Buhl213: When one buys X-trans or Foveon equipment, it is because it is deemed superior to common mass-marked targeted Bayer-alternatives by the consumer, right? Why can this consumer not understand that it is an informed choice he/she makes, a choice that also excludes the "normal" software-support from software-vendors who has chosen to target the 70-80% of the most common marketplace within the photography-segment with the best ROI (same software, same demosaiching, same filter-mechanisms, a new table to describe a new lens) ?
I see no economic reason that these SW-vendors should support less common technologies unless directly paid to do so, and hence the camera-vendors have to make it a competitive technology (in terms of quantity, not quality), or seek alternatives (e.g. paying SilkyPix or SPP-developers to do the job).
In other words: STOP WHINING. Go take some pictures - and let the Sonikonicus-users enjoy their support, they need it, they bought inferior & conform technologies ;)
"Macs will play AVCHD(aka MTS) files with some additional files, also from the camera. Looks like one needs the entire Private Folder from the camera's flash card. Glad there's the work around, still wouldn't call it native playback."
How, you are wrong here. It's time to move on. An MTS file does not an AVCHD file make. The spec of the AVCHD file includes "some additional files". A properly formed AVCHD file, includes those things. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AVCHD_actual_file_structure.svg
Your PDF analogy is flawed, it's more akin to: if you hand someone a bunch of JPEG files that you had in a PDF file, but don't give them the PDF file itself. It's not the same thing, you haven't given them the whole file.
Do I wish that there was direct support for playing .mts stream files (which is outside the AVCHD spec)? Sure. Does that amount to not having native AVCHD support? No.
Brond1: I'm whining!!! Why can't Apple see supporting Fuji as opportunity to lure people away from other products. What happened to being innovative and supporting innovation?
OK, here's how it looks like the situation is. Macs running 10.8.x can play (yes, natively) AVCHD files if they contain all of the folder structure (/PRIVATE/AVCHD/BDMV/STREAM, etc).
For example, I downloaded this sample: http://hownowvideo.com/downloads/panasonic_AG-HMC150.zipand it played without any problems - and should for you too How (just double click on PRIVATE and it should play in QT Player). The AVCHD files from my Sony A35 have this structure too, and work directly in QT Player.
If you just have the .mts stream file by itself, that will not play directly, and will have to be converted before use.
Below are the media formats and codecs that QuickTime Player can play back in Mac OS X v10.6.x or later:
AVCHD (OS X Mountain Lion only)
"So clearly some form of conversion needs to done with AVCHD files on a Mac."
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there are different kinds of AVCHD files?
Before we argue about it pointlessly any more, perhaps looking at was does and doesn't work would be prudent?
The AVCHD files I have produced and used work for me on my Mac without any conversion at all. BUT, they are not MTS files - which don't seem to work here (at least the two I downloaded from that site above). That said, it could be a simple configuration issue, so please let me look into it further before sinking to "I told you so".
AVCHD does work on Mac, I use AVCHD files here directly, so I know they work (without conversion) - but that may be qualified to particular types of AVCHD files. I don't know yet.
"Here's an Ehow link, updated in April 2012"
Now I now you aren't bothering to read anything I'm writing, and your only purpose is either to spread misinformation, or just have an argument. Multiples times, I've said the AVCHD support was released in JUNE. Why bring up an external article from 3 months before that?
Macs now play AVCHD videos without any problems (and without the need to add third party software to do it - which still doesn't mean they couldn't before, they could with those programs), you are wrong. They do not need to be converted to another format, they work natively, within the OS.
Your point was:"Um, you do realize that you can't play (yes that's simply play) AVCHD video files on a Mac."
Which is completely and utterly false. And yes, I do understand what "natively" means. I am using no special player software, no external app - Quicktime Player comes with the OS. I opened the file from the Finder, directly from the SD card in the camera. Can't get much more native than that.
The point is - AVCHD files work without any problems on Macs, just not yours apparently.
"specialized player software"
Did you even look at the screenshot I posted above, directly from Quicktime Player? It's not specialized player software, it comes with the OS.
"In this thread I was never commenting on Aperture or iPhoto, I was making a point about Macs in general and AVCHD files, and that point remains completely valid."
No, in fact, it doesn't. Quite the opposite. This thread is about the Apple RAW Update, used by iPhoto & Aperture. So it does support AVCHD files if you are using this software (you know, the one that the thread is about). Natively, and in-app. If you can be bothered doing what you describe as hours of research into something that you say is incredibly important to you, you'd think that forking out $10 for iPhoto would be worth your time to completely solve your issue.
Unless it's just for argument's sake?
"I tried mightily to make a new Mac play AVCHD files about 8 months ago and I just couldn't, so I have looked into this problem."
