Your AVCHD file by default creates .m2ts or .mts files, not .mp4 files. Maybe you changed the container on purpose? In any case, Quicktime doesn't playback these files. Most open source libraries and media apps that use these open source libs don't work with AVCHD files either. Even the latest version of VLC has a very limited and bad decoding ability for these files.

Your best bet for AVCHD previewing is the camera itself and a Sony PS3 at this point.

"Your AVCHD file by default creates .m2ts or .mts files, not .mp4 files."

Must be something wrong with my VMS9.0a because it does indeed create .MP4 extension on the AVCHD output files by default. I'd attach a screenshot to prove it if I could.

Make Movie format: Sony AVC (*.mp4, *.m2ts, *.avc)
Template: Blu-ray 1920X1080-60i, 16Mbps video stream

This creates a .MP4 file. Are you sure you even own this application?

If what you say is correct (Most open source libraries and media apps that use these open source libs don't work with AVCHD files either.), Then why on earth would anyone want to use AVCHD?

No, that's not the right template. There is an AVCHD 1920x1080 NTSC template there, that's the one you need to pick. It creates .m2ts files. I have it on my Platinum 9.

>Most open source libraries and media apps ... then why on earth would anyone want to use AVCHD?

Every format went through this. Even mpeg2. You just need to wait a few years. Why you think I am still on HDV?

I went through ALL of the Templates from Memroy Stick QVGA to YouTube Higher Quality 25p. NTSC and PAL... on my machine they ALL create files with the .MP4 extension. That includes AVCHD 1440X1080 NTSC and AVCHD 1920X1080 NTSC.

When I click on Browse to change the path, .MP4 is the only extension available for any of those templates.

I stick with HDV, too, but for a different reason. I feel that the hype behind MPEG4 giving better quality at lower bitrates is just that. I don't agree with that at all.

This is not true. AVC is better than mpeg2, up to 50% better, DEPENDING on the quality of the encoder. Not all encoders are good. Additionally, if you exported in HDV mpeg2, you lost resolution. HDV is 1440x1080, not 1920x1080.

Over here, I get .m2ts exports btw, not sure what's wrong on your side and you get only .mp4.

Again Eugenia you make general statements that are simply NOT TRUE. Just because 'some' (as in miniDV models) HDV camcorders are limited to 1440X1080 does not mean the HDV standard is limited to that resolution.

Check out the JVC HD5 and HD6!!!!!!!! Yes, they do indeed record at FULL 1920X1080 HDV MPEG 2 format.

You may have a great deal of knowledge to share here, but you haven't impressed me at all with your LACK of knowledge. Again, YOUR OPINION as to AVCHD vs. HDV. I've used both in editing and IN MY OPINION, HDV wins hands downs even when using 1440X1080.

"DEPENDING on the quality of the encoder."

Perhaps but then Sony must be using some of the crappest AVCHD encoder around, but then , that's my opinion. Not only is AVCHD harder and slower to edit, but also much slower to encode/decode requiring much better hardware.

>You may have a great deal of knowledge to share here, but you haven't impressed me at all with your LACK of knowledge.

You take that back. I am a developer and I know very well what is mpeg2 and what is AVC. And as a hardware reviewer, I am well aware of JVC's bastard formats. Of course and I know that mpeg2 can be at full res, the thing is though, Platinum 9 does NOT support full 1920 HD mpeg2 resolutions. Only Pro allows you to customize mpeg2 exports. This is why I said the thing I said.

>HDV wins hands downs even when using 1440X1080.

Look, I own an HDV camera too, I use the HV20. HDV is faster to edit than AVCHD, I have written that 100 times already. However, if your camcorder shoots in full HD, it's better for the quality of the video to edit as is. You might need a faster computer, I don't deny that, but at least you don't lose quality. If you instead re-encode all your AVCHD files to HDV, you will get a MASSIVE quality loss, as my benchmark reveals here:
http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/09/15/intermediate-codecs-the-face-off/
The HDV re-encoding on Vegas *is a disaster* in terms of generation loss. You are better off exporting in Cineform at 1440x1080 rather than HDV.

>Again, YOUR OPINION as to AVCHD vs. HDV

No, not just my opinion:
http://video.ldc.lu.se/pict/WM9V-MP4AVC-MP2V_comparison-Goldman.pdf
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/MCCL/pubs/dwnlds/h26l_analysis.pdf
Yes, AVC is much slower to decode and edit, but I am simply trying to present you with a way that has a minimal quality loss over your original video. If you are willing to lose a ton of quality by re-encoding to HDV just because you don't want to shell the cash to get a fast computer worthy of the camera you bought, then I guess, that's your problem. Maybe a solution would be to just sell your AVCHD camera and buy an HV30. Why not?

So please lay off me. I am trying to help you out here, and tell it like it is, and you reply in a very unfriendly and "Eugenia, I got ya!" way. I am not in any competition with you.