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.

[Butch_M]

Thronsen wrote:

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.

I don't have any AVHCD files to test for you ... but I am very certain that the trial is the same exact software as the paid version ... all you need to do is enter a serial number for the trial and it becomes "paid" ....

[SeanMcCormack]

The paid and trial are the same program, with a serial number being the difference.

[Draben26]

No AVCHD = not worth the money.    Adobe missed a big opportunity.  What a shame.

[Thronsen]

'The paid and trial are the same program, with a serial number being the  difference.'

Hi there-

Thanks for your suggestion. But is that something you are assuming based on how previous LR versions worked, or is it something that has been officially announced for LR3?

Adobe has other trial downloads where codecs and formats are limited in the free version, notably Premiere Pro, where many formats cannot be used until you buy the full version. Thats just a serial number too, it just unlocks portions of the program closed off during the free trial.

I have uploaded an AVCHD file to Vimeo. The raw file can be downloaded by a link in the lower right (you have to sign in or join Vimeo to get the download).

http://www.vimeo.com/12410100

Or if thats too incovenient, happy to upload to a site someone else suggests.

As another posted mentioned, AVCHD is one of if not the most popular format in new cameras, and if LR3 doesnt support it its a huge blow for its usefulness in using LR for video files.

[jgblair]

LR is different in many ways from other Adobe software.  The same serial number works on both Mac and PC versions of the software.  There is no cumbersome authorization procedure for each computer, LR trusts you to only use on the proper number of computers.  There is only one version of LR 3 software.  It is time-limited to 30 days (the "trial version") and the serial number ("paid version") removes that limitation.  That's just how LR works (currently) even though it is not the same as how other Adobe trial software might work.

John

John G. Blair Studio

[Lee_Jay-0I6no4]

Thronsen wrote:

As another posted mentioned, AVCHD is one of if not the most popular format in new cameras, and if LR3 doesnt support it its a huge blow for its usefulness in using LR for video files.

LR3 doesn't support it, to my knowledge.

I've heard that AVCHD videos could be spread across multiple files.  I would speculate that such a situation would be a big problem for LR's database schema.

[Thronsen]

The video itself is on only one file. Other files are for the camera maker's software. Many people (including me) just ignore them and copy over the 1 video file, and they work just fine.

If anyone could download that file and try it, or has their own AVCHD file to try, I would really appreciate getting a definitive answer. I havent seen anything from Adobe that indicates for sure the trial and full versions are identical in capabilities.

I think many people who are thinking of buying Lightroom 3 for the video capabilities would look forward to an answer before buying the product, the AVCHD format is that prevelant and important.

[Lee_Jay-0I6no4]

Thronsen wrote:

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

The trial is different from the full by the addition of a serial number.  Nothing else.  You can install the trial, buy the full and do nothing to the trial but type in the serial number and you have the full version.

[SeanMcCormack]

As I entered my serial number in the trial and have a registered copy,

with no prompts otherwise, is that enough? Otherwise, you'll probably

have to wait a bit, sorry.

That's how it was for Lightroom 1, that's how it was for Lightroom 2.

Lightroom 3 is no different.

[SeanMcCormack]

I've also checked that file and it won't load into Lightroom as a .mts file.

[ISeward]

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

[SeanMcCormack]

Is an mts file generated by any of the current Digital SLR's or

compacts?

[Greg_Barnett]

Sean,

I have a Panasonic GF1 that shoots MTS (AVCHD) files and LR3 does not recognize them.

Greg

[SeanMcCormack]

Thanks Greg, can't know if I didn't ask!

[Greg_Barnett]

Yeah, I was kinda bummed, just got back from a trip to the desert and decided to give the GF1 a whirl for video. Never occured to me that the files wouldn't be supported!...

Greg

[SeanMcCormack]

I suspect that'll be a feature request.. Does MPEG Streamclip convert

it? (Free Mac App).. can't remember if you're mac or pc LOL

[Greg_Barnett]

I go both ways... Not familiar with Streamclip but I can use Premiere to convert them.

[Thronsen]

Ok thanks a lot for trying that Sean, I appreciate you taking the time to check.

That is a very disappointing result though.

Many if not most of the new compacts coming out now and over the last year use AVCHD. Ive seen figures where current market share is well over 30%.

Its just inexplicable to me, and a huge problem for the adaption of LR3 for video uses. Its like LR3 didnt support .NEF.

