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.

[kwdaves-WfiRTh]

AVCHD is sort of analogous to a raw file while  H.264/MP4 is more like jpeg. The Windows version of the H.264/MP4 codec has a ".mpg" file extension. Windows 7 can read the file properties and some of the metadata fields are editable. The Sony .m2ts video files ("Full HD") have two sidecar files .moff and .modd. The file properties are grayed out in Windows 7 and they can't be edited. At least with my preferred video editor (Video Studio) the conversion process results in  H.264 files with readable/writeable metadata. I think Adobe needs to treat AVCHD as a raw file and work with Sony and (I suspect) Panasonic to make the metadata readable.

The following is the metadata for an H.264 .mpg file created from a Sony .m2ts file. I tried writing the metadata to the file including GPS coordinates but it didn't work.

[ISeward]

AVCHD is sort of analogous to a raw file while  H.264/MP4 is more like jpeg. The Windows version of the H.264/MP4 codec has a ".mpg" file extension. Windows 7 can read the file properties and some of the metadata fields are editable. The Sony .m2ts video files ("Full HD") have two sidecar files .moff and .modd. The file properties are grayed out in Windows 7 and they can't be edited. At least with my preferred video editor (Video Studio) the conversion process results in  H.264 files with readable/writeable metadata. I think Adobe needs to treat AVCHD as a raw file and work with Sony and (I suspect) Panasonic to make the metadata readable.

Hi Kenneth

Just for clarification was this metadata contained in just the .mts / mt2s file, that is independant of the sidecar files ?

[kwdaves-WfiRTh]

I don't know what is in the sidecars and what isn't, but

all the data in that particular file is apparently embedded because

Video Studio can read it. Hang on....

[kwdaves-WfiRTh]

Whoops. Pardon my confusion. I have multiple versions of the same video and it turns out that the version of that video with editable metadata

was a .wmv HD file created using Windows Live Movie Maker, not Video Studio. Lightroom 3 won't import it- the .wmv file that is. All of the information in the Description section was added through the properties.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

ISeward wrote:

Adobe can't insist that people must copy the sidecar file but it meens that you lose some information, that is a user choice.

Not really.  Remember, LR is often used to copy images and videos off the card, and the user expects this process to be lossless from a data point of view.  That means LR has to understand the files and at least copy them properly.  Further, if LR is asked to copy the files, it needs to properly understand at least the basic metadata that comes with them.  Finally, it has to be able to generate thumbnails from the video file.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Lee Jay wrote:

ISeward wrote:

Adobe can't insist that people must copy the sidecar file but it meens that you lose some information, that is a user choice.

Not really.  Remember, LR is often used to copy images and videos off the card, and the user expects this process to be lossless from a data point of view.  That means LR has to understand the files and at least copy them properly.  Further, if LR is asked to copy the files, it needs to properly understand at least the basic metadata that comes with them.  Finally, it has to be able to generate thumbnails from the video file.

Thinking about this further, even this is insufficient.  LR also has to be able to properly manage all the files it imports.  This includes renaming them and moving them and doing that while taking any sidecar files along with the master file, without damaging them.  This might not be so trivial if the sidecar "files" are actually whole folders especially if the master file is inside one of those folders.  I don't know what these folder structures look like with AVCHD cameras but LR right now is designed to handle single files like .XMP, .WAV (audio annotations), and even .JPG files as sidecars along with a master raw file in the same folder.  AVCHD could be a substantial departure from that depending on how the other information looks besides the .mts master file.

[imajez]

Lee Jay wrote:

ISeward wrote:

Adobe can't insist that people must copy the sidecar file but it meens that you lose some information, that is a user choice.

Not really.  Remember, LR is often used to copy images and videos off the card, and the user expects this process to be lossless from a data point of view.  That means LR has to understand the files and at least copy them properly.  Further, if LR is asked to copy the files, it needs to properly understand at least the basic metadata that comes with them.

That makes no sense. To copy a file takes no understanding of what a file does or ability to parse file. Finder and Explorer wouldn't be able to do very much if that were inded the case. To then use the file inside a programme, yes then you do need to parse a file.

