How to Replace Footage with an AVCHD .MTS?

Question

I have a sequence edited together from what I thought was a master H264 M4V.  I now find out that the real master is AVCHD. So how can I replace my M4V footage with an MTS?
If I do a Replace Footage, I can see multiple AVCHD MTS Streams and the usual mess of folders inside a BDMV folder, but I seem to only be able to import via Media Browser. Replace Footage doesn't work with files already in Premiere, right?
I've only worked with AVCHD files once before, so I'm a little lost.

Answer 1

Jim,  I'm sure we've had this discussion before..... but it's not the fault of either the camera makers OR Mac users    Since I'm now using both Mac and Windows 7 equally, I really have no axe to grind against either company.
This is entriely the fault of Microsoft who were unwilling to license NTFS to other companies, including Apple, Linux etc, added to the fact that NTFS is not suitable for lower powered devices with small amounts of embedded RAM.  NTFS is simply too complicated for them to handle using small microcontrollers, so hoping for NTFS on cameras is folly in my mind.  It's just not going to happen.
Apple, like Linux also have a file system that can handle larger files, larger even than NTFS.  The Linux file system is also open source and royalty free, so could be used free of charge by lots of camera manufacurors if they wanted to (excpet it's also a lot more complicated than FAT32), but Microsoft choose not to support it (i.e. you couldn't read the cards on Windows), probably to try block Linux getting an even stronger hold on their server market than it has already.
The fact is that FAT32 was simple to implement for small memory devices of years gone by and nothing has come along to replace it that was (a) easy on the CPU / RAM and (b) royalty free.
There's no reason they couldn't implement a FAT64, FAT128 etc, though Microsoft would probably be the sticking point there too.....
UDF was supposed to be a new replacement that could be universal (hence the name Universal Disk Format), and indeed it's easy to use in read only format (UDF 1.2 is used by even the lowest powered DVD player from 15 years ago!) but to write to UDF takes a lot more power and memory.  Also, the UDF format has evolved and is now even more complicated than before.  So, UDF is not an option either.
So, yes, the 2GB limited is caused by a 2s compliment implementation of a 32 bit file system (tecnically it could do almost 4GB, allowing for FAT terminators etc, but they only use 31 bits for the file size, which allows for reverse seeking), in a FAT (File Allocation Table) format.
Finding the next lowest common denominator is the task I hope they pull off soon.  While we can all usually work around the 2GB limit (by joining files) it would be much easier to have complete files in the first place