Hack for AF100>

S

starmanric

Active member
Just saw a vid from a G2 at 44mb. Why hasn't a hack come forword for the AF100? Just imagin It would be great

Ric
 
The point of the GH2 hack project (well, besides just getting better quality for filmmaking) is really to demonstrate how severe these companies are crippling products to create separate markets that demand higher prices. (i.e. the "professional" camera market). Applying the hack to the AF-100 would be defeating the purpose.

The big manufactures like to sit on technology and have essentially created a non-competition market to not "out-due" each other. The GH2 hack essential aims to restores the natural free-market competition that should be occurring between companies.

Personally, with the current quality, and spec-to-price ratio, of the GH2 for $800... I see no reason to buy another camera until there is a 2k 100mb/s INTRA 4:2:2 camera with 90fps over-cranking for under $5000. It sounds insane, I know... but if enough people start using the GH2, and refuse to buy into the "professional" smoke-and-mirror marketing... it'll happen.
 
Last edited:
Not really sure its worth the same pain when you can get a higher mb offboard recording out from the HD-SDI.
 
The reason for the hack is to get better performance out of the camera, not to show anyone. The process of hacking takes highly skilled people's time, money, test units of the camera to be hacked etc... Jan from Panasonic has said that there is no pathway into the codec on the AF100 which could be one reason why it hasn't been hacked... It could also have something to do with the cost of the camera... I'm sure people aren't jumping at the chance to have their large investment made into a paper weight for the prospect that the next one they buy could be made to produce images more like the camera they could have afforded with the money they spent on two AF100's. If you really want or need better performance out of the AF100 maybe look into an external recorder like the nanoflash. Just my 2 cents-Adam
 
Noel Evans said:
Not really sure its worth the same pain when you can get a higher mb offboard recording out from the HD-SDI.
Click to expand...

True. The AF-100 with an off-board recording make a really nice flexible image... but then you start running into size/weight issues. And it's no longer practical to use something like a Glidecam HD100 or 2000. You'll have to upgrade to the arm/vest and all the sudden the budget for your extra equipment start climbing high really quickly.

Why use a more complicated, larger, 5-10lb setup... when you can have one that fits in the palm of your hand for nearly the same quality?
 
I don't think that anyone will bother with even trying to hack the AF100. I wish that Panny would create and sell an update that enables higher bitrate, and maybe other improvements with the image.

I'm sure that people would buy it and a lot of people would appreaciate it! Because a lot of people are naging about the bitrate, if they would be smart they would do something like that, and because it cotsts it would make the camera more worth and breathe some new life into it. There are a lot of single chip cameras out there now, it's time for them to take up the battle again.
 
GH2user said:
Why use a more complicated, larger, 5-10lb setup... when you can have one that fits in the palm of your hand for nearly the same quality?
Click to expand...
Because it does a thousand things the palmtop camera doesn't. It has timecode. It can sync timecode to other cameras. It has XLR inputs, with real phantom power. It has SDI output for connecting to pro monitors. It has a real HDMI that actually outputs what the signal actually looks like, instead of the GH2's inaccurate monitoring and schizophrenic monitoring that shows you one image when it's in pause and a different image when it's in recording. It has much better jello performance than the GH2. It has ND filters so you don't have to screw around with externals and variable ND's. There are dozens and dozens of reasons why to use an AF100 instead of a GH2.

The GH2, on the other hand, can take stills, it has the ETC mode, and it is tiny and can go places that the AF100 can't.

I have both, I love both, I use both. And there are things you can do with one, that you can't do with the other. To pretend that the little GH2 does everything the AF100 does is to either be uninformed, or wilfully spreading misinformation. Let's not do that, okay?
 
starmanric said:
Why hasn't a hack come forword for the AF100?
Click to expand...
Because it isn't possible to hack the AF100. Can't be done.

Furthermore, it's not really necessary or even desirable. The 24mbps of the AF100 is superior to the stock codec of the GH2 as-is, and for those who need more/better codecs, there are external recorders available. The reason I say it's not desirable, is because people who make their livings off of their tools don't necessarily want to resort to "hacks" that can compromise reliability. Reliability is of utmost importance in professional equipment.

Y'know, it's largely the same reason that people with Honda Civics will go to all manner of lengths to "fast & furious" them with endless mods, whereas the guy with the Porsche just ... doesn't. Some guys absolutely love crawling under the car with a wrench every weekend, and take immense pride in squeezing an extra five horsepower out here or there. Then there are other guys who also want high performance, but don't want to go through those efforts, they just want it fast, smooth, and working 100% of the time with a five-year factory warranty. Those are the guys out there buying the Porsches, although I don't think the AF100=Porsche metaphor quite fits... maybe it's better to compare the AF100 to the new Mustang -- supercar performance, everyman pricing, great as-is, and with a warranty and no hassles.