What may be useful to know as LR now 'recognises' video, except when it doesn't, is to see if those who have files that are not yet acknowledged inside LR, can copy files from memory cards without anything being left behind. Like was the case with all video files before LR3.

I never used LR's import from card feature as it leaves files behind, which can then get forgotten about/deleted. If LR is still blind to some files, then I will still not use LR to import in case something gets left behind. Copying files off a memory card, should be a complete function in itself, including checking for errors. Once that is done, then LR can then import files it supports. Renaming options could apply to all files or to just those recognised by LR.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

imajez wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

ISeward wrote:

Adobe can't insist that people must copy the sidecar file but it meens that you lose some information, that is a user choice.

Not really.  Remember, LR is often used to copy images and videos off the card, and the user expects this process to be lossless from a data point of view.  That means LR has to understand the files and at least copy them properly.  Further, if LR is asked to copy the files, it needs to properly understand at least the basic metadata that comes with them.

That makes no sense. To copy a file takes no understanding of what a file does or ability to parse file. Finder and Explorer wouldn't be able to do very much if that were inded the case. To then use the file inside a programme, yes then you do need to parse a file.

But LR has no ability to do a copy-only operation, only an import operation, which means it has to understand the files it imports.  No, I do not agree that LR should copy files off the card it does not understand.

[imajez]

Lee Jay wrote:

But LR has no ability to do a copy-only operation, only an import operation, which means it has to understand the files it imports.  No, I do not agree that LR should copy files off the card it does not understand.

But as LR should copy all files to HD. As it stands I and others won't use this feature because it will mean at some point we will lose data as we won't realise or simply forget about the files LR ignores. I nearly did that some years back. Never used LR to import again.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

imajez wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

But LR has no ability to do a copy-only operation, only an import operation, which means it has to understand the files it imports.  No, I do not agree that LR should copy files off the card it does not understand.

But as LR should copy all files to HD. As it stands I and others won't use this feature because it will mean at some point we will lose data as we won't realise or simply forget about the files LR ignores. I nearly did that some years back. Never used LR to import again.

So, you're worried about losing them on the card.  If it copies files it can't understand you'll lose them on the drive instead.  You'll rename the master leaving the non-understood sidecars behind or move the files LR can see leaving the ones it can't see behind and then delete the folder having no idea there are unseen files in there.  Nope.  Bad solution.

[imajez]

Lee Jay wrote:

imajez wrote:

But as LR should copy all files to HD. As it stands I and others won't use this feature because it will mean at some point we will lose data as we won't realise or simply forget about the files LR ignores. I nearly did that some years back. Never used LR to import again.

So, you're worried about losing them on the card.  If it copies files it can't understand you'll lose them on the drive instead.  You'll rename the master leaving the non-understood sidecars behind or move the files LR can see leaving the ones it can't see behind and then delete the folder having no idea there are unseen files in there.  Nope.  Bad solution.

Missed the point entirely and also looks like you don't know how LR works in how it safeguards the files it does not recognise.

If I'm copying from Card to HD, unless everything is being copied by the copier, I do not use the copier, as there is no point if I have to go back and then do a second round of moving files. Particularly as it is so very easy to forget to do so, format card and lose your data. So as LR is a bit useless/dangerous in this regard.

Instead I copy the entire contents of card to HD [and to a back up HD] check all files have been moved with my file browser of choice and only then do I delete files from card/fresh format and import into LR

As I said above, copying files to HD and importing should be two discrete tasks as long as LR is blind to any important files that may be present on camera memory cards.

Not to mention a major flaw in your objection, that you won't be renaming files in LR if LR doesn't import them. And if LR does import them and they have sidecars, LR does at least rename sidecars with main file.

Though LR isn't particularly good when it comes to renaming/moving other kinds of paired files. In Bridge I simply select my RAW files or even my RAW and JPEGs together and Br can name them both in one go. In LR I have to rename JPEG pairs in second pass. Br also keeps the pairs together whilst moving the RAW files. Which are both very useful features, particularly if renaming files several times in one folder - not all files will have the same name. Renaming RAW + JPEG files separately is a massive waste of time and in my experience easily leads to mistakes, particularly when renaming at end of a very long day's shoot when you are very tired. Same if you want to reduce clutter and only show RAW files for sorting and moving files, using Br is safer/easier than LR.

