Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 MKV support?

Aug 1, 2008 11:14 AM

  Latest reply: Jeff Bellune, Jun 5, 2012 3:13 AM
Branched to a new discussion.
Replies 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2011 9:14 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    According to this logic, there must be a substantial number of PrPro users who require support for SWF, FLV, 3GP, MPEG-1 and ASF?

     

    Exactly, yes.  Now you're getting it.

     

    If PrPro can already import Matroska files (camouflaged as AVIs or MP4s without conversion), why won't Adobe officially support MKV?

     

    OK, maybe not quite yet.  One more time.

     

    The reason Premiere Pro does not officially support MKV files is that not enough people need that support.  If the format ever gains sufficiently in user base, then it is likely that Adobe will do whatever programming needs to be done for files with an MKV extension to work fine inside of PP (assuming a compatible codec inside the MKV file, which is the bigger issue here).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2011 12:06 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    OK. I rest my case.

     

    ... And now I'll go and purchase PrPro CS5.5, so I can export some MPEG-1 and SWF files of some footage I just recorded with my Canon XH G1S camcorder.

     

    However, I also wanted to add some selectable extra language tracks and selectable subtitles and an index for my original HDV H.264 High Profile camcorder movie, but since that's not really the kind of video editing and storage that Premiere Pro is intended for, I guess I'll have to download Handbrake for free instead...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2011 12:28 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    Depending on your desired output/delivery, Adobe Encore can easily add Sub-Titles, and also optional Audio Tracks, but you will be authoring to BD (or DVD-Video for SD), or to Flash.

     

    What is your desired output/delivery?

     

    Good luck,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2011 12:33 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    I guess I'll have to download Handbrake for free instead

     

    I know your post was sarcastic, but...good move.  Handbrake uses the superior x.264 encoder and allows for CQ mode.

     

    And welcome to the wonderful world of 'reality', where no one program does everything perfectly, and sometimes other solutions than the one we want need to be found.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2011 9:02 PM   in reply to (David_Kozar)

    What we need to remember is that MKV is a CONTAINER, not a CODEC.  Simply adding MKV support isn't so simple, as there is no telling what video and/or audio CODEC is being used.  Adobe would have to add a lot of addtional codecs, such as Xvid, Divx (non-professional), and others, or their CS would get a ton of calls asking why their MKV videos aren't importing.

     

    I hope they do add more CODEC and container support, including the above mentioned, as PrPro has always been on the cutting-edge of all popular formats.  It only makes the software better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2011 7:55 AM   in reply to taz291819

    The one drawback that I see is that those CODEC's mentioned are delivery-only CODEC's, and are not meant to be edited.

     

    However, PrPro DID add support for 100% DVD-compatible VOB containers (with the MPEG-2 CODEC), and those are designed for delivery too. The few cameras, that produced mini-DVD discs, seem to be becoming but a footnote in the history of Video.

     

    It might happen? Some other NLE programs, like CyberLink's PowerDirector, Magix MovieEdit Pro, and some others (mostly "consumer-level" NLE's) do support more of those delivery-only formats, like DivX. Some have even reported that PrElements will handle some, that PrPro will not, though I have not tested, since my version of PrE is quite old, and does not offer such support.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2011 1:46 PM   in reply to taz291819

    Please, please... Don't keep making uo allsorts of ad hoc excuses on behalf of Adobe. Their incredible amount of silence regarding the decision not to support WebM after all is just embarrassing and pathetic - or simply arrogant if you prefer that word.

     

    Adobe does not support ANY of the most popular community open standards - not even FLAC! (well, you can install an unofficial plugin, I believe)

    Not even the most impressive video codec before H.264, Dirac/Schroedinger (which was made royalty free as a protest against MPEG-LA's lucrative monopoly), has ever been supported by Adobe although it was developed by the BBC... Well documented? Yes. Profitable? No.

     

    More than anything else this confirms what this is all about for Adobe: Making hefty license profits and doing whatever they can to limit the use of patent/license free standards regardless of technical quality or public demand (I'm sure they've been asked about FLAC and MKV support thousands of times already).

