the systems without including a discussion of value, because a discussion of 'value' invariable leads to questions of HOW customers are paying for their toys. For pros the model is simple. If the budget is there, cost is NO issue. For so-called indies and 'enthusiasts' it depends. Are they financing toys out of trust funds? Again, cost may not be an issue. For others that finance their toys out of revenue, it may be an issue. Now on the manufacturer side, I can, if pushed, leverage my industry insider connections to give you hard figures, but it's expensive as the cost of goods numbers tend to be quite secret. But it's a generalized model. I have sourced equipment from china that yes, costs $3.00 wholesale and gets marked up hugely here in the US. That is after all, WHY we have lost the will to manufacture. Now we have become middle men paying salaries and raising families on revenues earned from markups alone.
Surely you understand me when I explain that software is intangible. So I hear you say stuff like...
"Again, how much should Da Vinci Resolve cost the customer in order for Blackmagic Design to remain in business as a company that pays its debts?"
The real answer is another question. "How much can we charge for air, which we all need in order to live"? Air costs nothing and software should cost next to nothing after the initial investment has been recovered." You are aware that PATENTS EXPIRE AFTER 21 YEARS so all that happens is companies that make software, gouge like the dickens to compensate for the eventual expirations.
What you are actually talking about is welfare.
If BMC doesn't bifurcate it's SW from HW in the 'magic camera' then they are gouging, just like Microsoft had been doing when all IBM desktops were sold bundled with MS applications.
Anyway. I'm passed caring about this conversation as I see that I've upset you guys and you just want to discuss Uncompressed HDMI, focus peaking etc.
Sorry 'bout that mates!

 

[Gary Huff]

I give up. Pay whatever you wish for software and hardware and please feel free to discuss the absolute merits of the systems without including a discussion of value, because a discussion of 'value' invariable leads to questions of HOW customers are paying for their toys.

Translation: I don't know how much Blackmagic Design should sell Da Vinci Resolve for, I just wish things were cheaper for me personally to purchase.

Now on the manufacturer side, I can, if pushed, leverage my industry insider connections to give you hard figures, but it's expensive as the cost of goods numbers tend to be quite secret.

I'm pushing. Give me your "insider connections" and the evidence that shows you're not just turning in your chair and asking the invisible "industry insider connection" sitting next to you (after all, I can totally make up numbers too). And why is it "expensive"? I thought you were just going to ask people?

But it's a generalized model.

Translation: It's just a feeling that I'm paying too much, though I don't know why explicitly I am paying too much.

I have sourced equipment from china that yes, costs $3.00 wholesale and gets marked up hugely here in the US.

The exact same product, with absolutely no changes whatsoever? And how much did the R&D cost to get to the point where they could send the plans over to China to market it? And how many units can they expect to sell? And what are the daily/monthly expenses that are being incurred while they are in the process of selling this $3 widget? See, it's questions like these that you apparently are unaware of asking that make me figure you as either a troll or ignorant on how this business works. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's a Chinese knockoff product. Seems to be that there's always something that's not quite the same as the higher-priced item, whether in build quality, interface quirkiness, or other issues. The forum is full of people who have tried some of these cheap knockoffs and found them wanting in some way. So apparently you're not making an apples-to-apples comparison if that's what you're referring to.

That is after all, WHY we have lost the will to manufacture. Now we have become middle men paying salaries and raising families on revenues earned from markups alone.

Boiling down a complex issue to a talking point rarely paints an accurate picture of what is going on, and is therefore not a useful argument.

Surely you understand me when I explain that software is intangible. So I hear you say stuff like... "Again, how much should Da Vinci Resolve cost the customer in order for Blackmagic Design to remain in business as a company that pays its debts?"
The real answer is another question. "How much can we charge for air, which we all need in order to live"? Air costs nothing and software should cost next to nothing after the initial investment has been recovered." You are aware that PATENTS EXPIRE AFTER 25 YEARS so all that happens is companies that make software, gouge like the dickens to compensate for the eventual expirations.

If I thought you were ignorant before, you've really taken the cake now. First, your comparison between software and oxygen is laughably inept. It doesn't help anyone understand the underlying issues and it is in no way comparable. That you would even begin to think this was a good argument boggles my mind.

