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.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

There's no OS command for this, you need a tool (I think I used MediaCoder that time I tested it).

[areohbee]

Half way there. Or, are we?

Summary:

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

- MediaCoder can re-package AVCHD into a Lr compatible format on Windows - no need for AnyFile, nor JF's Video plugin.

- Mac?

Finally:

---------

Is this it? Or, is there more?

[imajez]

areohbee wrote:

Poll: Do people want:

- To complain about lack of native Lr support.

- View and play AVCHD video.

- Edit Video.

- All of the above.

- None of the above.

Hard to fix an ill-defined problem...

I mean, would it be best to perform conversion upon import, so they can be edited or played. Does the folder / file structure need to remain intact? Or is it no longer useful once video is out-of-camera?

IMO, the AVCHD advocates need to define their needs better. I mean, maybe Adobe knows just what to do, but I sure dont.

Rob

Fundamentally the problem is that LR is frustatingly fussy about what files it will recognize in the library. Lots of files that are commonly used by photographers for their photographic work are not recognised. Also what a photographer does now is much broader than it was ten/five/two years ago.

It doesn't matter if LR cannot develop/print/process these files as long as one can organize your files in just the one programme  rather than several and then LR can export any files it cannot handle to approriate programme, just as LR does with PSD files or the few video files it currently allows into library.

[areohbee]

Its my understanding that Lightroom will recognize AVCHD video files, if re-enveloped to mp4.

Do you concur?

And if so, would it be adequate to re-envelope them upon import and leave the folder structure behind?

Rob

[Thronsen]

Hi Rob-

Let me just repeat a big thank you for all your work in trying to sort out this problem. I really appreciate the work and attention that you have put in. Please don’t interpret anything I say in my posts as aggression at you, its just frustration at Adobe. You, unpaid, have done more to help then the entire company.

To answer some of your questions:

I don’t particularly like solutions that require a lot of extra steps. Sure, from before I even wrote the original post I could have used any number of programs to convert my AVCHD files to a format that LR could read. But that is a very tedious solution. Conversion takes a while, requires a lot of extra effort, ignores import security entirely, and if I want to keep the original, doubles (if not more) the amount of HDD space. The whole point of LR3 handling videos was for import security and to make my life easier. If I have to jump through those hoops, it fails that.

Heck, why support anything more then .AVI (or whatever) anyway. Everyone whose camera doesn’t shoot .AVI should be happy to pay $400 to spend their time using 3^rd party programs and fussing around so that LR can show their videos. In their computers player no less, which would most likely have played them without any conversion.

Furthermore, if I do all these unnecessary steps, LR still has major flaws in its video implementation. Specifically, it organizes most videos by the time you transferred them to your computer, not the time you took them. This is terrible. Could you imagine if it organized your photos basically by when you bought your new computer and when you downloaded your cards? That’s what it does to most videos right now. If you organize yourself by date/time, its unworkable. If you like to have your videos in a date folder, well forget about that, it will put your video in the wrong one.

Could I do a workaround for AVCHD, and manually change the LR Date for all my videos and move them every day to the correct folder? Sure. But this is stuff that Windows 7, by the blundering inept Microsoft, does for free as part of their OS. I would rather just use that, though of course having this spread across 2 programs is terrible.

It’s a disgrace that a $400 product from a dedicated imaging company cannot compete with what the basic OS can do better for free.

Again Rob, thanks for your time on this. Sorry if my language was aggressive none of it was directed at you.

[areohbee]

Thronson,

I understand your frustration.

Personally, I think it was a blunder for Adobe not to have supported AVCHD, and I get that Adobe's initial implementation of video, in general, is lacking.

That said, I cant help but think there are at least a handful of the AVCHD/Lightroom users who would like to come up with an optimal interim solution that will get them through until Lr4.

However, getting the info I need seems to be like pulling teeth.

