Hacking and why Intel and AMD now support it.

C

catonic

New member
We live in the digital age based on (usually) yearly product cycles in which better models are introduced. That means constant innovation; fall behind and a company is in trouble.
In this environment hacking is of huge benefit for any digital product.
Whilst in the distance past both Intel and AMD publicly opposed hacking their cpu's now they not only support it they supply software to help hackers do so.
They do this because they know that the extra performance / functionality which can result makes their products more attractive to a section of their target audience in a highly competitive marketplace. It also provides publicity for their products and gives a certain "halo" effect to their other products ie. we have the fastest /best etc.
But , in addition, there is another reason which is more important and especially applies to a company such as Panasonic.
When someone such as Vitaliy hacks a camera it provides hard data to Panasonic et al on what that camera is capable of when pushed.
In a world of constant innovation and hence constant research and development and testing such knowledge is extremely valuable.
If hackers show that a given camera can operate stably at some higher data rate etc that information can be used by the companies engineers in next years model. The hackers (and those who use the hack) are doing both research and development and testing for the company.
Both Intel and AMD now realize this and that is why they actively support such overclocking etc, as do memory and GPU makers.
It would be in Panasonic's best interest to support hackers and those who use such hacks to find out how well their products work with the improved functionality so that they can apply that information to the rest of their product line and next years models.
Whether they have the intelligence to do so remains to be seen. :)
 
Actually I think you are vastly under estimating the intelligence of camera engineers. I do believe they already do this testing as to how far the chips can be pushed etc. What they have to deliver is a product that functions 100% of the time.
 
You are correct catonic. Hacking is no longer a bad word. Many companies do support "open source" and one of the biggest, "Google" is at the forefront of that rationale.

Noel, you are sadly mistaken. The reason Linux is a VASTLY more stable OS than Windows or Mac OS is precisely because it is open source.
 
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree insofar you are comparing an open source operating system - where this totally makes sense - to the AF100 (which is where I directed my comments), comments that I stand by.
 
Noel Evans said:
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree insofar you are comparing an open source operating system - where this totally makes sense - to the AF100 (which is where I directed my comments), comments that I stand by.
Click to expand...

An open source operating system that has an "undo" feature...simply wipe the HD and start over.

I think it's great to push the envelope, but get real. This is a camera, not a computer system. It can't just be restored.
 
Noel Evans said:
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree insofar you are comparing an open source operating system - where this totally makes sense - to the AF100 (which is where I directed my comments), comments that I stand by.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, Noel, but Android is open source and that is used to power an electronic device.

There is STRONG precedent for the OP's statement.
 
It's pretty easy to damage/brick/fry a CPU/GPU. You replace the component and move on, usually. Can't do that with a camera, and I don't see sending a paperweight to Panasonic and expecting them to fix it for free, or anywhere near cheap, either.
 
Disagree.

As Noel stated, Panasonic is going for stability and quality. Look how much hunting people had to do to find reliable setting using the GH1 hack. Obviously they don't push it as far as it could go, but why would they? The AF100 performs just fine for most.
 
LoganMackay said:
Disagree.

As Noel stated, Panasonic is going for stability and quality. Look how much hunting people had to do to find reliable setting using the GH1 hack. Obviously they don't push it as far as it could go, but why would they? The AF100 performs just fine for most.
Click to expand...

It's always RISK vs. REWARD. It just may be worth the risk for many to get a 10bit camera (if that is even possible). The GH13 was worth it to many - even Mr. Barry Green.

Of course if you brick your camera Panasonic should NOT assume liability. You have just voided your warranty.
 
Panasonic knows exactly what the Af100 can do. The reason they dont push the envelope to far is called PROFIT. If they put out the prfect camera, then you wouldn't want the new next year.
 
Part of the value I EXPECT to get in a camera system is 100% functionality 100% of the time. Thousands of man hours of testing goes into satisfying that requirement before a product goes out the door and that my friends is worth it to me. I'm not saying don't hack, but I doubt that hackers are going to do the sort of testing on their hack that would provide 100% up time 100% of the time.

I'm in business and my clients expect me to deliver a product which they hire & pay me to provide. If I don't fulfill that requirement among others, bye bye client.
Hacks are fun, but I don't feel comfortable getting my clients involved in a science experiment with some one's hack. No better example of this than the way Red was functioning in the early days. Red went through Lots of firmware upgrades, some of them not so good, with the result a camera that was definitely not 100% functional 100% of the time.
 