     

    Adobe is defending commercial industry standards. MKV files are almost without exception only containing H.264 video and either AAC, Vorbis or AC3 audio and nothing else - and never some of the 'obscure' formats you keep talking about. That is exactly the same as MP4 and M4V which are also slightly content-flexible containers. However, Adobe and their industrial hardware and software partners behind MPEG-LA does not make any money on MKV like they do on their own industry standard formats. MPEG-LA is making so much money on license fees that there ought to be a law against it.

     

    I just created a fully featured MKV file for presentation purposes complete with indexes, different subtitles and audio tracks last week. It plays fluently, and its features are fully supported and working, when I play the file on FREE media players. It's fun, and it's very useful.

     

    And if you put an MKV file on a USB stick and plug it into any modern Samsung or LG television, it will start playing without any problems, and you can even make use of the additional tracks.

     

    ... I wonder just how complicated it can be to add MKV support to Premiere Pro or any other 'high end' software or hardware product?

     

    And then again: You could even throw an editable lossless video format into your MKV container... Something you would NOT be able to do with any other container format that Adobe supports.

     

    Message was edited by: EuroSiti

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2011 8:47 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    More than anything else this confirms what this is all about for Adobe: Making hefty license profits and doing whatever they can to limit the use of patent/license free standards

     

    Oh, geez.  Not more of this.

     

    Premiere Pro is designed for the professional production community.  It is more codec friendly with the formats and codecs professionals use than either Avid or Final Cut Pro.  Adobe has time and time again shown that they do listen to their user base, and when a format/codec starts to make it's way into professional production circles, Adobe adds support.  We've seen this with HDV, DVCPRO HD, XDCAM, AVC-Intra, RED and a whole host of DSLR media.

     

    No camera shoots using the MKV container.  No camera shoots using the Dirac/Schroedinger codec.  You want support for those things in PP, talk to camera makers.  Get them to make cameras using those formats.  If and when they make their way into production circles, I have no doubt Adobe will respond and add support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 8:38 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    I was talking about delivery / export formats, not editing and import formats.

     

    Although MKV can contain lossless video and sound (unlike the industrial formats), the Matroska Video container is of course intended for end users. It is basically a DVD-as-a-file, and far more convenient than any other end user export format supported by PP and the Adobe Media Encoder, not least because the advanced MKV features are supported by all the most popular media players these days.

     

    Adobe's flagship products have been so dominant in the market - not just for professional photographers - so of course they must have recieved numerous requests for additional format support - particularly in these HTML5 days. That is of course also the reason why Adobe promised they would support WebM last year.

     

    But I am more than certain that it was by no means 'lack of customer demand' that made Adobe change their opinion. They KNOW the entire market is hungering for a free, common video standard.

     

    I am working for a company that is currently trying to keep up with the immense customer (libraries, archives and museums) interest for - and competition from - open source alternatives. The option to deliver content in license-free community format standards is but one of their minimum requirements. Most of them love Premiere Pro, but they loathe the limitations of the Flash Player.

     

    Open source format support would make Premiere Pro even more popular than it already is, but of course Adobe has no interest in promoting non-profitable standards - especially not if it might endanger their real golden egg: The Flash Player... And THAT is why I think we will never see any official open standards support in any Adobe product... not even when they are technically preferable to end users like FLAC or Matroska.

     

    Premiere Pro's limitations is directly decided by the commerical interests of Adobe Flash Player. Nothing else. So please forget about technical issues and 'lack of interest'.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 8:57 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    As for Flash, have you read this ARTICLE?

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 9:10 AM   in reply to EuroSiti
    I was talking about delivery / export formats, not editing and import formats.

     

    Same idea applies.  Professionals do not typically deliver in the MKV container.  When enough professional demand for such exists, I'm sure Adobe will work to implement it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 9:13 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    They KNOW the entire market is hungering for a free, common video standard.