As example, you still haven't answered the questions I keep asking. Is this because:

     A. You don't know the answers?

     B. You really don't want an interim solution?

     C. You already have an interim solution?

     D. All of the above.

     E. None of the above...

I mean RC Importer will already pull in mts files from your card. Translating to mp4 will be slow, but not that slow (No transcoding is necessary, in fact, I dont even know if it needs to re-write the file, maybe just tweak a few things in the header? probably needs to rewrite the whole thing, but I dont know. In any case, its doable. And, if I knew how to discern captureTime, it could easily be inserted in the catalog. Have you tried JF's Video plugin? Does it support video as well as LIghtroom? Better? Do you need the folders? Is it better to preserve mts file and use a plugin that recognizes it as AVCHD video, or is it better to re-envelope it so Lightroom supports it natively?

???

Rob

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Rob,

Transcoding could be a solution...it all depends on how few steps it involves and whether it's truly lossless.

You asked.  My answers are in all caps and explanations follow.

Do people want to:

- View and play AVCHD video. [NOT THE CORE ISSUE]

- Edit Video. [I DONT WANT LR TO EDIT VIDEO; PREMIERE DOES THIS]

- All of the above. [NOPE]

- None of the above. [YES]

Here is the problem from my perspective:  Workflow.

I shoot both video and photos from the same cameras.  When the video is AVI, the process goes like this:

(1) I use LR to import the files and in one step (A) they're copied to two hard drives, (B) renamed in the format DATE_TIME_ORIGINAL NAME. (so they can ALL be sorted in oder of capture very easily in any program), (C) they're added to the LR catalogue so they can be perused side by side.

(2) I add whatever metadata I want to both photos and video.  This is key.  Bridge will recognize the metadata I add to the photos.  I don't know yet whether the metadata added to AVIs is read by Bridge and Premiere.

Done.

You can easily see how this process is disrupted when I shoot AVCHD; do the existing plugins provide a complete workaround?  I haven't tested them, but I haven't seen an indication that they do.  The problems include the following:

(1) LR does not import, display, rename, catalogue or recognize .mts files at all.

(2) Bridge will import, display and rename .mts files BUT:

(A) Bridge haphazardly copies and renames all of the extra files from the AVCHD directories, making them useless for whatever purpose they originally served and creating lots of clutter,

(B) Bridge does not catalogue, since that is not Bridge's function and

(C) Premiere will refuse to create metadata for these .mts files because they have been renamed and stripped of their AVHCD junk, making it impossibe to keep track of the contents of the files unless I use pencil and paper.  Premiere will edit the files, because it recognizes the video data, but it will not organize them at it organizes other files because it needs to see the ORIGINAL FILE NAME and the ORIGINAL FILE STRUCTURE.  (My camera restarts naming with every card so I have dozens of files called 00001.MTS in different folders to make Premiere happy.)

My interim solution: copy the whole AVCHD structure into separate folders on the hard drive.  I create a new folder for each day of shooting.  Obvious disadvantages:

(1) Can't browse library in LR.

(2) Very inconvenient to browse library in Bridge or Explorer due to the deep directory structure and the lack of context.  No context to the videos since I can't change their name (Premiere would complain) and they're not surrounded by the photos that were shot at the same time.

(3) Premiere can sort of browse the library (but need to create "Projects" for this; Premiere is not really a broweser), but again there is no context.  Any metadata I create is not recognized by Bridge, and who knows whether it will ever be recogized by LR or any program other than After Effects and Encore (not helpful).

I hope this explanation sheds more light on the problem.

[Thronsen]

Hi Another Photographer-

Do you ever organize your videos by date, and if so do you have the same problems all the Nikon users have?

For all the blandishments we get from people like Lee Jay and the Anti-Video crowd, no one ever address this terrible flaw.

But in general, great post. Its all about workflow, which we paid for LR3 to minimize.

And in terms of video, it has completely failed.

Heck in some ways its worse then LR2.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Thronsen wrote:

For all the blandishments we get from people like Lee Jay and the Anti-Video crowd, no one ever address this terrible flaw.

But in general, great post. Its all about workflow, which we paid for LR3 to minimize.

And in terms of video, it has completely failed.

Heck in some ways its worse then LR2.

I probably wouldn't give you such a hard time if you weren't such an extremist.  It *hasn't* completely failed.  The video support in LR 3 has worked perfectly for me, supporting all my cameras, all my old videos, all my derived videos, sorting them all in the right place and giving me thumbs and metadata for all of them.

