Premiere Pro is designed for professionals.
Professionals just don't use that format.
MKV isn't even in the top 5 most used video format around the globe. For sharing, yeah, its useful because of its capability for being low size and giving high quality output.
.mp4, .mov, .avi, .wmv, & .flv, are more commonly used by the professionals as mentioned by Jim_Simon.
This could be an opportunity for a third-party developer, who could also potentially build an importer plug-in for the .mkv format, using the Premiere Pro plug-in SDK.
That is hardly a reason to not include support for it. Premiere Pro is designed for professionals, but that doesn't mean only professionals are the ones who use it. How is adding support for something bad? Getting more people to use your products since it has good compatibility sounds like a win to me.
I agree with you on that, an added codec support is a win. Maybe it was an agreement between Adobe and Apple, its very difficult for Adobe to incorporate new technology. Its an embarrassing limitation that they don't like to talk about, plus its financially beneficial to them. Its especially true for open source and trending standards. So even though every expert and professional knows that .mkv and .h264 (now h265) are the best containers and comprehensive formats available, Adobe *still* wont be able to provide them.
That is hardly a reason to not include support for it.
It's actually a pretty good reason, I think.
If the bulk of your customers don't need the feature, why spend limited resources adding it?
It would make a lot more sense for Premiere Elements to add that support.
There is a good and simple way to get >> LOSSLESS << conversion of mkv files, to mp4 files.
It uses the "Convert/save" feature of VLC (a completely free video player that can handle just about any format).
It lets you simply replace the "ac" audio file, in an mkv file, with an mp3 audio file, to turn it into an mp4 file.
The step-by-step procedure for doing it, is here:
maybe not in the top 5, but it should be included for those of us that do use it.
There are a lot of things small subsets of the PrPro userbase say such things about. I've got several of them myself.
However, having met many of the 'team' members and leaders at NAB and now Adobe MAX, there aren't nearly as many of "them" as you'd think, having to deal with all the issues that need fixing besides the continual efforts to keep the program moving down the internally mapped "road to the future" that of course, Adobe doesn't share publicly.
So when you've got something like MKV, which is a superior form of H.264, and there are other codecs to achieve similar things already available for the small subset who use it ... well, bigger fish are gonna get fried up for dinner.
I'd love Matroska to "make" the list. Ain't gonna happen. There isn't enough pure need.
it should be included for those of us that do use it.
I disagree. The format just isn't used in professional circles. There are a thousand other improvements I'd rather see Adobe spend their limited resources on before catering to non-professionals.
That's what Elements is for.
I do agree with you on this:
But unfortunately Elements does not support mkv either.
I was suggesting that the Premiere Elements crowd are the ones that need this, not the Premiere Pro crowd. If Adobe were to devote resources, Elements is the better program for this.
Users on the elements forum hardly ever ask for mkv.
Then the folks here need to try and garner that support...over there.
Is there still no plugin for it? I tried to google but all I saw were video conversion apps.
Many of the replies here are just simply wrong.
Its also reveals the naiveity and ignorance of the self proclaimed professionals
Real professionals use whatever is available, and what their clients demand (even if your own opinion is different).
Now, MKV is slowly but steadily becoming more popular. The reason being: its technically superiour to all the rest.
Secondly - its only a container. Meaning the video (and audio) codecs inside are still whatever you want.
The true reason Adobe refuses it, is because they are in cohoots with Apple - who want to charge us for the air we breath.
So read a book or two and dont just get your information from youtube echo chambers.
ignoring the future for the traditionalists is narrow minded and will harm the business.
Just because Apple says no to mkv shouldnt dictate adobe's stance - but it does unfortunately.
Its only a container for peats sake!
MKV is slowly but steadily becoming more popular.
In the consumer market perhaps. But there aren't any pro/sumer cameras using it (that I know of). And I'm not aware of any NLE using it for intermediate codecs. So in the professional world which PP is designed for, it's a non-entity.
I actually found a great solution. Download a program called "Box4" (free) and it will demux it and it will become an mp4 file. From there, you can import it into Premiere. No loss of quality and it's the same file size as before.
Premiere Pro is designed for professionals.
Professionals just don't use that format.
I believe a professional archivist from the MEDIACONCH project under the EU funded PREFORMA project pool sent a formal request to Adobe regarding FFV1 video and MKV container support on behalf of a very large number of professional cultural heritage institutions (including film archives, records offices, private (business) archives and museums) back in autumn 2016.
Obviously cultural heritage institutions don't have an awful lot of money to spend compared to broadcasters or the advertising industry. But this also means they probably tend to care a bit more about open standards and optimal storage formats for long term preservation.
Unlike far more closed software solutions like Final Cut, it should in fact be possible to add custom plugins to Premiere that could enable FFV1 and MKV support. Just not sure if there is any plugin available at this point. But the finalization of the MKV+FFV1 standards will presumably be ready here in 2017.
If the option to edit FFV1 in MKV in Premiere, FCP or Sony Vegas don't become available sometime soon, it will indeed have a very negative impact on the PREFORMA standardization project. And that would be a real shame. ProRes might look nice, but it isn't a real lossless format, and very much restricted to Apple's own products. That's just not a viable solution for our digital cultural heritage.
a very large number of professional cultural heritage institutions
I'd wager that "very large number" is actually pretty small when compared to the total number of industry professionals.