     

    Much as I love Firefox, I'd actually prefer they get down off their high horse on this one and just implement H.264 HTML5 capabilities.  It is the most common and best web codec currently available.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 10:10 AM   in reply to Jim Simon


    Much as I love Firefox, I'd actually prefer they get down off their high horse on this one and just implement H.264 HTML5 capabilities.  It is the most common and best web codec currently available.

     

    And Vorbis and FLAC have been superiour sound formats for over 10 years, yet Adobe still refuses to support them officially. If FLAC had been developed by a commercial manufacturer, support for it would have been everywhere, because it is by far the best sound format even now after 12 years. Lossless and very space-efficient.

     

    The same goes for Matroska's ability to store H.264 content. Saves up to 40-60% space with lossless settings compared to Blu-ray (M2TS).

     

    Of course it would be great if H.264 would become the video standard. But as long as software and hardware developers are forced to pay those excesive license fees for it, that's just not going to happen. MPEG-LA has already made billions on H.264, after it was made the world's new digital TV standard. On that background it is absolutely sickening that even non-commerical developers still need to pay the license fee.

     

    Thanks for the information about Adobe's mobile HTML5 commitment... Of course this does not mean that they are going to support WebM or any other open video standards. It only means that they don't want to fight with Apple, who have been demonizing Flash for some bizarre reason.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 11:14 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    I just double-checked with the guy who processes all of the feature requests for Premiere Pro, and he says that he has seen very few requests for Premiere Pro to natively import or export MKV files. I'm the person who processes the feature requests for After Effects, and I have also seen very few requests for this.

     

    We tend to do what will satisfy the greatest number of our customers, and this hasn't come close to rising to that level of demand for us.

     

    I encourage you to add your vote by submitting a feature request.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 4:25 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Todd,

     

    Thank you for the input. My contention all along is that when the Feature Requests reach critical mass, then resources will be unleashed to implement support.

     

    I see it as a bunch of cold hard facts - development resources cost $, and if there is not a market for the development, then Adobe will allocate those funds elsewhere. Capitalism (something that I hold dear) is motivated by sales, or potential sales. As a shareholder in many corporations, I do not want them spending $'s, "joisting at windmills." I want them spending the $ on products that consumers want, and will pay for.

     

    Now, has Adobe been ahead of every curve? No way. Have they stepped up often, and had course changes? Yes. One of those was seizing the moment with the FCPX release, and the realization that a new market had just opened up. I do not know if you guys had spent a lot of time with the "Official Adobe Crystal Ball," or maybe the "Official Adobe Ouija Board," but you were right there, even if it was to "pick up the pieces."

     

    While I have zero against support for open source formats/CODEC's, I also understand markets, and want Adobe to remain profitable, and also around 10 years from now.

     

    As for support of "other" formats/CODEC's, Adobe has collarborated with Nokia, for more cellphone format support, both coming and going. Obviously, they are open to new schemes of delivery, and also ingestion. While that will likely be a feature that I will never use, it seems as though enough have requested it.

     

    Your comments are appreciated, as most of us are totally on the outside, looking in, and can only speculate.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 4:34 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    As for WebM, there was a reference to Adobe's support for it, but I have not had luck finding the link. That is the trouble with an older-guy's memory. I can still recall having read of something, but then, tracking it back down is beyond me. The gray-matter is hardening, and it seems that there is nothing that I can do about that.

     

    I also understand a bit of "licensing," as I was first a commercial photographer, and have sold many images as stock. I have zero problem charging others to use the images. Same for "intellectual propery rights." My wife has funded T-Gen, and her hospital owns many rights to various gene findings. However, I do cringe, when a corporation, such as Sony, locks up everything, and charges tons of $ for anyone to do, say BD through a replicator. Still, they won the war, and "to the victor, go the spoils," so I should not be too surprised. The aspect that hurts me (or did hurt, until I retired 11 mos.ago) was that most independent producers were effectively locked out, due to licensing fees, from producing replicated BD's. As I also have had some ethical issues with Sony, in the past, it is hard to be totally objective on that issue.

