meanwhile

meanwhile

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 222, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

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 ;)

I just found that Smart Converter is a nice free tool to do the job too (opening .mts files). Simply select Other > Quicktime for the conversion and you'll get a quickly wrapped file with no video conversion (so no quality loss) and directly openable in pretty much anything.

http://www.shedworx.com/smartconverter

You still likely wouldn't call that native, but given that it's free and the video isn't converted it's close enough for me. Given that it's not really very long since Win added AVCHD support themselves, it likely won't be long before it's supported on Macs too. Either way, it's not actually needed in the field with the available options for 99.9% of files, so it's just semantics really.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2012 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen123: I'm curious to know why OpenCl is Windows only. Is the Mac OpenCl still not stable?

Yes please, interested here.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2012 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2012 at 22:24 UTC
In reply to:

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.zip
and 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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 03:35 UTC
In reply to:

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?

Here too:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3775?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

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)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

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?

"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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

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?

"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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

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?

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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 11:52 UTC
In reply to:

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?

"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?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

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?

"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?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

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?

"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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 05:17 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 05:14 UTC
In reply to:

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?

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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2012 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

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, 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 inspector
http://wentbeep.com/avchd_qtplayer.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2012 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

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?

"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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2012 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

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?

The AVCHD files from my Sony Alpha A35 work just fine here, on 10.8.2. Which OS version are you on?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2012 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

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?

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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2012 at 02:21 UTC
In reply to:

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?

What the heck are you talking about? AVCHD files are supported natively now. Stop spreading misinformation.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2012 at 02:06 UTC
On Just Posted: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM news story (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2012 at 00:12 UTC
On Just Posted: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM news story (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2012 at 23:57 UTC
Total: 222, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »