AVCHD suported in full paid version?

[Thronsen]

Im currently using the full trial  version, and I noticed that there still wasnt any support for AVCHD  files. Could someone with a paid version confirm whether or not LR can  see and play AVCHD in a paid for version?

It would really cripple the  usefulness of LR video if one of the most popular formats for videos  taken in cameras was not supported even in the paid version.

[areohbee]

Another Photographer wrote:

After I replied in detail to your question, you asked whether I was merely here to complain. I found that hard to believe.

Sorry, it was not directed specifically at you (Another Photographer). Sometimes these forum replies are aimed at one person, sometimes at no-one in particular, and sometimes everyone in general, and sometimes all of the above... (yet you have to pick a post to reply to) - please do not take personally.

But, it has been very difficult getting the information I need to help with the problem, making me wonder whether I'm trying to push a pill down the throats of people who really dont want to swallow...

Again, I dont mean you specifically, but the AVCHD forum folk, in general.

For example, still outstanding questions:

- Is there anything in the AVCHD folders/files that anyone cares about?

  - can they be ignored completely?, or

  - should I could I copy something from them?...

- Are there any advantages of re-wrapping to mp4 over leaving as mts and using JE's AnyFile or JF's Video plugin to catalog and play them?

There have been times I've tried to help people with a solution, that it turns out they don't even use, after I've spent a bunch of time coming up with it. Most plugins I write I also use, so it hasn't been too bad - but this is one I wont be using, so I dont want to do it, unless:

- Its fairly easy and quick.

- People will use it and it will solve their immediate problems in some sort of reasonably satisfactory way...

Plenty of the folks on this forum continue to complain that they can't catalog and play AVCHD videos but haven't tried the plugins that allow them to do just that - not sure what to make of that, but it begs the question of whether they'd prefer to vent rather than work around. I mean I get that it may be a mixture, I just dont know whether there is enough interest in solving the problem for me to pursue, or whether people mostly just want to complain... Which is not necessarily a bad thing - dont get me wrong - sometimes I like to vent, and if you try to help me solve a problem whilst missing the whole point of my complaint (venting), it'll just piss me off even more...

Summary:

------------

- If I ever get all of the information I need, and become convinced I will be providing a solution that will be better than what is already available, and will be used..., I'll do it, if its not too much work.

- Dont take my "accusations"(for lack of a better word) personally - if the shoe don't fit, it's probably someone else's shoe... - I'm not trying to reprimand, but to assess whether to take action, or bow out.

Rob

[ambienttroutmask]

If you don't edit them, then no need. I either delete or edit all my clips, I do not keep the AVCHD files

.

The Ciniform format is just so much faster than the native format, even on the fastest machine. Plus it is far better with colour correction tools etc. However if you don't need it, save yourself the $100 or so that NeoScene costs as you are quite right Premier CS 5 works pretty well with native AVCHD. I edit between two machine, one an all singing and dancing machine (paid for by someone else!!!) with premier CS 5 and on this AVCHD works just fine, although I still transcaode to ciniform as it is quicker and better with colour correction). However on my home studio machine I am stuck with CS 4, AVCHD works, but the time it takes to render the time line every time you make the slightest change drives me up the wall!!!!! Convert to Ciniscene and it runs along well. Saves me laying out on a whole new machine, although inevitably I will bite the bullet and get a faster machine, I just hate spending my own cash on daft stuff like computers, when I could be spending it on sensible stuff like wine, women and song.

[areohbee]

Another Photographer wrote:

Someone mentioned re-wrapping an .mts as mp4.  What software do I have to buy to do this?

MediaCoder will do it, if you are on windows: http://www.mediacoderhq.com/

Which reminds me of another missing piece of information:

- What program will do it native on Mac? (I see MediaCoder will work on Mac under Darwine, but a native solution would be preferrable maybe(?)

Rob

[imajez]

Lee Jay wrote:

imajez wrote:

Every heard of a little programme called 'House'?

No, never heard of it.

Well the makers of House completly undermine your point about serious filmmakers not using DSLRs.

Not sure if you are genuinely ignorant of House or bizarrely pretending to be ignorant.

[areohbee]

A link with some Q/A about it: http://philipbloom.net/2010/04/10/house-season-finale-shot-entirely-with-canon-5dmkii/

I think its established that video on DSLRs is here to stay, and Lightroom needs to support it, including AVCHD.

I'm still trying to figure out whether Lightroom needs to support all the folders as created in-camera, or whether re-enveloping to mp4 is perfectly fine.

Any idea?