     

    Maybe with enough Feature Requests, other formats/CODEC's WILL be added to the supported list for Adobe products?

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 7:45 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    And Vorbis and FLAC have been superiour sound formats for over 10 years, yet Adobe still refuses to support them officially.

     

    Again, same reason.  Cameras and digital audio devices do not record to those formats.  So they just aren't widely used by professionals.

     

     

    Of course it would be great if H.264 would become the video standard

     

    Uh...it pretty much already is, at least on the web.  That's why I'd like Firefox to support it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2011 1:31 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Bill Hunt wrote:

     

    As for WebM, there was a reference to Adobe's support for it, but I have not had luck finding the link. That is the trouble with an older-guy's memory. I can still recall having read of something, but then, tracking it back down is beyond me. The gray-matter is hardening, and it seems that there is nothing that I can do about that.

    Here is the link to the 'accidental' promise to support the Internet's supposedly 100% free video standard... And you're not really old until you're past 80, Bill.

     

    Bill Hunt wrote:

     

    ... However, I do cringe, when a corporation, such as Sony, locks up everything, and charges tons of $ for anyone to do, say BD through a replicator. Still, they won the war, and "to the victor, go the spoils," so I should not be too surprised.

     

    Well. That's my problem with MPEG-LA. It's basically a far too powerful conglomerate of 'stake'holders (Apple, Sony, Microsoft etc.). They have already been succesful at abusing the ISO standardization system to practically force national governments and others away from open standards saying that open standards (FLAC, Matroska etc.) aren't "sufficiently documented". However, Microsoft were succesful in getting an ISO approval of their far from well-documented alternate Open Document format. Everyone suspected corruption for a very good reason.

     

    MPEG-LA has turned the MPEG4 ISO standards into a money machine. Any piece of hardware or software that makes use of their codec is forced to pay a substantial and endless amount of money. Patents in the IT industry as well as in the health industry are often abused far beyond all reason, but of course that is more of a legislative problem.

     

    However, I have noticed that it looks like Apple has hired some Swedish company to steal the Matroska EBML open standard and turn it into a closed Steve Jobs standard for iTunes with all the well-known features from the Matroska container (I will see if I can find the web site again). But of course, Apple as well as Microsoft has always believed in their exclusive right to steal from others.

     

    ... But I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe quickly starts supporting Apple's new format regardless of user requests. They have just revealed just how scared they are of Apple.

     

    The big boys are still allowed to dictate IT legislation in most countries due to a complete lack of IT knowledge among politicians and other decisionmakers. The fact that Microsoft and Apple have been succesful in making their own closed and inferior AIFF and WAVE formats the official storage formats for many national archives at the expense of FLAC is alarming to say the least. No IT-skilled archivists understand why FLAC still hasn't become an official audio storage standard.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2011 8:05 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    No IT-skilled archivists understand why FLAC still hasn't become an official audio storage standard.

     

    Simple.  Because no one uses it.  Same reason the vastly superior DVD-Audio (using 5.1 channel recording and Mastering) never replaced CDs in the recording industry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2011 12:07 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Archives as well as other institutions working with storage media solutions use Adobe products.

    I am sure that Adobe is already aware of that (because occasionally they send their "hired goons" (yes, believe it or not - Adobe can afford that even these days!) out to check if the archives have paid their Adobe license fees (which they had in the episode I am referring to).

     

    These days, external hard drives is THE way to store video and audio content. Support on standalone players isn't something that matters. Storage on DVDs and similar size-limited media isn't recommended either. What matters is that you can store your content in the optimal lossless or near lossless format. FLAC is such a format and it has been so for over 10 years. Adobe is of course aware of that.

     

    Adobe also knows that people would use some of these formats, if the option was available. The fact that WebM support was dropped still indicates that whichever formats Adobe decides to support has nothing to do with public demand. It has much more to do with what their commercial partners want them to support. Public demand is secondary at best if it matters at all. That is why we will NOT see WebM support in any Adobe products. However, we will see the HTML5 features that Apple and other commerical partners like and can make a profit from.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2011 1:55 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    Public demand is secondary at best if it matters at all.

