Lightroom 3.3 Release Candidate

Report · Oct 25, 2010

Report · Oct 25, 2010

Thronsen wrote:
According to whom?
And Im not sure AVCHD should be counted as a new 'feature'. It is a format used by many, many cameras. It would be great if Adobe could provide support for the entire camera, not just part of it.
Video was one of the most highly touted of features for Lightroom 3. It was a key feature for me, and due to its incomplete implementation I find it more of a nuisance then any real use.

A new (container) file format would always be considered a feature. Adobe chose to not support this format for whatever reasons they had at the time. Video support was obviously just introduced for Lr 3 to satisfy some basic requirements, and the fact is a large part of the user base could care less if it has video support at all.

Adobe is well aware of what some users would like. The problem is that if you consider what all the users would like across the product, you quickly realize that there is more work than time available for each release.

Point releases have traditionally been about stability, bug fixes and ACR support. These are the things that affect the greatest percentage of the user base.

Report · Oct 25, 2010

Supporting a format of existing cameras I would say is far closer to 'support' then a feature request. But as you dont work for Adobe, and I dont accept your whole 'no new features thing in point releases tradition' in any case, I see little point in arguing with you.

And lets not pretend this is some huge project. All that LR does with video is hand it off to the OS player.

Video without AVCHD is largely useless for those who have a camera that uses AVCHD, even if its one of many cameras. The two major problems that the video feature were suppose to solve was import security and being able to view your media side by side. Import security, with some cameras importing video and some not, is far more insecure then no video support at all. Frankly I wish I could turn it off, and video support was one of the key reasons I bought LR3.

And the shoddy implementation is the main reason why LR doesnt even register as a blip for all those video people who have bought DSLRs in the last couple of years.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

Thronsen wrote:
Supporting a format of existing cameras I would say is far closer to 'support' then a feature request. But as you dont work for Adobe, and I dont accept your whole 'no new features thing in point releases tradition' in any case, I see little point in arguing with you.
And lets not pretend this is some huge project. All that LR does with video is hand it off to the OS player.

Oh, I see. I don't work for Adobe so cannot comment on well-known history. But you happen to know exactly what it will take to develop and test a new recognized format that doesn't have much traction on the desktop yet. Gotcha. Point releases, since the beginning, have been places for high-value bug fixes, new camera support (which is often a matter of a few files and some testing) and, occasionally, popcorn features.

The fact is that Lr hands off playback to the OS, and there is missing native support for this container format. A good rule of thumb is, if Quicktime doesn't have the codec for it, Lr support is unlikely. Without such support from the OS, supporting formats gets very, very interesting (I know this because I do enterprise development for a living.)

And the shoddy implementation is the main reason why LR doesnt even register as a blip for all those video people who have bought DSLRs in the last couple of years.

When it happens, it will happen. It is not the end of the world. There are plenty of other ways to look at your videos. You can even import those vids if you like, with a plugin.

What folks are suggesting to you is that video support that keep everyone happy is not going to happen in a point release. This is not what Adobe uses point releases for.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

clvrmnky wrote:
Thronsen wrote:
Supporting a format of existing cameras I would say is far closer to 'support' then a feature request. But as you dont work for Adobe, and I dont accept your whole 'no new features thing in point releases tradition' in any case, I see little point in arguing with you.
And lets not pretend this is some huge project. All that LR does with video is hand it off to the OS player.
Oh, I see. I don't work for Adobe so cannot comment on well-known history. But you happen to know exactly what it will take to develop and test a new recognized format that doesn't have much traction on the desktop yet. Gotcha. Point releases, since the beginning, have been places for high-value bug fixes, new camera support (which is often a matter of a few files and some testing) and, occasionally, popcorn features.
The fact is that Lr hands off playback to the OS, and there is missing native support for this container format. A good rule of thumb is, if Quicktime doesn't have the codec for it, Lr support is unlikely. Without such support from the OS, supporting formats gets very, very interesting (I know this because I do enterprise development for a living.)
And the shoddy implementation is the main reason why LR doesnt even register as a blip for all those video people who have bought DSLRs in the last couple of years.
When it happens, it will happen. It is not the end of the world. There are plenty of other ways to look at your videos. You can even import those vids if you like, with a plugin.
What folks are suggesting to you is that video support that keep everyone happy is not going to happen in a point release. This is not what Adobe uses point releases for.