Rob

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

"Given it's odd [sic] format,"

Common man, surely Adobe would not want to snub Panasonic, Sony and Nikon.  Adobe are in the business of creating software that supports those guys.  If they don't someone else will.

[DdeGannes]

A further update to LR is not due until after the first week in March so we will have to wait and see if it is included then. You can be sure it will be well publicized if it happens.

[Butch_M]

Thronsen wrote:

Not sure why thats funny. Pretty sure its true.

Don't really care if it is true or not .... the last worldwide sales figures I saw, Nikon and Canon DSLR sales were pretty even around 39% of the total for each brand ...

I do have empathy for your frustration with your video file of choice not compatible with LR3 .... however I don't understand the need for you to lash out at Nikon, Nikon users or NEF files .... because I don't think that picking on that issue is going to help you reach your goal ....

Good luck and good fortune ....

[Lee_Jay-0I6no4]

ISeward wrote:

That is disappointing,   is this because of a technical problem or would .mts files be considered treading on Premier Pro's toes?

I don't know if it's technical or legal or time or what but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with Premier.

[b_gossweiler]

Thronsen wrote:

... I havent seen anything from Adobe that indicates for sure the trial and full versions are identical in capabilities. ...

I can assure you, the trial version and the full version are exactly the same software. If you post a link to a AVCHD file I'll give it a try.

Beat Gossweiler

Switzerland

Edit:

I won't sign up with Vimeo for this though, if you want to, you can load it on www.yousendit.com. But I guess with Seáns try it has been proven anyway.

Message was edited by: b_gossweiler

[ctwdaz]

Just acquired a Sony camcorder and am also interested in AVCHD playback.  An article in DP Review explains the complexity of this : "As video becomes more important many are now moving to a more sophisticated compression system, namely MPEG-4 (usually using H.264 codec). This allows higher bit rates with smaller files, and is increasingly well supported by software and operating systems. Panasonic's Micro Four Thirds system uses the same AVCHD system as many digital camcorders. AVCHD is still based around MPEG-4/H.264 compression, but uses a complicated directory system that is derived from the Blu-ray Disc specification, though is not identical to it.    The biggest advantage of AVCHD is also its biggest problem: compatibility. Whilst it offers uniquely friendly interaction with consumer electronics devices (such as DVD recorders and Panasonic TVs), the files created are difficult for computers to deal with - movies cannot simply be dragged off the camera's card and double-clicked, and they put a strain on the processing capabilities of all but the most powerful desktop PCs. With the right editing software AVCHD is ideally suited to editing and creating home DVDs, for example, but for sharing simple clips PC to PC you're still better off with one of the more common formats." From a 2009 article explaining differences between dslr and camcorder videoing.

This helps me appreciate what it would take for the Lightroom team to integrate this feature.  Just how many serious photographers are really also into video?

[Guest]

Since Adobe seems unwilling to add this vital support, can we please all petition Jeffrey to resurect his Video Assets plugin.  In LR2 it worked pretty well, and does handle AVCHD files, and also handles metadata pretty well.

Details here - drop him an e-mail/comment!

http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/video-assets

Mike

Please, please, Adobe, add enhanced cloning&healing in v3.2

[areohbee]

I have a possible solution for playing AVCHD video, but I have none to test with - would somebody please send me a small one? - Thanks. PM me for address.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

areohbee wrote:

I have a possible solution for playing AVCHD video, but I have none to test with - would somebody please send me a small one? - Thanks. PM me for address.

As long as you don't need the folder structure, there are plenty of samples over on the DPReview reviews for those cameras.

[areohbee]

I dont know if I need the folders - do I?

How about an ultra-quick one-line crash-course in AVCHD...

Or put another way:

WIth folders _______________________________,

but without folders _____________________________.

etc.

Thx,

R

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

With folders - maintain structure and metadata.  Without folders, video clip only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AVCHD_actual_file_structure.svg

[areohbee]

Thanks Lee Jay - all clear now.

PS - I found a sample on dpreview to test with - I'm all set.

Rob

[ambienttroutmask]

If you really want a full set of AVCHD folders I can send you some Rob. However different cameras create different folder structures, not always containg all the data shown in the wiki. The cpi file is the only one with perhaps any usful metadata as it should have the shot dates and perhaps the wb settings used.. The data contained within the folder structures is used by the cameras and not by any editing applications I know, although some one earlier says Final Cut uses then for something (no idea what as my Final Cut days were pre AVCHD.

Premier just uses the mts file.