Can someone with a six-year-old Civic spend enough time and money to make it go a little faster than the new Mustang? Perhaps. But is that really the point? For some people, it is. For others, it isn't. That's why there are two different products on the market. Pick the one that appeals to you and your way of working.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because it isn't possible to hack the AF100. Can't be done.

Furthermore, it's not really necessary or even desirable. The 24mbps of the AF100 is superior to the stock codec of the GH2 as-is, and for those who need more/better codecs, there are external recorders available. The reason I say it's not desirable, is because people who make their livings off of their tools don't necessarily want to resort to "hacks" that can compromise reliability. Reliability is of utmost importance in professional equipment.

Y'know, it's largely the same reason that people with Honda Civics will go to all manner of lengths to "fast & furious" them with endless mods, whereas the guy with the Porsche just ... doesn't. Some guys absolutely love crawling under the car with a wrench every weekend, and take immense pride in squeezing an extra five horsepower out here or there. Then there are other guys who also want high performance, but don't want to go through those efforts, they just want it fast, smooth, and working 100% of the time with a five-year factory warranty. Those are the guys out there buying the Porsches, although I don't think the AF100=Porsche metaphor quite fits... maybe it's better to compare the AF100 to the new Mustang -- supercar performance, everyman pricing, great as-is, and with a warranty and no hassles.

Can someone with a six-year-old Civic spend enough time and money to make it go a little faster than the new Mustang? Perhaps. But is that really the point? For some people, it is. For others, it isn't. That's why there are two different products on the market. Pick the one that appeals to you and your way of working.
Click to expand...

Yes... And the Honda metaphor continues. Every time the guy with the moded Honda steps on the gas he has a risk of blowing the whole thing up.
 
DBP said:
I know the 720p and 1080i codec is worse, but I thought that both were 24mbps at 1080 24p?
Click to expand...
They are. But they're not the same codec using the same tools. The GH2 codec is decent, but the AF100 codec is more advanced. There's a lot more to a codec than just bandwidth, the actual bitrate is not the most important aspect to a codec. There's CABAC vs. CAVLC, there's intraframe prediction and interframe efficiencies, there's all sorts of tools available in the AVC standard for the engineers to choose from when building a codec. The GH1's codec at 17mbps wasn't anywhere near as good as the AF100's codec at 6mbps, for example.

Bitrate is only comparable if everything else is equal. If everything else isn't equal, then bitrate should not be relied on. Example: Sony's EX1 uses 35mbps, and their FS100 uses 24mbps. Guess which one has the far better/more robust codec? Yep, the FS100's codec is much better than the EX1's. Even though both are long-GoP 8-bit 4:2:0, the EX1 is using MPEG2 and the FS100 is using h.264 with a full and proper set of tools to optimize its performance, and it holds up to taxing situations much better than the FX1 does.

Or, DSLR codecs -- the 5D uses about 45mbps, the 7D uses about 50mbps or thereabouts, and the GH2 uses 24mbps. And the GH2's codec is stronger than the Canon's. And the AF100's codec is 24mbps and it's stronger than the GH2's.
 
Barry_Green said:
They are. But they're not the same codec using the same tools. The GH2 codec is decent, but the AF100 codec is more advanced. There's a lot more to a codec than just bandwidth, the actual bitrate is not the most important aspect to a codec. There's CABAC vs. CAVLC, there's intraframe prediction and interframe efficiencies, there's all sorts of tools available in the AVC standard for the engineers to choose from when building a codec. The GH1's codec at 17mbps wasn't anywhere near as good as the AF100's codec at 6mbps, for example.

Bitrate is only comparable if everything else is equal. If everything else isn't equal, then bitrate should not be relied on. Example: Sony's EX1 uses 35mbps, and their FS100 uses 24mbps. Guess which one has the far better/more robust codec? Yep, the FS100's codec is much better than the EX1's. Even though both are long-GoP 8-bit 4:2:0, the EX1 is using MPEG2 and the FS100 is using h.264 with a full and proper set of tools to optimize its performance, and it holds up to taxing situations much better than the FX1 does.

Or, DSLR codecs -- the 5D uses about 45mbps, the 7D uses about 50mbps or thereabouts, and the GH2 uses 24mbps. And the GH2's codec is stronger than the Canon's. And the AF100's codec is 24mbps and it's stronger than the GH2's.
Click to expand...
My head hurts.
 
This topic has been beaten to a pulp, and then beaten again. Any chance of retiring it like the Birger threads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top