Clvmnky,

The only point I want to add to the discussion is around the aspect of the comment on not gaining traction. Attend pretty much any pro seminar now and the stress on the importance of including, as Canon puts it, "moving pictures" is becoming pretty much a staple in offerings for weddings, engagements, any personal but special events.. Folks like Clay Blackmore stress the importance of it as a means in separating yourself in a very crowded commerical space right now. So from that regard, AVCHD is pretty standard on many HD storage camcorders and in use on HDSLRs. It is something that should be included, in some fashion, as a part of the workflow. There are clearly packages like iMovie that allow for importing AVCHD and significant amounts of editing.

The question I see about LR is what amount of support are folks looking for. I don't know that I see LR becoming a video editor as well. Adobe and others, as I said, have far too many other offeings. I can see some areas of integration, e.g. publishing, slide shows, etc.

Jay S.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

JayS In CT wrote:
Clvmnky,
The only point I want to add to the discussion is around the aspect of the comment on not gaining traction. Attend pretty much any pro seminar now and the stress on the importance of including, as Canon puts it, "moving pictures" is becoming pretty much a staple in offerings for weddings, engagements, any personal but special events.. Folks like Clay Blackmore stress the importance of it as a means in separating yourself in a very crowded commerical space right now. So from that regard, AVCHD is pretty standard on many HD storage camcorders and in use on HDSLRs. It is something that should be included, in some fashion, as a part of the workflow. There are clearly packages like iMovie that allow for importing AVCHD and significant amounts of editing.
The question I see about LR is what amount of support are folks looking for. I don't know that I see LR becoming a video editor as well. Adobe and others, as I said, have far too many other offeings. I can see some areas of integration, e.g. publishing, slide shows, etc.

No doubt it is more important for some people. No one is saying it shouldn't be done. But I, and others, are just saying that hoping for certain sorts of changes in a point release is faint hope, indeed.

This isn't about whether something ought to be included, but whether or not it is likely to happen in some time frame or not. All features share some commonalities:

- All features are, essentially, incomplete. There is always more you can do, and sometimes you get out a minimal set of support as a framework to hang stuff on.

- All features fall on a scale of importance for the purpose of scheduling. Not all features can be started or completed within a given available time-frame.

- All features have cost. Cost is measured in upfront cost, testing cost, regression cost and support cost. Estimating this cost is a critical, and very difficult, part of the rating process. This is why parameters have to be put around features. Nothing sucks the life from a project faster than feetching creaperism.

- All features incur risk; risk that can adversely affect a much larger group than the group who desire the feature in the first place. This is to be avoided at all costs, and almost always trumps other needs. Managing risk is key.

Lr 3 was about a lot of things, and those things bumped some other things because they were more important. Lr 3 point releases are (like every other point release) core functionality usability and stability. Specific HD format support, evidentially, was not a good candidate for either. I suspect there are specific technical issues that would add some significant overhead to the overstuffed schedules. Perhaps Lr 4, which is likely already in development, will have tackled these technical hurdles. This is how it works in every shop I've worked at.

I, personally, could care less. I rarely use my camera to take videos, and when I do it is not HD so I'm done. I'm guessing this covers a pretty common segment of the user base -- those who focus on the image because they have never been bitten by the moving pictures bug. Even some pros could care less. Other pros may care, but Adobe has to balance those needs and wants with resources available and what is best for an overall experience. Any traction, however obvious to you, otherwise has to overcome the natural rating that such features are subjected to.

DSLRs can do video now, and it is getting pretty good quality. This brings together stills and moving images like never before, since in the past super-8 and 16mm and 25mm films were only marginally connected to various still photography equipment and technique. But I will argue that this is a new situation, so Adobe is correct in feeling out how it will play out, and how we decide we are going to use this new tech.

So, to recap:

- No one is arguing that support for your fave format is never going to come, or is not worthy of consideration.

- There are limited man-hours available to develop and maintain features of all kinds, and there are always more features than man-hours.

- Typically, point releases are for stability and common usability issues that will almost always jump the queue when up against other sorts of the improvements.

- Adobe will do this, if they are able, when it is best given the many criteria that have to be balance from release to release.