Most serious video editors would de compress the AVCHD files to either AVI or MOV using ciniscene for editing anyway as AVCHD is a pain to work with. It is a great format for capturing as it allows high but rates with SD cards, but not a good format for editing with.

[areohbee]

Thanks Pete,

At present, dealing with AVCHD in any kind of "right" fashion is probably more than I want to tackle, and I don't know how "right" Jeffrey Friedl's Video plugin handles AVCHD already (does it display a proper thumbnail and metadata via the TDTs and such stuff, or just recognize mts and launch...)

If it already does a good job of handling the folders/files, I wouldn't waste my time reinventing that wheel. I think it likely AVCHD will be officially supported in Lr4.

Otherwise, I might consider taking it further at some point.

I'd like to have a look though just to satisfy my insatiable curiosity - I'll PM my email address.

Is anybody playing AVCHD in Lightroom now via plugins? I so, please do report back to this thread or another how that is.

Thanks,

Rob

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Pete wrote "Premier just uses the mts file."

I use Premiere Pro CS5, and it it refuses to write an xmp file if the directory structure is not there.  No xmp, no metadata.  And I'm not referring to the minimal metadata that was written by the camera, but to the rich and voluminous metadata that Premiere Pro allows you to write to keep track of files.

If Premiere Pro CS5 sees the directory structure it writes an xmp file, which allows you to add metadata.  But Bridge CS5 does not recognize the xmp file.

You can't trick Premiere Pro by deleting the directory structure after it creates the xmp file.  It will refuse to recognize it at that point.

Now the program that came with the camera--PhotoFun Studio--imports mts files.  It gets rid of the directories (which is the right thing to do), writes a new metadata file, and changes the extension of .mts to .m2ts.

Premiere Pro can play and edit the new .m2ts file but it refuses to write an xmp file for it.  Bridge CS5 is unable to play an .m2ts because of a bug that apparently has been around for years.  It gives the following error message: "Windows cannot find '%Program(x86)%Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe'.  Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again."  If you Google it, people have been getting this message for years for various things, and nobody knows why.  Bridge CS4 does the same thing.

Pete's solution is to convert AVCHD to another format.  I don't have the resources to do that, and I did not buy CS5 and LR3 to be told to do that.

Based on the behaviour of PhotoFun Studio, I don't believe there is anything magical about the directory structure.  It can and should be done away with at import, after extracting the tiny amount of information in the ancillary files if the user desires, but only at the user's option.  It's not necessary.  Adobe needs to really support mts and m2ts across the board, which it does not do right now in Lightroom, Bridge CS5 or Premiere Pro CS5.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Another Photographer wrote:

Based on the behaviour of PhotoFun Studio, I don't believe there is anything magical about the directory structure.  It can and should be done away with at import, after extracting the tiny amount of information in the ancillary files if the user desires, but only at the user's option.

Really bad idea.  PhotoFun isn't exactly the gold standard of video editing tools, but Final Cut Pro is closer to it, and it requires the structure to work.  In fact, there are tools out there designed just to put the structure back so that such tools can use the files if someone has been foolish enought to do away with the structure.

[ambienttroutmask]

Another Photographer wrote:

Pete's solution is to convert AVCHD to another format.  I don't have the resources to do that, and I did not buy CS5 and LR3 to be told to do that.

The point of converting AVCHD to an uncompressed format is in order to edit it in a usable way.

Irrespective of if LR supports AVCHD importing, editing AVCHD formatted files is always going to be a painful business. This is not a format designed for editing. It is designed to produce compressed files  for capture of high bit rate video to sd cards and it does this very well. When editing you are far better of uncompressing the format as far as possible to allow rendering in real time. Even the fastest machines on the market stutter along when using AVCHD nativly as the source file when editing. Premier Pro will do it, but it will always take far longer than if you decompress the files. Ciniform is the best way to do this, as used by all the major studios using AVCHD as the capture source.

Works great with Canon files as well as viewers of House will tell you (as pointed out by a previous poster, no serious video makers use dSLR's or AVCHD format for capture, which must come as a big surprise to all those rather larger studios happily using EOS 7's and GH-1's for more and more of their output, there are lots of things that can done with and places you can take a dSLR too that carrying a RED camera just isn't going to do the business and 35 mm film is just far too expensive).

Even if LR supported import of AVCHD files I would still convert them to Ciniform AVI files before editing and would suggest that any one wanting the best quality and highest level of performance from their cameras do the same (until Adobe buy Ciniform like the brought up every other decent digital creative company over the years).

[Lumigraphics]

Or just use ProRes or RAW, computers are getting fast enough to handle video RAW files.