18
Replies
Well. MKV becomes more and more common, and user demand for support probably hasn't exactly decreased since the issue was first addressed regarding CS3 five years ago.
The year is now 2012, and CS6 is about to be released. But nothing has changed; Adobe still doesn't support any of the open source audio and video formats. Web content providers won't get any alternative to Flash by Adobe, and the video features of HTML5 has been deliberately left out of Adobe's socalled HTML5 'support' strategy even though everyone knows that video format support is an essential part. 
MKV has some highly advanced features that no other container supports. But ...
- if you never need to take additional language support into account when you deliver content
- if indexing/bookmarking for long video sequences isn't something you care about
- if you don't care about quality-degrading conversion of original audio
... then I suppose Adobe still has something to offer! 
You are absolutely correct. But the same applies to:
1. Microsoft, if you need Linux support, don't look at Microsoft,
2. Apple, if you need Linux support, don't look at Apple.
3. Android, if you need anything else, don't look at Android.
4. Word, if you need Autodesk support, don't look at Word.
5. etc.
6. etc.
Matroska is a very weird format that is only popular among GPL people, not pro's. You are better off looking elsewhere for a different program if you don't like it.
but then I suppose Matroska still has something to offer to a very restricted group of users that don't belong here.
I guess you must be one of the very few people left in this world who do not use any GPL products. At least I don't know a single person who doesn't. 
MacOS, iOS, Windows, Linux and Android are operating systems, whereas MKV is simply a wrapper able to hold both popular and the more obscure video or audio formats if need be. Many of those are already supported by PrPro, so there's nothing 'weird' about it. If it was weird it wouldn't have existed for 10 years with increasing popularity. It's popular because it's easier and better feature supported than any other HD file format.
But while we're at it: Many GPL products are actually developed for several of these OS'es / platforms... Talk about being flexible. All Adobe has to do is create a content-restricted (i.e. H.264 AVC, VP8, VC-1) plugin that enables the MKV extension and add in the open source code that defines the MKV file structure and how it should work inside PrPro. Then PrPro users would be able to deliver lossless or HD video content in purely digital form for end users with all the convenient features of a DVD or a Blu-ray disc (but without the need to create vulnerable physical copies)... That is actually a fairly simple thing to do compared to developing applications for different platforms.
I beg to differ.
My initial reply was actually a straightforward reply to the person who asked for a technical workaround to edit an MPEG4 video stream from an MKV container and edit the stream in Premiere Pro. By the way: AVIdemux is ideal for extracting streams without reencoding or converting them.
In terms of delivery Matroska files are approximately 10% smaller than identical (lossless) DVD content (as MPEG2) and 40% smaller than identical Blu-ray content (as MPEG4).
The superior x264 codec is actually released under GPL, so I take it you don't use the very best MPEG4 encoding for your video deliveries then, John?
It's no surprise that you see no need for MKV features. You probably only deliver to the US market or native English speaking customers (or at least you simply expect them to understand English). You have no need for subtitling either. But those features are more or less standard requirements in both Europe and Asia.
Furthermore, most customers are still unaware that modern standalone players actually support MKV playback including some of the more advanced MKV features. Larger organisations also tend to stick to very conservative delivery policies (like DVD delivery) for too long (like MPEG2). They are "slow movers" so to speak.
I think the reason why most of you have never used (or even heard of) MKV is lack of knowledge from your customers; If it's not supported by Adobe or by their Sony, Apple or Canon equipment then it doesn't "exist". But if your clients/customers actually knew which opportunities they are missing by not using the advanced MKV features. There's loads of money to be saved and even quality and performance to gain if you are using the right equipment.
I suspect that several commercial developers tend to avoid open source / community developed products completely, simply because it differs from their standard policies for making license agreements. They are uncertain how to "buy and negotiate rights" with an non-standard rights holder such as an open developers' community.
That might be the reason why Adobe is still using the outdated Fraunhofer MP3 codec instead of the LAME codec, and also why only DivX.com standardized AVI or MKV files are supported by many standalone player devices.
In other words companies like Adobe simply think like this:
"Although these formats are obviously very popular, we simply will not spend time and resources finding out how make payment and rights arrangements with these obscure developer communities. It might not cost much, but unlike our 6.5 million dollar agreement with MPEG-LA, we do not know if some developer will turn up one day and demand additional payment for something he coded two years ago."
Just a thought.
Jim Simon wrote:
.... the vast majority of those using it for 'delivery' are teenage boys illegally sharing the DVD, Blu-ray and TV rips. Why on earth would Adobe cater to that market?
Wasn't that also the case with MP3 fifteen years ago?
Why did Adobe 'cater to that market' then?
Sony tried to put a ban on this "piracy format". Only CDs should be used for legal distribution of music, and any digital copy of even legally purchased music for private use should by definition be considered illegal.
What is relevant here is not who uses the format, but why it is being used so extensively: It is being used simply because it is better than the other formats for high definition video and when ever additional playback features are needed to improve the user experience.
... And by the way: MKV is rarely the preferred delivery format for porn distribution... Adobe's very own FLV format is probably the most commonly used video container for that purpose.
AdChoices