P: Support the AVCHD video format

Rob--that's great. If I shoot AVCHD in the future I would definitely use it.

Maybe "spotty" means not supported on XP(?) (dunno 'bout vista).

I just enhanced RC Importer to support AVCHD video.
(re-wraps mts -> mp4)

Here is what Julie said: "we're using native OS libraries (i.e. QuickTime) to create the thumbnails in grid and to play them. QuickTime doesn't support .MTS files, and coverage on various Windows versions was spotty."

It's not spotty on Windows 7, AFAICT. Maybe they didn't want to support Windows 7 when so many people are still using older versions.

Lee Jay - I tried stream copy of video *and* audio but Lightroom did not like the ac3 audio that was in it, or something (transcode audio to aac and all is well). Is your audio in a different format? or am I doing something wrong? I tried media-coder (gui) & ffmbc (command line) - same problem. Dunno where the mts file I was testing with came from.

b.t.w. wmp12 can't play the mp4 with ac3, but vlc can.
(wmp12 *can* play the mts with ac3 though - go figure)

I'm guessing Adobe is using wmp guts for video support on Windows, eh?

I have the feeling AVCHD shooters have no idea whether the folders have anything of value in them, or whether they'd rather them be mp4 once they come out of the camera. I've posed this question before but I don't remember whether there is a good answer.

The reason I ask is two-fold:

1. It might save Adobe some effort to implement support by rename & re-wrap, *and* be better for the users too.
2. Users may be able to take advantage of a workflow now that would be easily migrated if Adobe adopted the same approach in Lr4.

But, hey - I don't shoot AVCHD, so I don't know why I can't seem to just stay out of this... ;-}

Summary:
========
Lightroom, Bridge, and Premiere Pro have adequate support for mp4, so why not rename & rewrap AVCHD to mp4, and be done with it.

I got rid of the camera because the support in the Adobe family of products--Lightroom, Bridge, and Premiere Pro--is not adequate. If I could have gotten rid of the software products instead, I would have, but you have to be pragmatic.

Well, I guess you don't care too much since you traded in your AVCHD camera, but I think it would be good for users to voice their opinions about whether it would be better to support AVCHD with folders intact or re-envelope. The former is what Adobe was stumbling upon prior to Lr3 release, the latter would be straight forward for them to do (and could be done manually or by a plugin in the meantime), and might be a better solution anyway(?)

They should add that to the list of features:

New: Does not support AVCHD!

:)

Right. mts files look broken when sans folders, but if re-enveloped as mp4 they would look normal. So the question would be: is there any stuff in those folders that's worth saving. From the little bit of experience I have with it, the answer is "no", and if there was anything, perhaps it could be carried over to the new envelope.

It actually seems like Adobe may be doing their users a favor by leaving the AVCHD baggage behind (rather than trying to implement support for original mts files in original folder structure).

I don't know enough to be sure about this, but so far nobody has come along and said "that would be a bad idea...".

I mean AVCHD is kinda like DVD. If I had camera that shot:
AUDIO_TS
VIDEO_TS
-- asdf_1.VOB
-- asdf_2.VOB
(basically, mpeg2 video in vob files in funny folders...)

I'd be grateful if Lightroom re-wrapped the videos in standard mpeg containers upon import.

-R