The AVCHD support was added 6 months ago. Did you even read any of my comments above?
"I already specifically said I wasn't commenting on conversion with FinalCut or iMovie"
And I'm specifically NOT talking about that either. I can open AVCHD files directly in the Finder, natively, and play them directly in Quicktime Player. No conversion, no Final Cut. Native.
Sam Carriere: Sure are a lot of comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the RAW update... but for anyone who doesn't know, let me be the one to tell you: Apple is evil.
Pretty sure Apple don't have a range of mirrorless cameras.
Here's the direct link to the Aperture 3.3 release notes, released 6 months ago. http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1540?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
Note: "Support for AVCHD video has been added"
That was also in the iPhoto 9.3 release notes. So that may be where it was added. Point being, it works OS-wide here, not just in iPhoto/Aperture, and not just to export to another format - natively, for playback.
OK, so I thought maybe you were right How, and thought I'd test it. I was thinking that maybe Aperture did some quick converting on import (even though I opened the imported AVCHD files direct from the Finder), so I went directly to the SD card.
There are 5 movies on there currently, and when I double click on the AVCHD file on the card it opens directly in Quicktime Player and asks which of the 5 clips I'd like to play. When chosen, it opens instantly, so there's no converting going on. The file is also listed as "AVCHD Content" in the Kind column, so if you aren't seeing that, maybe you are missing something that I have.
It may be that the library that handles AVCHD is installed with iPhoto or Aperture, I have the latest versions of both, and they both list in recent versions "Support for AVCHD video has been added" in the What's New. BUT, it is working directly in Quicktime Player here for me too.
Here's a screenshot of the movie inspectorhttp://wentbeep.com/avchd_qtplayer.jpg
"And in fact your assertion above is an example of spreading mis-information about Macs. Perhaps you mean that you can open AVCHD files with FinalCut and then use FinalCut to turn them into MP2s, MP4s, or MOVs. That I never disputed."
No, they play directly in Quicktime Player.
The AVCHD files from my Sony Alpha A35 work just fine here, on 10.8.2. Which OS version are you on?
Pretty sure (not 100% because I've never needed to use them) that MP2 files are also natively supported for at least the last two OS versions.
What the heck are you talking about? AVCHD files are supported natively now. Stop spreading misinformation.
Kodachrome200: do people who buy superzooms even care? why not review lenses that there is some question of the optical quality. A sigma superzoom is bound to be optically weak. maybe it will be good compared to its class. but again i ask when people buy these lenses we know are weak do they really care.
More simply put: "do people who buy superzooms even care?" Yes.
That a (usually) cheaper superzoom may be optically inferior to a (usually) expensive prime doesn't mean that people who buy superzooms shouldn't get quality information about them - which is what you are suggesting.
Oh, I guess it was the "struggle to carry their camera gear" part. More along the lines of - kids to wrangle, suitcase to carry, nappy bag to take already, etc - as well as carrying their camera gear.
Maybe struggling to feed their family was hyperbolic. How about "doesn't make six figures", or "doesn't have a huge amount left after their bills are paid". It's not rocket science.
Thank you Guidenet for the benefit of the doubt.
Way to think outside the box, guys. You just showed once again that the superior-than-though photographer stereotype is pretty much true. I didn't bring class into this Koda, you did. I wasn't actually talking about myself either, but thanks for the "you should be buying food not making art" lectures, enjoyed. Shooting mainly 50mm f/1.4 at the moment, not that it should matter, but that doesn't mean that people who buy superzooms shouldn't get quality information about them.
And they do differ quite a bit Koda, different lenses make different compromises, some are better for video, some focus faster, handle CA/distortion/fringing better, have better ergonomics, or are simply better bang-for-the-buck. It's also really easy to not be annoyed by them - don't read them.
Not sure where you get the "sensitivity to the handicapped" shtick from, not something I was discussing.
ImageAcquisitions: I'm curious why Dpreview hasn't done a full blown out review on this issue. Especially after seeing this clear example of an issue.I wonder if:1. dpreview is handling Nikon with kit gloves to avoid any conflict with them so they can keep getting free equipment to do reviews. Sure, they can talk about the feature differences, but exploring this potentially defective product issue may be what they are contractually not able to do? What did the article say above "Expressed concerns" Asked nikon for a comment? Nice soft approach.He, do a full blown out review of this particular issue - don't wait for Kyle Clemens to explore it. Use your professional staff, paid no doubt, to do a full blown out investigation of the gear.
2. Nikon isn't ready for a multimillion dollar product recall. All the elements are there for a class action lawsuit against Nikon to a) Stop continually selling the defective product (maximize profits); preying on customers unaware of the situation who buy it anyway.
Exactly IA! Why aren't DPReview covering this story? I had to go all the way to DPReview to see this video!