Failure to support ONE format doesn't equate to complete failure.

[ambienttroutmask]

If LR was to be of any use to me with video, not only must it be able to import AVCHD files (even though I would always prefer to transcode AVCHD to ciniform as I would with any video format for editing, I can understand some want to work with the native format even given its drawbacks), but more importantly LR would need to be able to work with Premier

.

Presently the big draw back with Premier is that its file management system is un sophisticated in the extreme. This is OK as Bridge works well with Premier, allowing thumbnail views of all files and dragging from Bridge directly into a premier project. Unforunatly this is just not possible with LR. All LR does is catalog video files it does not enable any real usable link with Premier for editing. The same of course can be said for handling other types of files for design software such as In Design or After Effects. LR only offers the option of "open in" as an external editor, forcing the user to rely on Bridge. All this could be delt with I am sure in LR 4. In fact what is really needed ios for Bridge to become a databased content managment system with LR's metadata processing system built in

I would like to have the ability to manage all my files in one management system and hand of these files with the metadata changes made in LR to any other Adobe CS application, without the need to export anything......the day will come I am sure, but it really requires a complete re write of Bridge rather than LR, changing Bridge from a superior file browser into a fully fledged DAM based on LR's methodology but usably across all types of digital assets.

Changing Bridge, rather than LR, would also have the advantage in allowing Adobe to continue to market LR to the none professional user, who now represent the largest part of the user base, as a photographic tool, without adding all the complexity of a true fully fledged DAM that is only required by a relatively small (but increasing) group of people who although primary professional photographers have been driven by market forces and changes in hardware to now dabble in video, design and all sorts of other stuff. As well as being a real boon to larger design based studios who really do need a better way of managing all their digital assets than presently offered by either LR or Bridge.

[imajez]

Pete Marshall wrote:

I would like to have the ability to manage all my files in one management system and hand of these files with the metadata changes made in LR to any other Adobe CS application, without the need to export anything......the day will come I am sure, but it really requires a complete re write of Bridge rather than LR, changing Bridge from a superior file browser into a fully fledged DAM based on LR's methodology but usably across all types of digital assets.

Bridge is a file browser and will always remain a file browser as basically that is the fundamantal difference between Br + LR, as they replicate most features of the other bar that major one.

For example Bridge can also do smart and dumb collections [though it's not quite as fast as LR], Br can process and export your images, Br can make web galleries.....

Changing Bridge, rather than LR, would also have the advantage in allowing Adobe to continue to market LR to the none professional user, who now represent the largest part of the user base, as a photographic tool, without adding all the complexity of a true fully fledged DAM that is only required by a relatively small (but increasing) group of people who although primary professional photographers have been driven by market forces and changes in hardware to now dabble in video, design and all sorts of other stuff. As well as being a real boon to larger design based studios who really do need a better way of managing all their digital assets than presently offered by either LR or Bridge.

Not sure why you think LR is the tool for the non-professional, it was aimed at the pro market. And photographers hae been known to 'dabble' in other things as long as cameras have beeen around. It's nothing new.

[ambienttroutmask]

Bridge is indeed a file browser. I am suggesting that file browser are now a rather outdated way of managing digital assets and the model established by LR is far superior way of managing assets, that is why a asset management system is required linking all Adobe CS tools based on the LR model.

I never suggested that LR was not a tool for professionals, just that it is now well established amongst amateurs, who I would guess now far out weigh the number of professionals using it. I have used LR since the very first Beta and at the start the majority of users were pros of one sort or the other, that just isn't the case now. It would be unwise of Adobe to loose a huge chunk of its market as most of those users do not want and don't require a asset management system that goes much further than LR at present and are unlikely to pay for it. I can't imagine many non professional buy the entire Creative Suite (although loads may have cracked copies!) so Adobe market that directly at Pros, whilst marketing such things as PSE and Premier Elements at the enthusiast. Lightroom is the one tool marketed to and used by both groups in large numbers, if only because it is relatively cheap.

