GH3 So When….

Kevin Lee

Kevin Lee

Veteran
can we expect to see a RAW hack on the GH3 like Magic Lantern for Canon? Is it possible for the GH3? Are there any hacks at all yet for it?
 
...you should go to PV and ask the question. The gh hacks have never added functionality....but anything is possible.
 
I think the answer is "never", because the GH hackers only create similar patches concerning higher bitrates and details, but nothing about the profiles and their parameters and characteristics. Many G-series released - nothing, 3rd from GH series released - nothing. Only bitrates, bitrates... A lot of work wasted in one and only direction all the time, unfortunately...
 
The hacks started with the GH-1. The GH-1 had horrendous motion artifacts because.......it was only 17Mbps. What was a good camera (not "good enough" for many) turned into a great camera by the hacks. Those high bit rates basically did away with the motion artifacts that plagued it and (to a lesser degree) the GH-2. That was only one aspect of the hack. Between "Driftwood" Lpowell CBrandin and others the mangled codec became more and more efficient (you had your choice of what bit-rate you wanted to use). There were numerous folks who were only concerned about doing green screen work that benefited from these tweaks. So I can say with certainty that none of their work was wasted.

Canon started out with an edge over Panasonic. They had the ability to use picture profiles already. The software used for it was able to access the camera and tweak different color parameters ets. The Panasonic had no such thing. I'm not a programmer but it didn't take much for me to figure out that the Magic Lantern effort started out 10 to 20 steps ahead of what one can do with the GHxx cameras. Some people keep lamenting over the fact that Vitaliy and company didn't work on pic profiles or this or that. That takes a lot of time and a lot of people......just to scratch the surface. Even the Magic Lantern guys (from what I understand) has a team of developers on board. Given their edge I am not surprised on how far they've reached.
 
...I also believe the ML team had a little inside help....if you know what I mean (wink wink). But....pure speculation on my part.
 
'never added functionality' + work wasted... i just don't get what that stands on.

Higher bitrates, PAL NTSC switchable, batteries, you could choose hacks based on things they would improve, 422 on mjpeg mode...

I get the feeling that nowadays if it ain't RAW it's no good?

I'm not one to defend efforts, but really? The Vitaliy action lit so many fires under so many backsides... I just don't get how that statement stands. I wonder if the sentiment would be the same if the ML thing didn't work past 10fps and was put away.

I would still shoot a hacked GH for so many reasons over a Canon, even with RAW. I prefer a viewfinder to RAW. A tiltable screen (they had that before Canon did) and as for the hack? It saved many effects shots for me, many high detail f22's and f16s, and files were still quicker to process and work with as opposed to RAW.

I loved ptool. Don't think any of this would've happened without ptool. I don't think the BMC would've come out at its price point if it weren't for ptool. It's a stretch, but it brought the first results that altered the footage directly.

To say it's wasted effort, I mean I'm trying to find the reason behind that statement but I cant.
 
If I remember correctly I believe @producer was one who was against the high bit rate hacks early on. I think he wanted Vitaliy to go in another direction. I remember Vitaliy and CBrandin talking about doing picture profiles....but that it was very difficult and it would take a lot of time. I don't think Vitaliy has the time to even scratch his own behind much less tackle a feat like this before we go through several iterations of GHx cameras. By that time Panasonic would probably have dropped M4/3s all together. I'm just thankful that I got a bettr camera out of their work.

I would still love to see RAW out of them though. As nice as the Canon 5Dlll looks....it is only just now looking as/nearly as detailed as the Panasonic. Imagine the GH-2/3 had a RAW hack. I know what their RAW pictures already look like... It would be gold.
 
I just thought that if they can push these older canon sensors and processors (which I've heard overheated with normal use in the markII) to record RAW files, then why not the newer, faster GH3 processor? I guess it does boil down to the time involved with creating something like this. Too bad the ML boys can't spread some love to the Panasonics.
 
I think that it's more profitable for ML to focus on Canon since there are more filmmakers shooting on those DSLRs. Panasonic, while exceptional in quality, doesn't have the same quantity of DSLR filmmakers.

It's too bad because I think that a RAW hack for the GH3 would be simply amazing.
 
Raw on the GH's probably wouldnt be any better than the 5D3. Just look at the raw photos each produce- the Canon's are much much better than the GH's, and the raw video is just a series of downressed raw photos.
 
if canon allows access then development and progress occurs, then a following occur and thus profit through sales occurs whether intentional or not. panasonic should do the same =)
 
The "profitable" reference was about what motivated the choice of the hackers.
They make no profit which was the point of my post.
 
How about some zebra lines and peak focus? I don't care about higher bit rate. The quality is good enough... For me.
 
photojunky said:
How about some zebra lines and peak focus? I don't care about higher bit rate. The quality is good enough... For me.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking! Peaking is very important to me for being able to focus well without moving to an external monitor, which means getting a whole rig attached. For some reason Panasonic says they can't do peaking on the camera. Peaking has been a lifesaver on my little Sony NEX-5n.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top