Actually its a bit worse, the penetration rate for AVCHD is probably higher then .NEF.

I am in no way saying that Adobe should bend over backwards supporting every video format. But AVCHD is one of the largest, and growing every day.

[Butch_M]

Thronsen wrote:

Actually its a bit worse, the penetration rate for AVCHD is probably higher then .NEF.

Too funny ... you should visit open mic night at the local comedy club ....

[Thronsen]

Not sure why thats funny. Pretty sure its true.

What is Nikon's penetration in DSLRs? What percentage is that of the entire camera market including compacts? How many of those shoot .jpg instead of .NEF? That number is getting tinier and tinier.

Im not saying that support of Nikon RAW is less important the AVCHD in LR3. It seems to me from some of the comments though that many people who concentrate solely on photography dont know what AVCHD is, or how prevelant it is in today's market.

But would you buy a piece of software that didnt support .NEF, or would you expect Nikon shooters to do so? Its a similar argument, and why this decision will really hurt the usefulness of LR3 for video.

[Lee_Jay-0I6no4]

Thronsen wrote:

Im not saying that support of Nikon RAW is less important the AVCHD in LR3. It seems to me from some of the comments though that many people who concentrate solely on photography dont know what AVCHD is, or how prevelant it is in today's market.

"Jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic, the format was announced in 2006  primarily for use in high definition consumer camcorders."

"AVCHD and its logo are trademarks of Panasonic corporation and Sony corporation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD

Since they are proprietary to Sony and Panasonic, that's a pretty good reason to at least try to avoid it.  Like I said before, I really have no good idea as to why it's not in LR other than the multiple-files things, which may be a red herring.  Or maybe Panasonic or Sony won't allow it.  Or maybe there were technical challenges.  Adobe hasn't said, as far as I know.

[ISeward]

>>

"Jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic, the format  was announced in 2006  primarily for use in high definition consumer  camcorders."

"AVCHD and  its logo are trademarks of Panasonic corporation and Sony corporation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD

Since they  are proprietary to Sony and Panasonic, that's a pretty good reason to at  least try to avoid it.  Like I said before, I really have no good idea  as to why it's not in LR other than the multiple-files things, which may  be a red herring.  Or maybe Panasonic or Sony won't allow it.  Or maybe  there were technical challenges.  Adobe hasn't said, as far as I know.

As far as I am aware just because a file format name is trade marked does not preclude a software package from recording the files location and displaying a thumbnail showing the clip length.

From you Wiki reference:

AVCHD utilizes MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 (AVC) video compression  codec and either Dolby AC-3 (Dolby Digital) or  linear PCM audio compression  codec.

video >>

As it looks to be a wrapper for MPEG-4/AVC/H264(pretty common) I would not have thought it was technically too difficult.  Perhaps it is just an oversight, as someone has pointed out it is the fastest growing codec for HD, perhaps someone from Adobe could comment and end the speculation?

[Julie Kmoch]

One issue, as Lee Jay indicates, is that the folder structure of AVCHD is a bit of a puzzle for us. The other is that we're using OS calls (QuickTime, DirectShow) to play the videos & pull thumbnails from them, and I don't think AVCHD is supported by them.

[Thronsen]

Hi Julie-

Thanks so much for your reply.

1. Folder Structure - Not sure why this would be a 'puzzle'. As even most amateurs who use videos can attest, there is only 1 video file. All the other files are irrelevant, except if you use the camera makers software (which will tell you certain camera settings used). The file I uploaded above was one file, taken directly out of the camera. It plays just fine. Im not sure there is anything else to worry about.

2. Using the OS - AVCHD is supported natively by Windows 7. For free, as part of the basic install. You double click on it in Windows Explorer or Library and it will play just fine in WMP. It can also be played in XP and Vista with minor tweaking. Im not sure anyone expects LR3 to play video files their system couldnt play normally, but as long as you are piggybacking off of the OS media player, why preclude certain formats?

Can I ask that this decision be reviewed or visited again, especially as given your answers I think you may have been operating under some faulty information? And I suspect the change would be relatively easy to make, and benefit a large (and growing) number of people.

AVCHD is rapidly becoming the most popular format used in cameras. Excluding it, especially with the reasons you have given, seems a real shame and seriously limits the usefulness of LR for video, and shrinks the market for new customers.