But as for losing/deleting unseen files on your HD, LR cannot do that. If I have a folder with say JPEgs in it and also GIFs, when LR imports it only recognises the JPEGS. But when moving the containing folder in LR, the GIFs also get moved and when I remove folder from LR it only removes it form LR and does not delete it. You can only delete from disk in LR , files that LR can handle. Anything else is quite safe including folders. LR may be flawed in places, but it won't let you destroy data it cannot handle.

[Thronsen]

I cant suppport what Imajez is saying here enough.

He clearly works with video, and understands the demands and desire of that audience.

And they arent large. Just copy the AVCHD files over, hopefully let us tag them, and launch them in a 3rd party browser. This is not rocket science.

It seems pretty silly to me that not copying the files at all is somehow superior to copying the file, but maybe not the manufacture specific metadata.

Why isnt that same standard applied to NEF, where I can see the focus point in Capture but not in LR? Should LR not import NEF until it supports focus points?

Im not sure what Adobe was trying to accomplish with 'video support' but it has failed 2 huge audiences. No AVCHD support means everyone with an AVCHD compact (the fastest growing compact section by far) STILL NEEDS TO HAVE 2 programs do its importing. Completely defeats the purpose.

And for the new users, the video crowd, the guys who are paying $400 for a new LR3, not supporting one of the most popular formats (top 3?) and getting more popular all the time just smacks of a program that is using video as a marketing tool, not as helpful software.

Ive said it before, and I will say it again, excluding AVCHD is as bad for people who shoot video as excluding .NEF would be for photographers. In fact, AVCHD is almost certainly used more then .NEF globally.

Video implementation on LR is crippled without AVCHD support, especially for all those video guys who just bought still cameras for their video capability (and btw, isnt that the fastest growing portion of the market?).

P.S. I saw a B+H photo add for LR3 the other day. Its video capabilities were listed as the #3 feature.

[ISeward]

It seems pretty silly to me that not copying the files at all is  somehow superior to copying the file, but maybe not the manufacture  specific metadata.

Why isnt that same standard applied to NEF, where I can  see the focus point in Capture but not in LR? Should LR not import NEF  until it supports focus points?

This is Adobe logic - if they don't feel we need it we don't get it.  That after all is their choice, it is their program - don't like it, don't use it.

Of course it is also your choice, if Adobe appear to not p**s you off, then take every opportunity to p**s them off - support Apple in their anti flash campaign, post your support on forums etc. and relate to how you feel you are treated on this forum.

This will get Adobe's attention more than this forum will.

[SeanMcCormack]

Lightroom is not a video program, nor is it an asset manager.

I think the lack of support is either an oversight, or license related.

[imajez]

Seán McCormack wrote:

Lightroom is not a video program, nor is it an asset manager.

I think the lack of support is either an oversight,  or license related.

Of course LR is an asset manager, one that is sadly crippled by unnecessary file blindness.

The library is the most fundamental part of LR. You can't develop, print or put images online without being able to find them first and as you can only access files from within the LR database, which er....manages your files, that's certainly asset management by most people's understanding. You have to move and rename files and folders within LR or they get lost, which means you have to hunt them down or synchronize folders to find/update anything altered outside of LR. This encourages you to make LR you main image asset manager to avoid those problems.

My view is that LR should manage all file types that a photographer wants to manage [whatever they may be] and they then simply get handed off to suitable programme to edit/view just as is done now with video in LR3 and how Layered PSD/Tiff Files have been dealt with since the beginning by being sent to PS for editing.

This silly LR is for photography only nonsense ignores the fact that photography is very different from the last century or even from when LR was first thought of. Photographers, particularly professionals use all sorts of files as part of their photography business and I'm not talking about the office management side of things. Sound has been used for as long as photography has existed to go with slideshows, yet LR ignores sound. Considering the increased popularity of slideshow presentations particularly in the online version of printed media such as newspapers, which use ambient noise, interviews and music as an integral part of the photographic slideshow, it'd be nice to be able to catalogue and keyword all these assets together. A huge time saver. And seeing as LR has a slideshow module anyway....