I'm pretty sure that's all anyone is saying.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

clvrmnky wrote:
JayS In CT wrote:
Clvmnky,
The only point I want to add to the discussion is around the aspect of the comment on not gaining traction. Attend pretty much any pro seminar now and the stress on the importance of including, as Canon puts it, "moving pictures" is becoming pretty much a staple in offerings for weddings, engagements, any personal but special events.. Folks like Clay Blackmore stress the importance of it as a means in separating yourself in a very crowded commerical space right now. So from that regard, AVCHD is pretty standard on many HD storage camcorders and in use on HDSLRs. It is something that should be included, in some fashion, as a part of the workflow. There are clearly packages like iMovie that allow for importing AVCHD and significant amounts of editing.
The question I see about LR is what amount of support are folks looking for. I don't know that I see LR becoming a video editor as well. Adobe and others, as I said, have far too many other offeings. I can see some areas of integration, e.g. publishing, slide shows, etc.
No doubt it is more important for some people. No one is saying it shouldn't be done. But I, and others, are just saying that hoping for certain sorts of changes in a point release is faint hope, indeed.
This isn't about whether something ought to be included, but whether or not it is likely to happen in some time frame or not. All features share some commonalities:
- All features are, essentially, incomplete. There is always more you can do, and sometimes you get out a minimal set of support as a framework to hang stuff on.
- All features fall on a scale of importance for the purpose of scheduling. Not all features can be started or completed within a given available time-frame.
- All features have cost. Cost is measured in upfront cost, testing cost, regression cost and support cost. Estimating this cost is a critical, and very difficult, part of the rating process. This is why parameters have to be put around features. Nothing sucks the life from a project faster than feetching creaperism.
- All features incur risk; risk that can adversely affect a much larger group than the group who desire the feature in the first place. This is to be avoided at all costs, and almost always trumps other needs. Managing risk is key.
Lr 3 was about a lot of things, and those things bumped some other things because they were more important. Lr 3 point releases are (like every other point release) core functionality usability and stability. Specific HD format support, evidentially, was not a good candidate for either. I suspect there are specific technical issues that would add some significant overhead to the overstuffed schedules. Perhaps Lr 4, which is likely already in development, will have tackled these technical hurdles. This is how it works in every shop I've worked at.
I, personally, could care less. I rarely use my camera to take videos, and when I do it is not HD so I'm done. I'm guessing this covers a pretty common segment of the user base -- those who focus on the image because they have never been bitten by the moving pictures bug. Even some pros could care less. Other pros may care, but Adobe has to balance those needs and wants with resources available and what is best for an overall experience. Any traction, however obvious to you, otherwise has to overcome the natural rating that such features are subjected to.
DSLRs can do video now, and it is getting pretty good quality. This brings together stills and moving images like never before, since in the past super-8 and 16mm and 25mm films were only marginally connected to various still photography equipment and technique. But I will argue that this is a new situation, so Adobe is correct in feeling out how it will play out, and how we decide we are going to use this new tech.
So, to recap:
- No one is arguing that support for your fave format is never going to come, or is not worthy of consideration.
- There are limited man-hours available to develop and maintain features of all kinds, and there are always more features than man-hours.
- Typically, point releases are for stability and common usability issues that will almost always jump the queue when up against other sorts of the improvements.
- Adobe will do this, if they are able, when it is best given the many criteria that have to be balance from release to release.
I'm pretty sure that's all anyone is saying.

Clvrnnky,

I don't think I'm in major disagreement with anything you're saying regarding LR.. fact I think I was saying I'm not sure I want it to be a video editor. My comment was solely around the fact the AVCHD is already a standard with traction. Whether or not that belongs in LR is subject to many of the things you outlined above.

Jay S.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

Well, it surprises me that Adobe has not added support for AVCHD. And, I confess - it makes me worry a bit (is the Lightroom team too lean?)

On the other hand, Lightroom's AVCHD support wouldn't go much beyond the JF plugin anyway, would it?, so for all practical purposes, Lightroom 3 does support AVCHD, no?

Rob

Report · Oct 26, 2010

areohbee wrote:
Well, it surprises me that Adobe has not added support for AVCHD. And, I confess - it makes me worry a bit (is the Lightroom team too lean?)
On the other hand, Lightroom's AVCHD support wouldn't go much beyond the JF plugin anyway, would it?, so for all practical purposes, Lightroom 3 does support AVCHD, no?
Rob

Rob,

My point as well .. With iMovie doing direct imports on the Mac (Not sure about Win 7) I'm really not looking for LR to go off and start processing and rendering video.