     

    Sorry but, history supports the opposite conclusion.  Adobe has been very good at adding format support once it makes it way into professional use.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2011 4:02 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    That has been my observation too, and I've made mention of some of the "once fringe" formats, that have received full support.

     

    Observing on a slightly different front, I see Adobe as a corporation, writing software to sell, offering a monetary return to their stockholders. If something sells, then they adopt it. Unlike a few other software companines, where ideologues are at the helm, directing the corporation to do things, per their bent, Adobe is quite open. I feel that if Adobe could use exclusively open source code, rather than pay Sonic, MPEG-LA, Dolby, et al, royalties, they would. However, they spend their R&D assets, trying to give the customer and potential customer, what they want most.

     

    Where one sees conspiricies (and I thought that I was the ultimate conspiricy theorist), I see a market driven product, or at least one driven by the marketing department's idea of what their market wants.

     

    They tend to shy away from proprietary things, like intermediate CODEC's, that few other programs can even use. Heck, even PSD, Photoshop's "native format" is easily worked with in a ton of image editors, and a few of those are open source, freeware.

     

    Sorry, but I just do not see any conspiracies here - now, if it was the old MS, Oracle, the Jobs' Apple, well there COULD be some?

     

    Still, though I have some Adobe stock in mutual funds, I do not sit on their board, so have no insider info - just feelings and observations, based on almost 2 decades of use of their products.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 6, 2011 12:44 AM   in reply to (David_Kozar)

    why you not change a way to think about it ? Now, it can't work.  I suggest you change the video‘s format.  I had similar experience, Every software has it's shortcoming, we  have to use their advantage. there is a video converter software in aovsoft.com. I think it can help you solve problem. Because it support many formats convert, certainly, MKV is Including.

     

    Message was edited by: Fishman

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 6, 2011 9:01 AM   in reply to fish_man_ok@163.com

    Fish_Man,

     

    Though I do not know that software, I agree with you.

     

    I get handed (or did, until I retired) all sorts of "stuff," and will convert, as is needed, to edit in my chosen NLE program. I also have about six other NLE's, that are basically enhanced "conversion" programs, as some handle different "stuff" better, than others. In the end, however, I finish in PrPro, as it does what I like best, and I use the others to get the material into it. I do not expect it to cover ALL bases, and have learned workarounds for odd footage. Maybe I should campaign for PrPro to become an "end-all/be-all," but would rather Adobe concentrate on doing certain things in the best possible, and most stable way.

     

    Just my personal feelings,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 10, 2011 7:32 PM   in reply to fish_man_ok@163.com

    If you have a lossless FLAC copy of a file, which you need to edit, you do not want to convert it. You want to keep it as a FLAC file.

    If you have a crystal clear HD recording in H.264 high profile format, you want to store it in a container that will store the video that gives you the best quality per megabyte spent. Matroska is the best choice. Matroska will also let you keep the AC3 audio without having to pay extra for an AC3 plugin (required to get AC3 sound in MP4/M4V files).

     

    If it comes to a draw between MP4/M4V and MKV, you should still pick MKV, if you want to embed indices, subtitles and multiple audio streams. Especially if you want to be sure that your recipients will be able to play the file with all the features.

     

    But if you do not work in a multilingual business, or if you do not have to think about storage vs. quality optimmization or the risk of future license fee demands, and if you are not delivering data to an end user, you can of course pick any format you like, or the format that someone has ordered you to use no matter if that is the optimal container choice or not.

     

    In most cases, professionals simply use the formats they are told to use, or the formats that their product suppliers want them to use.

     

    Nobody makes a profit on FLAC or Matroska licenses, because there are none. But they are still the better choices for audio and video storage, no matter what Adobe, Canon or Sony says.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2011 7:19 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    No one's arguing the containers/codecs aren't useful, only that they aren't used by enough of PP's customers for Adobe to spend resources on adding them.