Usually when I mention this idea I get lots of selfish rantings about bloat. What people really mean is they want their features and don't care about other people's needs. I asked for video from the first beta and got a lot of quite nasty abuse over time as a result. I tend to stick to the Pre-Release forums as a result, less noise! I don't mean you by the way Sean.

But now we finally have video...yay! So why not make LR into a really good asset manager and not a half baked one and allow any file into the library?

[redwoodtwig]

I very much agree that modern photographers are looking for a DAM solution that handles all the files they work with.  For example, I often work events and it would be a great benefit to me to be able to include the pdf flyer for the event right in there with my photos of the event instead of taking a photograph of the the paper flyer.  The fact that it is not editable or even viewable within LR would not bother me as long as I had an "Edit/View In" option to work with.

Specifically with regard to AVCHD, I don't care about the metadata that might be lurking somewhere else in the file structure.  Once I discovered that the .mts files had the video I needed, that's all I copy.  I have to look at each one and rename them anyway and at that point I can add any metadata I need to the LR database.  There must be a thumbanail or something in the .mts files, since they show up in windows 7 explorer when all i have in the folder is the .mts files.

As for viewing, well, it seems to me that simply passing the file off to the operating system ought to do the trick.  As mentioned in the adobe thread, if a user can't play the .mts files on his or her computer, LR shouldn't either.

I applaud the intention to "make it right."  But there should also be the goal to provide a workable solution.  I think the LR team needs to do some serious thinking about what solution it is trying to provide.

As a photographer, I'm looking for a photographer's digital asset management system as well as a digital darkroom.  My primary focus is the digital image files, my photographs.  In support of that what I really want is a central place where I can organize the various pieces related to that. A number of those pieces are not photographs, but are other kinds of files.  I want to manage them just like I do the photographs, but I have no problem with having only an icon show up in grid view with a badge saying "unsupported" and an "edit/view in" context item where I can specify how I want to deal with that file.

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

I bought LR3 before I had a camera that shot AVCHD, but in reliance on Adobe's marketing claim that LR3 now supports video, I felt assured that it would support any DSLR that I might buy in the near future.  In fact, the thought did not even cross my mind that it would not support several mainstream DSLRs that were released before and shortly after LR3.

Now that I have THREE different cameras from two manufacturers that use the AVCHD format, I am extremely disappointed in Adobe, to say the least.  I really was blind-sided by this.

I hate to be negative, but an Adobe employee should not be asking US what the AVCHD file structure is. 

Other fun facts:

Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 can edit AVCHD files.

Adobe Premiere Elements can edit and even preview AVCHD files.

Adobe Bridge cannot play or preview AVCHD files, but if and only if they have an .mts extension it knows to start Windows Media Player to play them.  If they have an .mt2s extension, there is a bug that prevents Adobe Bridge from calling on WMP.  The bug has been known for months but Adobe has not fixed it.  I think it's a matter of fixing a typo in the code.  Google it if you don't believe me.

I am a big fan of Adobe products, but I think they need a kick in the rear end to get moving on this.  Again, I hate to be negative, but the reality is that none of us is in the position to apply that kick.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Another Photographer wrote:

I bought LR3 before I had a camera that shot AVCHD, but in reliance on Adobe's marketing claim that LR3 now supports video, I felt assured that it would support any DSLR that I might buy in the near future.  In fact, the thought did not even cross my mind that it would not support several mainstream DSLRs that were released before and shortly after LR3.

You know what they say about assuming.

Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 can edit AVCHD files.

Adobe Premiere Elements can edit and even preview AVCHD files.

They're video editors.  Are you just as disappointed that Premiere doesn't support raw files from digital still cameras?  They advertise that it supports still images you know.

I was disappointed that Premieve Elements could not edit the very first *video* that I tried to give it, despite the fact that the on-line help documentation very specifically says that it can, and has for several versions.  Turns out that's it's just a flat lie - it does not have a capability the help says it does.

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Lee, before you make assumptions, look at page 3 of the LR 3.3 release notes.

Supported File Formats:

Common DSLR video formats

I am aware of DSLRs from Nikon and Sony and mirrorless DSLR-like cameras from Panasonic that use AVCHD.  Uncommon?