Jay S.

Report · Oct 27, 2010

Im not trying to be rude, but clvrmnky you really need to learn a bit more about the issue before posting.

First, since 3.0 was released we have had Adobe employees commenting here that they were looking at AVCHD. I doubt it was for 4.0 to be released in 2013, but in any case it was on the table.

And it certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make VERY legitimate complaints about one of the top features for 3.0. Or even that AVCHD is a feature at all, when the LR claims to support cameras that use it. Note the word support, not feature.

Second, as someone else mentioned, AVCHD came out a year and a half ago. It is ridiculous to claim to support video, without supporting one of the the most popular formats. In the Lightroom 3.2 release, over half of the cameras that shot video shot video in AVCHD. OVER HALF. And there are almost certainly more cameras produced every year that shoot AVCHD then .NEF.

Third, your point about ‘native support’ is silly, and has been disproven many times on this board. How many people have cameras that shoot AVCHD, yet don’t have a computer that can play it??? That’s just inane.

Furthermore, your example of LR supporting what Quicktime can play is completely ridiculous. .MOV can not be natively played, or even played at all without modification, on the worlds most popular OS, Windows XP.

So what, your standard is that it has to play on Apple natively to be acceptable, but not Windows? Really? Apple vs Windows is the argument you want to bring to these boards?

LR saying it supports video without AVCHD is like a camera program saying it supports RAW without .NEF. And it makes the ‘support’ of video in LR3 more a nuisance, rather then the highly touted feature Adobe led us to believe.

And I can tell you, that all the video people who have been buying DSLRs these past couple of years, by far the largest growth segment in the industry, think it’s a joke that a program claims to support video but doesn’t bother to support one of the most popular formats.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

clvrmnky wrote:
Thronsen wrote:
According to whom?
And Im not sure AVCHD should be counted as a new 'feature'. It is a format used by many, many cameras. It would be great if Adobe could provide support for the entire camera, not just part of it.
Video was one of the most highly touted of features for Lightroom 3. It was a key feature for me, and due to its incomplete implementation I find it more of a nuisance then any real use.
A new (container) file format would always be considered a feature. Adobe chose to not support this format for whatever reasons they had at the time. Video support was obviously just introduced for Lr 3 to satisfy some basic requirements, and the fact is a large part of the user base could care less if it has video support at all.
Adobe is well aware of what some users would like. The problem is that if you consider what all the users would like across the product, you quickly realize that there is more work than time available for each release.
Point releases have traditionally been about stability, bug fixes and ACR support. These are the things that affect the greatest percentage of the user base.

I guess you are missing the users interests. If they would introduce a new container format only in major releases, would mean that we around 1.5 years before AVCHD is supported. Cameras with AVCHD are now for at least 1.5 years on the market. Needing 3 years to support this would be certainly not very acceptable. Thus, the request to support AVCHD as soon as possible is certainly absolutely legitmate. There is no reason not to include such a thing in a point release - its just product policy.

Kind regards

Thomas

Report · Oct 26, 2010

Bug fixes and camera support /is/ in the users interest.

I don't know why it pains some people to hear it, but video support is not something that the majority of users even care about right now. Just because you really, really, really want something in a point release doesn't mean you get it. Point releases are about getting bang for the buck with stability and core functionality and usability changes. Because these are what the majority of users will see positive change from.

This has been the pattern since forever, and it makes a whole lot of sense when you consider the entire history of a large software project.

I understand some folks want this support or that support, and there may be very good technical reasons for things to take longer than we'd like. But you have to temper your desires and wants with the realities of maintaining a large software project over a long lifespan.

Report · Oct 26, 2010

Why not use a plugin until Adobe gets their act together AVCHD-wise?

Jeffrey Friedl's http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/video-assets for example - supposedly AVCHD compatible.

_R

Report · Oct 27, 2010

While the Friedl plug-in is possibly useful advice, and thanks for that, it suffers from a couple of crticial problems.

The first is that the author states quite plainly he will not support it, and that it has major bugs.

But probably more importantly, it doesnt peform one of the key advantages of the LR3 video support, namely import security.

What is very interesting though about that plug-in is that some guy in Osaka, in his spare time, unpaid, managed to support AVCHD. Something some people here tell us requires a huge resource commitment from Adobe.