     

    You have to remember, the three primary modes of delivery are disk, web and broadcast.  None of those modes make use of the MKV container.  Computer playback, which is where MKV and FLAC shine, is probably a reletively small segment of professional delivery.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 30, 2011 6:02 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

     

    Professional music editing software already supports FLAC, because the vendors in this business can't afford NOT to support the most clever, open sound format there is. They still try, of course, but once musicians has the option to use it, they wouldn't go back to using any of the industrial standards, unless they are forced to (that is if the state-of-the-art editing software doesn't support it for some reason).

     

    WAVE has been outdated for the past 10 years. The fact that we still use it is just because of the fact that Microsoft, Adobe, Sony, Canon and Apple all keep insisting that we should use THEIR formats and not the better alternatives. If you can't compete with lossless and space efficient, you can always decide not to support it instead.

     

    The most versatile web "toolbox" there is, Drupal, has a web player that supports streaming of MKV files. All the different codecs that goes in the MKV container are already supported if they are streaming friendly (like Matroska itself).

    Because Drupal is an open standard, we will probably soon see support for the advanced Matroska features such as subtitles, indexing, multiple audio tracks and even menus... Even DRM if the commercial developers were interested in saving money by being less dependent on Flash. Apparently they aren't, or maybe they just aren't aware of the better alternatives?

     

    The better formats aren't being used because Adobe don't want them to be used - not because their customers wouldn't use them, if they had the chance and knowledge to do it.

     

    ... The chicken refuses to lay a new egg so to speak!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 30, 2011 7:48 AM   in reply to EuroSiti
    The better formats aren't being used because Adobe don't want them to be used

     

    Sorry but...past evidence simply doesn't support that notion.  I don't believe Adobe really cares much about which formats/codecs professionals are using.  As new formats/codecs get adopted by professionals, Adobe has been very good about adding support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 3, 2012 6:40 PM   in reply to (David_Kozar)

    Please don't entangled in the format,each team must take into account the needs of the market, MKV relatively small minority. Format is a eternal topic. this time,every user can choose the other way to solve this problem, Use Video Converter, This is an emerging industry, If Adobe Premiere supported all formats, then many people will lose their jobs. I want to say "Thanks Adobe". There, i recommend a video converter,

     

    link: http://www.aovsoft.com/products/video-converter/

     

    Hope this software can help more friends

     

     

    Your friend - Fishman

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 4:10 PM   in reply to fish_man_ok@163.com

    AOVsoft's converter has some nice features (cutting without converting is always nice, and cropping is still a missing feature in too many standard programs). But I'm quite happy with the free alternatives (Handbrake, SUPER, Freemake (just as fast as AOV), MakeMKV (lossless) and XMedia Recode). Notably Handbrake which lets you adjust even more than most of the paid/professional tools. It's just a little less user friendly.

    Some people have actually been developing these tools and formats for free continuously over the years, and they're not just half-done solutions.

     

    Matroska and FLAC are superiour, better featured, lossy/lossless solutions.

    I take it that there isn't an urgent need for MKV support in the United States, because you don't have a broad public demand for subtitles and foreign (original) language support? But anyone working in a multilingual environment would benefit from this. So it's not really an obsession. I am merely stressing the fact that the industry is keeping a whole bunch of inferior, platform dependent (and therefore short lived) file formats alive. They're even still developing new, closed, proprietary formats for mobile devices). This short-term profit speculation is the main reason why there is a "format war" going on. A war that forces content providers to create identical video content in different file containers.

     

    The industry have been trying to agree on a mutual standard (MXF) since 2005, but even after 7 years it is still not really supported by any standalone equipment. Meanwhile Matroska (created in 2002) has basically developed all the features that MXF has, and it is already widely supported by leading hardware and mobile equipment manufacturers such as Asus, Samsung, LG and Western Digital.

     

    The "high end" hardware developers just decided that they won't support MKV. That is of course the main reason why "the market doesn't use it".