Basically I am suggesting that instead of the Adobe Creative Suite being linked by a file browser, it is linked by a asset management system based on the  LR model, whilst Adobe also provides a standalone version of that asset management system for those who don't want, can't afford or don't need the full functionality of the all the CS tools. In other words LR as it stands now, providing for photographic images and limited support for video

[areohbee]

+1 vote - good idea. A true database-backed DAM makes a lot of sense to me for a product line that is all about creating and managing a variety of DA.

Perhaps when Adobe chucks SQLite, or somebody invents proper locking primitives so SQLite works on a network.

R

[imajez]

Pete Marshall wrote:

Bridge is indeed a file browser. I am suggesting that file browser are now a rather outdated way of managing digital assets and the model established by LR is far superior way of managing assets, that is why a asset management system is required linking all Adobe CS tools based on the LR model.

Some people prefer File Browsers others DBs, some people find database programmes like LR very confusing. I use both as both have their different strengths [and weaknesses].

I never suggested that LR was not a tool for professionals, just that it is now well established amongst amateurs, who I would guess now far out weigh the number of professionals using it. I have used LR since the very first Beta and at the start the majority of users were pros of one sort or the other, that just isn't the case now. It would be unwise of Adobe to loose a huge chunk of its market as most of those users do not want and don't require a asset management system that goes much further than LR at present and are unlikely to pay for it. I can't imagine many non professional buy the entire Creative Suite (although loads may have cracked copies!) so Adobe market that directly at Pros, whilst marketing such things as PSE and Premier Elements at the enthusiast. Lightroom is the one tool marketed to and used by both groups in large numbers, if only because it is relatively cheap.

LR is used by both as simply it is very good at tackling the job of dealing with and processing digital images - which is an issue whether amateur of professional. And with the increase in amount of shooting and data collecting/producing done by non-professionals, I'm sure they'd be happy to have a proper DAM application to sort the resultant mess out.

Bridge comes with Photoshop as a single purchase not just with entire Creative Suite  - which has been used by non-professionals for many years, so it wil be available to more people than you may have assumed.

Another observation - Professsional photographers often struggle with software and do not even know how to use what they have that well compared to many amateurs. One reason is that professional do not have time to play around with software like amateurs do and from mixing with professional photographers, many are simply not good with IT stuff.

Basically I am suggesting that instead of the Adobe Creative Suite being linked by a file browser, it is linked by a asset management system based on the  LR model, whilst Adobe also provides a standalone version of that asset management system for those who don't want, can't afford or don't need the full functionality of the all the CS tools. In other words LR as it stands now, providing for photographic images and limited support for video

Allowing LR to open files into programmes other than just PS and another image editor is not a big deal other than one of the mindeset - LR is for photographers!

I'm so glad Photoshop's development wasn't hamstrung that way.

I've suggested at greater length before about how LR could be broadened into diferent areas by being more truly modular or by having a sister programme 'Editing room', where you have the more open Library module and ideally you choose the 'develop/process/output modules you want. Sound and video grading modules which process sound and video files parametrically as LR currently does which ER could then pass onto other Adobe products like Premiere. The Editing Room Suite could be a stepping stone to full CS just like LR currently is to PS. This could also suit the emerging tablet market much better.

[imajez]

Lee Jay wrote:

I probably wouldn't give you such a hard time if you weren't such an extremist.  It *hasn't* completely failed.  The video support in LR 3 has worked perfectly for me, supporting all my cameras, all my old videos, all my derived videos, sorting them all in the right place and giving me thumbs and metadata for all of them.

Failure to support ONE format doesn't equate to complete failure.

It does if that's the format you use. If LR didn't support Nikons and you used Canon's would you still use the same argument?

[Keith Reeder]

Thronsen wrote:

For all the blandishments we get from people like Lee Jay and the Anti-Video crowd, no one ever address this terrible flaw.

Oh, don't be such a petulant child!

Nobody here is "anti video", but the fact remains that Adobe has at no point said that AVCHD is a current part of Lr's video support, and this interminable whining about what people like you think Adobe meant when it said that Lr 3 would provide support for "common DSLR video formats" has been proven,m clearly and unequivocally, to be an entirely erroneous assumption.