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

AVCHD is a proprietary video format, and is the only one that has an entire folder structure for a single video.

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

"Developed jointly by Sony and Panasonic, the format was announced in 2006 primarily for use in high definition consumer camcorders.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#cite_note-AVCHD_ANNOUNCE_20060511-1"

Given it's odd format, it doesn't surprise me at all that it isn't supported in LR.  Every other file format LR supports has one file, possibly with one side-car file, for each "object".  Since AVCHD doesn't follow that format, it may be difficult to support in LR fully, as you requested in the FR forum:

"Support for AVCHD is sorely missed, and it's not just a matter  of the extension.  LR needs to be able to read the folder structure  created by the camera in order to be able to import and file the clips  appropriately."

Others have requested just support for the extension, and I've pointed out that renaming that extension to ".MP4" gives LR the ability to read the files.  But you don't want that, you want the full show, including understanding the folder structure.  I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if that would be a major effort given nothing else LR supports works this way at all.

As for "commonness", by far the most common dSLR video format is H.264 in the .MOV container.

[Thronsen]

'They're video editors.  Are you just as disappointed that Premiere  doesn't support raw files from digital still cameras?  They advertise  that it supports still images you know.' - Lee Jay

Can you please post links to those ads here? Make sure you date them.

Im happy to show where Adobe has trumpted their support for video in LR3. I dont recall anywhere near as much advertising for Premiere still images. And I have owned Premiere, in fact the entire Master Collection, for many years now.

On the main Premiere product page they dont mention still images at all.

Yes, yes, Im sure they do mention it somewhere, but nowhere near the prominence that LR3 gave to its video 'capabilities'.

And frankly Lee Jay many of your other statements are also inaccurate. Im not sure you use LR3 for video at all, to be honest. At least in any real capacity.

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Has there been any indication from Adobe on this topic?  Their lack of AVCHD support is not limited to Lightroom.  Bridge CS5 does not support it either.  Which means that Adobe has no professional software capable of properly importing and cataloguing AVCHD.  Luckily for them, they're the only game in town for PCs.  But I am sure this is not a situation they're happy to be in long term.  I am surprised they've let this go on for so long.

I am aware of, and use, Premiere CS5 for editing AVCHD.  If that can be used as a cataloguing tool, I would be more than happy to use it.

[Keith Reeder]

Thronsen wrote:

Im happy to show where Adobe has trumpeted their support for video in LR3

And Lr 3 does provide support for video.

Just not the particular format you're bothered about.

The Adobe Knowledgebase says:

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 imports video and audio files in common formats. You can manage these files in the Library module of Lightroom 3, but you cannot edit video or audio files.

Formats supported:

• .avi
• .mov
• .mp4

Nothing misleading about that statement - you've chosen to read more into Adobe's video support claims than is there.

[Thronsen]

I never suggested that Adobe didnt support ANY video in LR3. Please do the minimum and read the thread.

According to your logic though, as long as Adobe supported a video format used by .0001% of the cameras, that would be fine, right? All they had to do is support a single video format.

Actual use would be irrelevant right?

That is a terrible argument.

AVCHD is used by somewhere around 20-30% of the cameras being produced today.

If Adobe claimed to support RAW, and didnt support NEF, would you have the same claim?

I doubt it.

[Keith Reeder]

Thronsen wrote:

I never suggested that Adobe didnt support ANY video in LR3. Please do the minimum and read the thread.

Which I have, of course - it might be useful for you to stop imagining the claims Adobe has made with regard to video support in LR 3: such self-selusion can't be helping.

I'll restate my point: you're complaining about the lack of AVCHD support in Lr. Adobe has never made any claims that Lr would support AVCHD - for now anyway.

So your posturing about being able to point at Adobe publicity which somehow proves your point, is irrelevant and disingenuous - and what Adobe has to say about it undermines the very argument you're making, of course.

The simple fact is, you're complaining about the lack of something which you have no legitimate reason to expect would be there in the first place.

Now why would you do a thing like that?

Your position has no more legitimacy than someone complaining that their newly-released camera's files won't open in Lr 3 "so Adobe are lying to us, because they say Lr 3 opens NEFs...": yes, it does - but not, in that release of Lr 3, NEFs of that specific sort.