Second, the expiration of a software patent doesn't mean that AJA Video Systems can release their own product called Da Vinci Resolve. And on top of that, in 25 years, video technology will be so far advanced that the current Da Vinci Resolve software will seem like the stone age (and Blackmagic will have either ceased to exist, dropped Da Vinci entirely, or will be on Da Vinci Resolve 18 by that point). And by even bringing it up, you admit that part of the cost associated with the software is the developement that will one day cease to be protected, yet the company is not magically resolved of its monthly bills. You seem to be of the opinion that as soon as the software is developed, that all the work immediately ceases and expenditures drop to almost nil. That is a laughably ignorant position to take, and if you don't honestly believe that Blackmagic Design is still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars even after they have released their products, then you need to change how you are expressing your opinions to stop giving that impression.

What you are actually talking about is welfare.

Wow, that is so ludicrous and non applicable that I'm embarrassed for you.

If BMC doesn't bifurcate it's SW from HW in the 'magic camera' then they are gouging, just like Microsoft had been doing when all IBM desktops were sold bundled with MS applications.

There you go again, blasting a company for "gouging" when you have no evidence that that is what Blackmagic Design is doing at all. You have no idea what it actually costs them or how much "profit" they are supposedly making from all those poor hobbyist users who should be paying $99.99 for the Blackmagic Cinema Camera apparently. Again, how is that not trolling?

 

[Darren Levine]

geeze, well um...

gary, as much as i agree with you, using such put down language is never in good form.

zephy, he IS right, you're not backing anything up with real numbers. you're making blind statements. you have no idea how BM arranged the package. how do you know that their cost for the hardware is say 2000, and they decided to hack the price of resolve in half to squeeze it into the package because it IS a perfect companion to the product, and still of course have some overhead for profit. you don't know how much they paid for resolve, and regardless of how much they paid, the software is worth what it's worth, and since there are no other camers that do exactly what the BMC does, you have no grounds to state how much the hardware end should be worth.

the reason for backlash against you is that you're making unjustifiable statements which offer no possibility for contention. when you make such a concrete statement and reject all contentions, it comes off as ignorant or arrogant. it may not seem that way to your eyes, but it does from the other end of readers. phrase things instead from your Point Of View, and consider everything a theory instead of a fact, and you can debate passionately without offending.

 

[Barry_Green]

This is ridiculous. It costs what it costs. If you don't like it go buy something else. It can't really get any simpler then that.

Brilliant.

[/END THREAD]

 

[Barry_Green]

Look, the simple unavoidable absolute fact is -- what it costs to manufacture has zero bearing on what they sell it for. Never has, never will, and if you don't like it, too bad -- you're free to NOT BUY IT. But you don't get to dictate to someone else, what they should sell their product for. If it truly is overpriced, then competition means someone else can come in and sell a comparable product for less. And if nobody offers a comparable product for less, then -- that means it probably ISN'T overpriced after all.

Looking up the parts costs of what it costs to manufacture something is absolutely irrelevant to what the owner of that product can deem a fair price for selling it. And here's my prime example -- let's say you labor for a couple of years, writing your genius screenplay, and you take it to a talent agent to sell it, and the talent agent comes back saying "you've got an offer, Warner Brothers is going to buy it for $0.85." And you scream, and say "no way!!!" and "what about on 'FilmSpecific' where I read that the average screenplay sells for at least $x00,000 and the really good ones go for $x,000,000! Why didn't I get an offer like that?!?!"

And the agent says "well, they think they're making a fair offer. They looked into what it costs to manufacture your screenplay and they figure you spent 40 cents on paper and printer toner to print it, so at 85 cents you're more than doubling your money, they think you should be very happy with that."

 

[Darren Levine]

They looked into what it costs to manufacture your screenplay and they figure you spent 40 cents on paper and printer toner to print it, so at 85 cents you're more than doubling your money, they think you should be very happy with that."

i hate you barry, i have a sore throat and it hurts to laugh. damn you for making a funny

 

[Gary Huff]

And the agent says "well, they think they're making a fair offer. They looked into what it costs to manufacture your screenplay and they figure you spent 40 cents on paper and printer toner to print it, so at 85 cents you're more than doubling your money, they think you should be very happy with that."

Or, to put it another way, once you've paid off your camera, you should lower your rates to cover just gas and lunch with that way of thinking. I mean, hell, you gotta live whether you are making videos or not, so why should you charge a client extra to help cover the cost of your normally accrued living expenses?

It's literally that level of ridiculous.