What can't you just acknowledge that you've projected your personal wishes onto what Adobe has said, and got it completely wrong, and accept that you're just going to have to be patient? Adobe is on the case and it will happen...

[imajez]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

Thronsen wrote:

For all the blandishments we get from people like Lee Jay and the Anti-Video crowd, no one ever address this terrible flaw.

Oh, don't be such a petulant child!

Nobody here is "anti video"

Actually there's been a lot of anti-video posting in these forums over the years.

[areohbee]

Another Photographer wrote:

Transcoding could be a solution...it all depends on how few steps it involves and whether it's truly lossless.

It is truly lossless. An mts file is just an mp4 video stream in a different wrapper. No transcoding necessary - its just re-wrapping: one extra step for software, zero extra steps for you if its rolled into a plugin.

Another Photographer wrote:

- View and play AVCHD video. [NOT THE CORE ISSUE]

- Edit Video. [I DONT WANT LR TO EDIT VIDEO; PREMIERE DOES THIS]

- All of the above. [NOPE]

- None of the above. [YES]

Huh? - View and play is not the core issue? I mean, isnt that the sum total of Lr's video support for any format? - I mean I know you want them to be orderable via capture date and given good names, but if this is not the core issue then I'm getting progressively more confused instead of progressively clearer.

Another Photographer wrote:

Here is the problem from my perspective:  Workflow.

I shoot both video and photos from the same cameras.  When the video is AVI, the process goes like this:

(1) I use LR to import the files and in one step (A) they're copied to two hard drives, (B) renamed in the format DATE_TIME_ORIGINAL NAME. (so they can ALL be sorted in oder of capture very easily in any program), (C) they're added to the LR catalogue so they can be perused side by side.

(2) I add whatever metadata I want to both photos and video.  This is key.  Bridge will recognize the metadata I add to the photos.  I don't know yet whether the metadata added to AVIs is read by Bridge and Premiere.

Done.

I assume the same would be true if the format was mp4. Which is why it seems like one obvious and extremely simple solution is:

- Re-wrap to mp4 upon import (and rename appropriately, and assign a capture time). Now, they are handled exactly the same as any other supported format. This would be a super easy thing to do, and if it solves all the problems, then we could put an end to the AVCHD dilemma in a heartbeat. So, my biggest unanswered question is:

     "Is this all there is to it?"

I mean, pros:

- AVCHD supported exactly the same as every other video format.

cons:

- AVCHD folders and everything in them return to dust: I dont know whether this matters to anyone, so the other big unanswered question:

     "Does it (matter to anyone)?"

Another Photographer wrote:

...do the existing plugins provide a complete workaround?  I haven't tested them...

Are you sure y'all dont just want to complain? - Sorry for being snide, but its a bit hard to fathom: You want Lr support for AVCHD, there is plugin that supports AVCHD in Lr, and you haven't tried it? Neither have I, but then I dont shoot AVCHD - I was hoping y'all would do the homework for me.

Another Photographer wrote:

You can easily see how this process is disrupted when I shoot AVCHD ... The problems include the following:

(1) LR does not import, display, rename, catalogue or recognize .mts files at all.

(2) Bridge will import, display and rename .mts files BUT:

(A) Bridge haphazardly copies and renames all of the extra files from the AVCHD directories, making them useless for whatever purpose they originally served and creating lots of clutter,

(B) Bridge does not catalogue, since that is not Bridge's function and

(C) Premiere will refuse to create metadata for these .mts files because they have been renamed and stripped of their AVHCD junk, making it impossibe to keep track of the contents of the files unless I use pencil and paper.  Premiere will edit the files, because it recognizes the video data, but it will not organize them at it organizes other files because it needs to see the ORIGINAL FILE NAME and the ORIGINAL FILE STRUCTURE.  (My camera restarts naming with every card so I have dozens of files called 00001.MTS in different folders to make Premiere happy.)

My interim solution: copy the whole AVCHD structure into separate folders on the hard drive.  I create a new folder for each day of shooting.  Obvious disadvantages:

(1) Can't browse library in LR.