     

    While there is an increasing demand for HD video content, the industry has decided only to provide lossy audio content. It is practically impossible to buy online digital audio content in a lossless sound format legally. That is of course another reason why sound connoisseurs are sharing their CD and DVD audio content as FLAC files. When the CD disappears they're stuck with lossy AAC, WMA and MP3 files!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2012 11:12 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    I take it that there isn't an urgent need for MKV support in the United States, because you don't have a broad public demand for subtitles and foreign (original) language support?

     

    No.  There isn't a need for Matroska because it's not a file format used for the major delivery mediums - disk, broadcast and web.

     

     

    The industry have been trying t agree on a mutual standard (MXF) since 2005, but even after 7 years it is still not really supported by any standalone equipment.

     

     

    Uh...not sure that's very accurate.  Many professional camera use the format.  And many TV stations use it for broadcast as well.

     

     

    Matroska (created in 2002) has basically developed all the features that MXF has, and it is already widely supported by leading hardware and mobile equipment manufacturers such as Asus, Samsung, LG and Western Digital.

     

    Yeah, for computer playback.  But that's just not anywhere near a significant enough percentage of professional delivery.  The big three are, as previously mentioned, disk (DVD, Blu-ray), broadcast, and web sites.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 5:57 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    If we acknowledge that the market for systematic and widespread DVD and Blu-ray content is going to be practically non-existent within the next 2-4 years, this leaves us with streaming, broadcast and web sites. MKV is ideal for this purpose, because it already fully supports all the market-oriented requirements such as DRM, subtitling, indexing etc.

     

    Computer playback only? I just gave you a list of some the hardware manufaturers that actually supports MKV playback on their standalone players and platforms. On top of that users are constantly trying to "jailbreak" other standalone players to support MKV playback for one very good reason: The users want it, but the manufacturers don't want them to use it! Sony's Playstation is a well known example.

     

    The main difference from a market perspective between MXF and MKV is actually the lack of broad MXF software support. Only a small percentage of MXF files are are actually being used for video content. MXF is an acknowledged standard like BWF (sound) and AAF, but the format is practically unsupported by any free software product at the moment. Furthermore, it also still seems that there isn't a consistent, standardised support for generating MXF files with video, multiple audio, subtitles and indices... These features have already been supported by the MKV container for years.

     

    I have no strict preference for MKV. I just wish there was a properly supported multimedia container, but the industry is constatnly fighting against it it seems. That is why MKV was invented by the user communities.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 9:44 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    If we acknowledge that the market for systematic and widespread DVD and Blu-ray content is going to be practically non-existent within the next 2-4 years

     

    Can't really acknowledge that, though.  The reports I'm reading all say that Blu-ray sales continue to grow.  Now if you want to say 20 to 40 years, maybe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 9:49 AM   in reply to EuroSiti

    I just gave you a list of some the hardware manufaturers that actually supports MKV playback on their standalone players and platforms.

     

    Yes, as a "computer file", not from a DVD or Blu-ray disk.  As things stand right now, professional delivery to consumers just isn't in the form of computer files.  It's on disk, or on a web site, or it's broadcast.

     

    If and when Best Buy starts selling movies on thumb drives, you might have a case.  But until then...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 10:36 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    the format is practically unsupported by any free software product at the moment.

     

    Irrelevant.  Professionals who use the MXF format generally acknowledge that the tools required for the job will cost money.  And those professional tools do often support the MXF format.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 10:36 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    You guys are all making the case from the viewpoint of a teenager ripping movies to share with his friends so they don't have to buy their own copy.  Because as things stand right now, that is the majority use of the MKV container.  I've not heard one cogent argument from a paid professional who needs to deliver a professional product to a paying client in MKV format.

     

    And even if someone reading can come up with such a scenario, know that it'll probably take thousands of such requests for Adobe to move on the issue.  And as has already been stated by Adobe personnel, they just aren't getting those requests.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 3:36 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    You can't be serious?!

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    Can't really acknowledge that, though.  The reports I'm reading all say that Blu-ray sales continue to grow.  Now if you want to say 20 to 40 years, maybe.