Report · Oct 27, 2010

Thronsen wrote:
While the Friedl plug-in is possibly useful advice, and thanks for that, it suffers from a couple of crticial problems.
The first is that the author states quite plainly he will not support it, and that it has major bugs.

Thronsen,

It is not my aim to dicourage you from encouraging Adobe to support AVCHD. However, I just reviewed Jeffrey Friedl's video plugin page and could not see any mention of major bugs, that still persist today I mean.

If you have cameras that produce AVCHD, and you are a Lightroom user, you should definitely try that plugin!

Sometimes the blood on plugin pages can make them look worse than they are. Plugin authors are often aiming for full disclosure, to make sure every potential problem ever known about by any user is accounted for. Can you imagine how it would look if Adobe did the same for Lightroom?

PS - I think what Jeffrey Friedl was trying to say regarding "I shall no longer support it" is - The purpose of the plugin was to fill a hole in Lightroom file support that is now being filled by Adobe natively, albeit incomplete at the moment... I would be willing to bet that one of the main reasons he has not pulled the plugin off his site yet is because people are still using it for AVCHD (and maybe because some folk haven't converted over to Lr native support yet - I really don't know...)

PPS - Last bug fix was less than two months ago - after Lr began supporting video. I'm sure Jeffrey has no intentions of making any feature improvements, but that doesn't mean if its broken he won't fix it... granted, if there is a published work-around then it may not get done...

Thronsen wrote:
But probably more importantly, it doesnt peform one of the key advantages of the LR3 video support, namely import security.

What is "import security"? - Just get Beyond-Compare from Scooter Software, do a binary file compare of the videos on your card to that on your hard disk after importing, and make a backup - no better import security than that...

Anyway, my point is that the plugin may work perfectly for you, or at least good enough, in the interim. Again, keep hounding Adobe if you think it will help, or you just need to vent - but try that plugin too!!!

_R

Report · Oct 29, 2010

Rob-

I really appreciate how helpful you are, both here and in other areas. I feel some people address the video issue only to be negative about it, because they dont use video and dont want it in Lightroom. You are always very genuine and helpful. And not just on this issue, on many others as well.

My main issue is import security. By that I mean, you stick the card in once, you have one program download the files, and its all where it should be. Lightroom continues to force us to use 2 import programs and processes, at least for AVCHD. Every card I put in, I have to run 2 different programs on. If I forget to do one, and format the card, I lose everything that the import program I didnt use imports.

This can be disastrous, and of course very inefficient. Not to mention just from a Business 101 standpoint, why are you ever making your customers use your competitors products? Every brand manager in every supermarket first lesson is to get eye level shelf space for his product and force the other products into less seen areas.

Yet everyday, I use a LR competitor to import my photos as well as LR. The funniest part is the LR competitor for many of these DRM activities is Windows 7, which does it for free. $400 for LR, and free with Windows 7. Hmmm.

In any case, Im not posting to ridicule Adobe business practices. After this and other issues, I dont care about them as a company, and will happily switch to a different provider who provides similar software.

Its simply inane that Adobe promises us video support, yet refuses to support one of the most common video formats. OVER HALF OF THE CAMERAS SUPPORTED IN 3.2 TAKE VIDEO IN AVCHD. It makes that feature a nuisance, rather then any sort fo help, for those who shoot AVCHD.

But again, thanks so much for trying to help us out.

Report · Oct 29, 2010

Thronsen,

Thanks for the kudos.

While I too am baffled by lack of AVCHD format support in Lightroom, I still don't get your objection to using plugin solutions in the interim?

RC Importer can bring 'em in along with your photos, and AnyFile or JF's Video Asset Management can display em alongside your photos and launch em. Good enough for now?

Rob

Report · Oct 28, 2010

Look everyone...

Here's the fix for those who need AVCHD support...

BUY APPLE'S FINAL CUT!

Lightroom was specifically designed for photographers anyway... ask Adobe themselves. Its on the description on the website.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

Report · Oct 28, 2010

Final Cut or the like is fine for editing and such, but the missing link is importing and presenting a launchable thumbnail in Lightroom, which Final Cut does not help with (does it?)

Still, since Jeffrey Friedl's video plugin supports AVCHD its sortof a non-issue in my book - unless the plugin doesn't work (I've never tried it).

Photographers are becoming videographers too - lets not be too restrictive on the definition, eh?

Rob

Report · Oct 28, 2010

To the best of my knowledge, Final Cut imports thumbnails no problem.