(2) Very inconvenient to browse library in Bridge or Explorer due to the deep directory structure and the lack of context.  No context to the videos since I can't change their name (Premiere would complain) and they're not surrounded by the photos that were shot at the same time.

(3) Premiere can sort of browse the library (but need to create "Projects" for this; Premiere is not really a broweser), but again there is no context.  Any metadata I create is not recognized by Bridge, and who knows whether it will ever be recogized by LR or any program other than After Effects and Encore (not helpful).

I hope this explanation sheds more light on the problem.

We're getting closer...

It seems to me that the folders that accompany the video aren't doing a whole lot for you. The question is:

- Are they doing anything at all?

- If so, then what?

I can see two options:

1. Maintain the folders.

2. Re-wrap the video and forget the folders completely (just preserve the video stream).

3. Re-wrap the video and transfer any good stuff in the folders to Lr catalog and/or re-wrapped file as metadata (if there is any - what?)

Which is best?

The other issue raised here is renaming, which is a piece of cake - the file creation date on the card is the capture date. So, that can easily be incorporated into the filename, so they're ordered correctly by capture time, even in programs that only understand alphabetical by filename ordering.

Summary:

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

- If renaming and re-wrapping as mp4 is all that is required, a solution could be had in short order.

- If not, then I still dont know what to do.

PS - It may be that Adobe is equally unclear. I mean Melissa or Julie of Adobe (I think it was one of them) was talking about AVCHD support complexity as if Lr would need to maintain the folders - making sure all the loose ends are tied up when a video is deleted... Maybe that's because re-wrapping is considered out of the question for a "do it right" solution. But, I'm not looking for a "do-it-right" solution, I'm looking for a "do-it-good-enough-until-Adobe-does-it-right" solution. How about you?

Definitions:

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

- Maintain folder structure: Just like your camera would, or a blue-ray authoring program, or premiere. Names stay as 0000.MTS... tucked in a folder...

- Re-wrap: extract from folder & rename videos, wrapping video stream in an mp4 container, and leaving folders behind. optional?: read some stuff from the original folders/files before abandonment, if there is anything of value.

Rob

[ambienttroutmask]

areohbee wrote:

Another Photographer wrote:

Transcoding could be a solution...it all depends on how few steps it involves and whether it's truly lossless.

It is truly lossless. An mts file is just an mp4 video stream in a different wrapper. No transcoding necessary - its just re-wrapping: one extra step for software, zero extra steps for you if its rolled into a plugin.

Rob

Well said Rob. As I have said I change all AVCHD files to ciniform as do many. This is a lossless process as I understand it. It does produce far larger files, but they work far better in Premier (or indeed any other editor). This is a pretty standard process for many using AVCHD. I would love a plug in that just allowed me to import the AVCHD files into LR at the same time as the RAW files from the same card, as very often I have one card and I have to remember to check it both in LR as well as importing or copying over the video files separately.

For me, it would be even better if I could somehow link the import process with NeoScene to convert the AVCHD files to AVI or MOV files on import in the way I presently convert all my RAW files to DNG on import. This may be asking too much, but there are a lot of people out there who do this and perhaps it could allow for other apps used to convert files, such as Voltaic, that are in common usage.

Once in LR what I really want is the ability to create collections of video and still files and then directly export them to a Premier Pro project file. At present I have to do this using Bridge or using Premiers file browser. This means that either the video and still files have to be in the same folder on the same disk or I have to keep searching around for the assets. I want to use collections in LR for this, rather than specific locations on a drive.

I would like LR to add metadata to video (and still files) recording which projects they have been exported too.

Am I asking for too much.....

and you are quite right about using it over a network as I move between my little home office to a shared studio space it would be great for Lightroom catalog to be on a sever accessible both ends, without me having to carry hard drives around. Perhaps even all linked up by a bittorrent engine with others i work with to give some real speed to the process. I am sure that Adobe are going down this root with other parts of the Creative Suite, things like Device Central and the Community Help system and the Adobe Air thingy all point the way forward. I know nothing of databases, what is the problem with sql? It seems ubiquitous, everything seems to use it, from web sites to LR.

