60% of the cameras 'supported' in 3.2 that take video use AVCHD

Question

Of the cameras purported to be newly supported in LR 3.2, 8 shoot video. Of those 8, 5 use the AVCHD codec (and one of the remainders doesnt shoot HD). The 5 that use AVCHD include the LX5 and the Sony Nex cameras, both likely to be popular as compact cameras for those who normally use a DSLR.
It seems a bit silly and shortsighted that Lightroom doesnt support AVCHD, when it is rapidly becoming the most popular format. Even the newest cameras that Adobe is trying to develop support for, the majority use a format that LR ignores.
The problem will only get worse, as Nikon is reputed to be using AVCHD in its new DSLRs.
At the very least perhaps new announcements could specifiy whether or not the full camera is supported, because when you tout video as a key selling feature of LR3 one might assume that a claim of supporting that camera would include more then just still images.

Answer 1

Thronsen wrote:
If you dont want video in lightroom, not sure why you are clicking on this thread.
I want lightroom to work properly, where on earth did you get the idea I did not want video?
Thronsen wrote:But just as a basic point of education, its alot more then 5 cameras that use AVCHD. Its 5 cameras just out of the 8 that LR recently supported.
You mentioned 5, I am now more educated, thank you for that apologies to the other manufacturers of those cameras, I have shot video for many many years, but using professional equipment for TV, commercials and documentaries, I am not yet as familiar using with DSLR's to shoot video, compression is always an issue and ACHD does cause ugly artefacts, but it is plenty better than many of the prosumer  codecs.
If you dont want to use your camera for video, thats up to you. But many people do, in fact apparently the highest growth segment of DSLR purchses are video people.
I can't wait to get the new Canon 3D with even better video support than the 7D, Cant wait to use video commercially in the shoots I do.
And Im pretty sure the LR staff, or at least Adobe disagrees with you. Video was one of the most important changes highlighted in virtually every piece of marketing material I saw. On the main LR page it was listed 3rd.
I"m sure lightroom working properly was the 1st, I was talking about priorities.
Finally, please dont make the same tired argument about how tough it would be to implement editing.
so, its easy to write Final Cut Pro 7 for lightroom is it? Barely a tired argument.
All most want is the ability for LR to import the videos (so we dont need 2 programs to do so), show a thumbnail (so we can see our videos mixed with our photos from the same shoot), and hand off the video to the OS or chosen player. All of which is already done by LR for other formats (and all of which is done for free by Windows 7 natively).
That was my list of questions I asked you,
"And anyway, what do you want to be able to do with AVCHD? edit? record? Store? Playback?"
Is that not a fair question to ask you?
I simply asked a couple of very pertinent questions, and I can read and write to any post I want to. I did not expect to get some kind of bullish  response.
Message was edited by: hamish niven - additional commentary on more than 5 cameras supporting AVCHD