As for photographers crossing over to videography and vice versa, I would conquer. There is a hybrid community in today's day and age, however, there is no "hybrid software". In my opinion, when you're utilizing pro level software for your projects, you should separate your projects by type: Stills and Video. Software on this level is too specialized to work with an such an amalgamation of file types. Sure, we all love LightRoom's fluidity and ease of use, but if you want to dabble in both worlds, you must step outside your box and learn new software.

Report · Oct 29, 2010

It may be designed for photographers, but many photographers use their cameras to take videos as well.

Check any of the Adobe announcements about LR3. Video was one of the top new features listed. And they are completely flubbing it.

BTW, I have Adobe Premiere Pro, the entire Master Collection in fact. And Sony Vegas Pro. And for that matter Windows 7. And the cameras own software. I have many many programs that can play AVCHD.

What I want is one program that can import all the files that my camera takes, video and photo. And to display them side by side.

Videos are still pictures presented sequentially. A historical accident separated the technologies. But they are back together now, and if anyone thinks that there isnt a benefit of managing them together, they are mistaken and out of touch with the developments today.

Report · Oct 29, 2010

Thronsen wrote:
What I want is one program that can import all the files that my camera takes, video and photo. And to display them side by side.

Didn't your Mummy explain that you can't always have what you want!

Bob Frost

Report · Oct 29, 2010

bob frost wrote:
Thronsen wrote:
What I want is one program that can import all the files that my camera takes, video and photo. And to display them side by side.
Didn't your Mummy explain that you can't always have what you want!
Bob Frost

I can see your irony, but it isn't justified here. To claim that we should buy other software to manage our videos is only valid until before Adobe has chosen to integrate video into Lightroom. Now, that they have chosen to do so, the fact remains, that one of the most important video formats of current hybrid cameras is not supported. This fact alone is from a marketing standpoint so serious and silly that - given Adobe's known smartness - they should and would not leave this situation for too long, as long they want that this product is taken serious by people who shoot still and videos. Ultimately, people who buy Lightroom want to be able to look at all their assets, which came out of their photographic tools, from one place and start work from there (even even calling external applications).

To claim that minor point releases aren't a place to release support for an additional video format is completely arbritrary. If Adobe has a modest understanding of code management and software architecture, they can add this at any time they want. It is only a question how they see it from a marketing and economic decision.

I can completely understand that Adobe has not included it in the 3.0 release. As AVCHD is a different thing to handle than other formats, it did not make it because of time and capacity constraints - no problem. If it is such a main thing that it is to be included only in a major release (for we might have to pay again) fine. But then it is only a matter, when the next major release will occur. If it takes the usual schedule of about 1.5 years, then we have a problem as this is not acceptable. If they release version 4 in six months to include AVCHD, I have no complaints. If they do it in 3.8, but in May 2011, I am happy too.

They key question is when AVCHD is supported not if it is in a minor or major version, because previously Adobe has not added substantial stuff in minor versions. There is already enough important stuff, that we waited for just because it had to be in a new major version. Even important bug fixes (such as the keywords with spaces issues) are long overdue to get fixed. A problem might be that they do not put enough resources in the product, which would be kind of strange as it is the de facto market leader and standard.

Best regards

Thomas

Report · Oct 29, 2010

RC Importer can copy AVCHD videos from your camera card to your hard disk, along with your photos, and AnyFile or JF's Video Asset Management can display the AVCHD video thumbnails alongside your photos, and launch them in the OS-default player or editor.

Y'all let me know when you get tired of hearing this, OK?

Rob

Report · Oct 29, 2010

areohbee wrote:
RC Importer can copy AVCHD videos from your camera card to your hard disk, along with your photos, and AnyFile or JF's Video Asset Management can display the AVCHD video thumbnails alongside your photos, and launch them in the OS-default player or editor.
Y'all let me know when you get tired of hearing this, OK?
Rob

I know that there are workarounds, but that is no excuse for Adobe to support AVCHD rather sooner than later (meaning in the 2012 next major release). I want my image files and my video files taken form my card in one step from within the same dialog. Not too much to ask for I guess.

Thomas

Report · Oct 29, 2010

Well, I think you've made your point - and its just a matter of time.

As long as your problem is solved somehow in the interim, then I'm done for now...

Rob

Adobe Community

Lightroom 3.3 Release Candidate