     

    ... I wonder if it will actually be possible to buy a Blu-ray disc in 20 years? I can't imagine. There certainly won't be any standard media players around to play them on.

    Blu-ray or other physical formats will become a collector's item just like vinyl records. And it will definetely not be the future delivery format for neither homemade nor industry manufactured media products. They are far too expensive to produce compared to the decreasing sales figures that everyone expects.

     

    DVD sales have dropped dramatically, and Blu-ray sales are very far from making up for the drop in DVD sales even if BRD sales have increased during the past year. That is only what you would expect when the players and the discs have become more affordable.

     

    But even if we don't consider illegal copies of films, both the DVD and the Blu-ray discs are expected to disappear as a mass consumer product within a foreseeable future. Not in 20 or 40 years but most likely within the next 5 years. I could provide you with at least 25 links to articles that address this issue and come up with some very good arguments for it.

     

    At the end of the day the fixed, non-flexible, closed structure formats like DVD and Blu-ray are by no means suited for the era of mobile, handheld devices. They require mechanical (vulnerable) parts inside the products which just doesn't fit very well with the trend towards creating more power-efficient playback devices.

     

    I mentioned cloud based software earlier in this long discussion. Even big fat Adobe will have to take the fact into account that they won't be able to sell individual software licenses to the same extent in the future for several reasons:

    1. Both private and public institutions are constantly looking for ways to save money (cheaper products that can deliver semi-good results will be considered)
    2. Cloud based software solutions will eventually become fully competetive with the Photoshop suite, because there's already plenty of single freeware products that can deliver similar quality in different areas of the production process. And for instance, Drupal-based solutions will actually enable all these different products to play together.

     

    Back to the piracy issue...

    If Matroska is the preferred format for storing HD movie content illegally it is still the preferred format for a very good reason: It's the optimal delivery format! Whether you've bought your films and music legally or illegally, you still want to be able to back them up in the most flexible, space-efficient, lossless storage format there is. It's just like when the music pirates paved the way for the once industrially banned MP3 format. But MP3 was the better format, because it actually supported the needs of the consumers better than any of the existing formats back then. Today, no one can imagine a hardware or a software product that will not read an MP3 file.

     

    Professionals will just keep using whatever formats they're told to deliver, and that is primarily decided by what is offered by Adobe, Sony and Canon. These companies just have a long history of fighting against open standards, so I would expect them to be the last of the last to support open standards.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 7:16 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    Many here feel that Sony rather shot itself in the foot, with its insistance on the total DRM in BD. I'd say that this forum was split about 60-40 for HD-DVD vs BD, but BD won. I am NOT a Sony fan, but they got to write the specs., so the rest is history.

     

    BD sales are lagging, below expectations, and there are probably myriad reasons for that. We'll have to wait to see what 3D (think it's a fad, personally, but have been wrong before) does to, or for BD.

     

    Now, various streaming media formats/schemes are gaining ground, but as Jim mentions, much of that is predicated on pirated files, that others can use, without paying. Not sure how that would factor into a corporations' decisons to support certain formats. Still, when one gets past the thieves and pirates, there might be uses for streaming schemes, that are viable.

     

    Time will tell.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 10:41 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    ... I wonder if it will actually be possible to buy a Blu-ray disc in 20 years?

     

    You shouldn't really take that as a prediction.  I simply added zeros to show that the 2 to 4 year time frame hinted at for the death of physical media is impractically short.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 10:48 PM   in reply to EuroSiti

    It's the optimal delivery format!

     

    For a computer, I won't argue.  But like I said, Premiere Pro professionals just aren't delivering computer files to paying clients en masse.  For the time being, the big three mediums are still disk, broadcast and web, none of which use the MKV container.

     

     

    Professionals will just keep using whatever formats they're told to deliver, and that is primarily decided by what is offered by Adobe, Sony and Canon.

     

     

    Actually, it's almost always decided by the client.  And right now, they just aren't asking for MKV files, which is why so few Premiere Pro users are asking Adobe for MKV support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)