 

[Gary Huff]

And the agent says "well, they think they're making a fair offer. They looked into what it costs to manufacture your screenplay and they figure you spent 40 cents on paper and printer toner to print it, so at 85 cents you're more than doubling your money, they think you should be very happy with that."

Let me overbid on that screenplay just so I can say, "I'd buy that for a dollar!"

 

[Darren Levine]

ya know... one of my favorite little shops is Dollar Tree, where everything actually is a dollar or less, unlike many fake dollar stores. and their stuff is mostly great, making you wonder how in the hell it's only a dollar for a 6 pack of water and such. now, if we supply this script with paper from there....

 

[Jim Simon]

I think Dollar Tree is actually a good example of Zephyr's point. Same products you get at major retailers, but costs less at Dollar Tree. I think it's a fair assumption that Dollar Tree is also making a profit off the sale, or they'd not be in business.

So that raises the valid question of why does a 12oz. bottle of Dove shampoo cost only $1 at one place but $4.99 at another. It's not difficult to feel like you're being gouged by that 'other' place.

 

[Darren Levine]

bah! my dollar tree comment being turned against me, how unfortuitous!

but actually, if i remember correctly an associate of mine described to me how places like dollar tree get such good prices, and while i cannot claim this to be fact, it is an interesting take: dollar tree has relationships with various brands, and each of those brands is producing a certain number of their products to meet the demands of all of their combined retailers, now, most of these brands will overproduce, because they want to sell as much as they can and if they underproduce, they aren't meeting the full potential of demand and profit, so in comes dollar tree and says: hey we'll buy up all the overproduced items for a discount so you don't have to spend overhead on storage, and can be sure that all of your product is out the door.

pretty simple and effective, but im sure there's a bit more to it than that, perhaps they have a limit so a brand doesnt go crazy with it. but the main thing that makes it possible for dollar tree to do this is that they have thousands of stores to stock up.

now, thats just one way that this particular retailer does it. im sure there are many ways other retailers do it. each has a deal with a brand and gets thier pricing, but the main reoccuring factor is that deals usually come with volume, so that $10 dove costs that much at a mom and pop store because they don't have hundreds of stores to buy thousands of dove bars to get the volume discount.

the main point here is that dollar tree isn't manufacturing anything, BMC surely is. and a $3000 camera is obviously not the same as anything inside a dollar store.

 

[TheDingo]

...It's competition and the market that decides what a manufacturer can charge for the products they sell. The actual cost to make a product is pretty much irrelevant to the selling price.

Imagine what we would be paying if Leica was the only camera company.

 

[keylight]

You are aware that PATENTS EXPIRE AFTER 25 YEARS so all that happens is companies that make software, gouge like the dickens to compensate for the eventual expirations.

Honestly, thank you for your posts. I've burst out laughing at least a couple of times!

Anyway, you clearly don't know what you don't know. Let me correct one thing you wrote (and in ALL CAPS no less): "PATENTS EXPIRE AFTER 25 YEARS".

Didn't you say you had a patent? Um....

I take little offense at the moniker of 'ignorant' but still, as a patent holder and searcher and filer of patents for others, I'm fully aware that the hidden costs of a retail item include a plethora of expenses that are passed through.

Yes. Yes, you did. Proof (the patent number) or it and everything you've said is basically hot air and you're nothing but a troll.

As a patent holder and "searcher and filer of patents for others" you surely must know that software patents are valid for 20 years from the priority filing date (pre 1995 it was 17 years from grant date). Design patents are valid for 14 years from grant date.

 

[Finster]

Somewhat helpful interview on imaging-resource.com.

Halfway through the interview ...

DE: Speaking of the HDMI output, can you confirm that the GH3 can stream uncompressed HD video through the HDMI port, for use with an external recorder?

Panasonic: Yes, it isn't compressed. You can turn off all the on-screen indicators, so you can use the GH3 like a video camera with uncompressed 1080/60p HDMI output.

 

[Barry_Green]

No HDMI output is compressed, on any camera.

The question has always been -- is it a signal worth capturing/recording? Is it a high quality signal? Does it have 4:2:2 color? Is it relatively or even remotely accurate in terms of color and gamma? And what's the cadence -- is it industry-standard 59.94, or is it 60.00 like the GH2 was?

Finally, if it's truly 1080/60p output, there's not a recorder on the market (short of the Gemini, I think) that will be able to record that. Could be wrong, would be glad to be wrong, but I don't think there is.