[areohbee]

Am I asking for too much.....

No such thing (but you may be asking for too much too soon ).

ambienttroutmask wrote:

I would love a plug in that just allowed me to import the AVCHD files into LR at the same time as the RAW files from the same card, as very often I have one card and I have to remember to check it both in LR as well as importing or copying over the video files separately.

For me, it would be even better if I could somehow link the import process with NeoScene to convert the AVCHD files to AVI or MOV files on import in the way I presently convert all my RAW files to DNG on import. This may be asking too much, but there are a lot of people out there who do this and perhaps it could allow for other apps used to convert files, such as Voltaic, that are in common usage.

Some people are now using RC Importer to import their AVCHD video along with their photos (mts files only). And RC Importer has the ability to do an ExifTool transformation (on photos) in the process of importing. It would be easy enough to add the ability to either re-wrap, or transcode video in the course of importing. Thus the reason I'm involved in this thread, despite I have no use for it personally.

Perhaps I'll just add a generic capability for people to enter a program path, and parameters, and RC Importer will just blindly submit importing videos to the specified program, with the specified parameters. That way people could download whatever apps they want to convert or re-wrap (upon import) to whatever form suits their fancy.

So, can I conclude that everything in the AVCHD folders is superfluous - just need the video in one form or another?

I mean: renaming the files is a given (and handling capture-time). Is there any other metadata that needs to be transferred?

Rob

[areohbee]

ambienttroutmask wrote:

...what is the problem with sql? It seems ubiquitous, everything seems to use it, from web sites to LR.

I assume you mean: What is the problem with sqlite?

SQLite is designed to support concurrent access by multiple processes across a network.

Unfortunately, it relies on primitive OS file locking mechanisms that are buggy (on both Unix and Windows). Which means it works just fine (multiple concurrent accesses) for a while, then trashes your catalog. So, in a nutshell:

Its this close, but still that far away from being usable across a network.

I guess SQLite developers need to come up with their own implementation of db locking, or something.

In the case of the web, its really not being accessed by multiple programs across a network, just the web server..., i.e. web clients interact with the web server, which interacts with the database (there's a middleman)...

[ambienttroutmask]

areohbee wrote:

ambienttroutmask wrote:

...what is the problem with sql? It seems ubiquitous, everything seems to use it, from web sites to LR.

I assume you mean: What is the problem with sqlite?

SQLite is designed to support concurrent access by multiple processes across a network.

Unfortunately, it relies on primitive OS file locking mechanisms that are buggy (on both Unix and Windows). Which means it works just fine (multiple concurrent accesses) for a while, then trashes your catalog. So, in a nutshell:

Its this close, but still that far away from being usable across a network.

I guess SQLite developers need to come up with their own implementation of db locking, or something.

In the case of the web, its really not being accessed by multiple programs across a network, just the web server..., i.e. web clients interact with the web server, which interacts with the database (there's a middleman)...

Thanks for that, I wondered why it was multiple user couldn't acess LR whilst loads of users could all acess a SQLite database on the web, your answer makes sense. Does this mean it would be possible, at least theoretically, to create LR as a web based app?

[areohbee]

Yes - theoretically possible.

It would probably be more work than porting to another database, and slower, but theoretically possible...

PS - Dan Tull actually tried running Lightroom with catalog across a network, with multiple client nodes banging away. It worked, but was not reliable.

In case you are interested in learning more about the SQLite end of things: http://www.sqlite.org/lockingv3.html

R

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Pete,

I appreciate hearing from other experienced people.  But you recognize transcoding is not an option for everyone.  Premiere edits ACHD just fine on my system.  Premiere CS5 was advertised as a solution for AVCHD.  Cineform is expensive.   Transcoding takes a lot of time.  Transcoding more than doubles my storage needs.  Transcoding gives me two files to manage instead of one.  Transcoding is not reversible.  Even if I needed it for editing, I only edit a small portion of all clips, so why would I waste time and resources transcoding all of them.  It's pretty nutty to have to transcode just to view my data.

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

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Rob,

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

Regards.