And there is a HUGE misconception that Android is open to use on electronic devices. Just like the iPhone, if you root your Android phone you void all warranty on the device. It's not as free and open as people want. Not to mention the fragmentation that exists now among Android devices, applications only available to to certain manufacturer phones, or apps that do not work across the different phones. Talk to the developer of the TouchOSC app for Android and see how difficult it was for him to make his TouchOSC app that is available on the iPhone on the Android OS.

I work on Linux machines everyday, along with OSX machines. This so called stability doesn't exist on almost any platform. If people didn't install a ton of crap on their PCs or use them on the web without protection, they'd run for VERY long periods of time. Hell, even Solaris machines from Sun outperform open source machines in length of time up. I've yet to see a linux machine stay up for more days than a Sun box in the 18+ years I've been around all platforms. Open source machines are no more secure or stable than closed source machines. ESPECIALLY in the audio world. ALSA and all the audio variants have NEVER worked as smoothly as CoreAudio on OSX. Using an open source machine for music production is a joke. Sure, there are decent DAW software available like Ardour, but I wasn't impressed with the LADSPA plugin architecture and apparently, no one else was either since the majority of good plugins exist on OSX and WIN only.

The problem here is that designs are built to a specification that is desired and some parts of the system may exceed that where others don't. People don't go into engineering blind, they set a target, and that target involved yield and lifetime. If a hacker were to eliminate the temperature shutoff in the Canon cameras and then someone removed the firmware and send it in saying they don't know what happened, this is NOT fair to Canon. Outside of wanting to protect their intellectual property, they want to make sure cameras are used within the realm of protecting them from damage.

I used to overclock my Celeron machines back in the day. What I discovered is they worked great most of the time, but, when I unzip a file, that was the true test. The machine would unzip the file incorrectly because I was getting bit errors in the processing in the CPU. I was exceeding the setup/hold margins on the CPU and was introducing error into its operation that was MY fault.

While people can push certain aspects of things like the GH1 further, they are still limited. You can't watch your footage in camera with certain settings, which is clearly a minus. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a point where they could add features and they don't, but they are a business. They want you to continue to buy their products and continue to add incremental features to entice you. Nothing is making you buy their product, so if they think you aren't getting your moneys worth or are being nickel and dimed to death for small features updates, then choose another manufacturer.

*ALMOST* all manufacturers work this way. Look at cellphones, apple laptops, game systems, televisions, the list goes on and on. Even cars. I cannot replace the stereo in my car with the stereo out of the next year model because they aren't compatible anymore, yet, they added two new features. I have to buy a new car now to get them. I am keeping with the old car!

I am an electrical engineer and work on chip design for a living, so I see this stuff first hand. Very few people I've worked with haven't been absolutely brilliant. They have deadlines, as do I, that are CRAZY. They are told what specs they need to meet, and that is what they meet, within a cost margin. It's that simple.
 
Steve Kahn said:
It's always RISK vs. REWARD. It just may be worth the risk for many to get a 10bit camera (if that is even possible). The GH13 was worth it to many - even Mr. Barry Green.
Click to expand...
As a toy, yes. It was fun to play with. But I got rid of it the microsecond that the GH2 was available.
 
Mark Smith said:
Part of the value I EXPECT to get in a camera system is 100% functionality 100% of the time. Thousands of man hours of testing goes into satisfying that requirement before a product goes out the door and that my friends is worth it to me. I'm not saying don't hack, but I doubt that hackers are going to do the sort of testing on their hack that would provide 100% up time 100% of the time.

I'm in business and my clients expect me to deliver a product which they hire & pay me to provide. If I don't fulfill that requirement among others, bye bye client.
Hacks are fun, but I don't feel comfortable getting my clients involved in a science experiment with some one's hack. No better example of this than the way Red was functioning in the early days. Red went through Lots of firmware upgrades, some of them not so good, with the result a camera that was definitely not 100% functional 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
 
maranfilms said:
Panasonic knows exactly what the Af100 can do. The reason they dont push the envelope to far is called PROFIT. If they put out the prfect camera, then you wouldn't want the new next year.
Click to expand...

The reason they don't push the envelope further is called profit - you're right.
If they put out 'the perfect camera' that worked perfectly 90% of the time they would lose the trust of their customer base, the respect of the industry, and then exactly what you said would happen would happen. You wouldn't want the new Panasonic camera next year. Why would you?

So sure - it's because of profit. It's because if they don't put out cameras that work predictably well 100% of the time, we would all go out and buy cameras from other manufacturers that we can count on to be able to do our jobs. Same goes for my clients and my work - if I don't deliver reliably, I'm pretty sure my clients will find someone who will. And they'd be right to do so.

Companies give us the best they can put out reliably for the best price they can.
Otherwise they wouldn't stay in business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top