Like any company, Adobe goes where the market is. Enough people start using MKV, Adobe is likely to add support.
I just don't see that happening any time soon.
You are absolutely right. It's a food chain where non-profit open standards just don't fit in.
It would actually be interesting to know how decisions are made regarding which media formats to support. I think that actual customer demands for specific media format support are extremely rare. I would guess that at least 95% of professionals just stick with what's available in the existing software. However, if a company like Sony, Canon or Apple invents a new (closed source, heavily patented) format for a new product line, that format is likely to be supported almost immediately regardless of what the consumers think about it.
The PREFORMA project did in fact consider using MXF as their recommended container. But those plans were effectively terminated when they learned about the paywall they needed to pass just to get hold of the MXF format specifications. MXF is owned by the broadcasting industry. They have no interest in collaborating with cultural heritage institutions even if their productions will eventually end up there.
If MKV and FFV1 support was in fact available in Adobe or Apple software, it wouldn't take long before all other socalled lossless formats wouldn't be used much anymore. Even the camera manufacturers would feel the pressure to support these common standards.
As long as software and even something as simple as mathematical compression algorithms can be patented (notably in the USA), things aren't going to change at all. And that's the main reason we are still stuck in this jungle of non-free, often entirely brand-specific standards that makes long term storage (unnecessarily) complicated and expensive to those who are (professionally) responsible for preserving and managing it.
Here is an example that perfectly illustrates a professional use case where the lack of Matroska container support is nothing more than a nagging limitation (it's the 2nd comment on the linked page). This is from a Final Cut Pro discussion forum, but it could as well have been about Adobe Premiere.
Given the number of (unemployed) actors out there, I can easily imagine that this workflow is very typical. Obviously this user isn't a big business customer, but that just makes me wonder if regular customer demand matters at all when it comes to adding support for "new" media formats?
Apple and Adobe must have gotten several hundreds of such demands for MKV, FFV1, VP9, FLAC, Opus and WebM support over the past 7-8 years. (By the way: Those six formats/containers cover the total number of standardized modern media formats, so we're not talking myriads of obscure open source formats here).
First, mkv is no codec but a container format. Hence supporting it is no problem. It contains the normal mp4 video and normal PCM audio in my case. Only that a .mp4 file does not allow for that combination.
Second, Windows supports it out of the box, hence it is odd to not support it in Adobe.
Third, a professional software aligns to the user needs, not vice versa. There is the need to edit mkv files obviously.
It is Adobe's decision to balance cost versus benefit. Given it is a ***** container for codecs already supported, the costs are essentially zero.
mp4 and mov - this is true, but avi, wmv, and flv are not commonly used by the professionals.
Anyway, support for mkv in Adobe products would be great. Why not?
support for mkv in Adobe products would be great. Why not?
A fair question to ask.
My answer is, limited resources. Adobe just doesn't have the manpower to develop every single feature request. They have to pick and choose. It is my belief that this feature isn't as needed by professionals as soooo many other features are. It is my belief that this feature would be more appropriate for Premiere Elements, whose intended market uses the format far more than the market for PP.
Perhaps it's easier just to draw a conclusion from the list of supported audio/video/container formats: Premiere Pro CC supported file formats ... Notice the total absence of open standards on the list.
There is only one good explanation if you apply a commercial perspective: The industry make extra money from software patents (the idea that you can patent maths and thereby simply prevent others from using similar algorithms for image or audio compression).
As long as this dubious source of passive income & market control is legally acknowledged (in the USA but not in the EU or Asia as far as I know), we aren't going to see any support for (technically superior) open standards in any commercial piece of software that relies on close collaboration with the photo, music & film industry.
The problem with the "patent" argument is that OpenEXR and CinemaDNG are both open standards, free of licensing fees. Support is included in Premiere Pro because professionals use them. (Though support for CinemaDNG is so very limited that PP is largely useless with the format.)
I'm also not aware of any licensing fees for using the DV codec, nor the AVI, MOV or MXF containers (though the codecs used in those containers might be licensed).
MKV is just not used by professionals in any great quantity. It's target market is primarily the consumer market, for which Premiere Elements is designed.
Elements does not support mkv either.
Understood. My point was that if MKV support is ever added, it makes more sense to spend those limited development resources on adding it to Premiere Elements, which is designed for the crowd that uses MKV, rather than in Premiere Pro, which is designed for a crowd that doesn't.
This childish reply is very wrong and reveals a naïve attitude of the world.
MANY professionals use MKV as its technically superior to other containers.
Implementing MKV would cost virtually nothing but add priceless value to the software.
I can picture your narrow social group, all clapping each other on the back, claiming to be *the* professionals - completely ignorant of the other 99% of adobe clients, all of which use multiple 3rd party programs to fill in the numerous holes and gaps Adobe refuse to fill.
How many forum questions end in "use this other program..." !?!?!?!
So please, enough with the "only professionals..." comment. Its not a valid argument anymore, if it ever was.
Actually, not at all ... the things are delivered to the managerial types (and several layers I understand) in some tabulated format. So the people who decide budgets and The Path Forward all get them. And apparently need to read through every one.
There are a few things to consider though ... there are rather a lot of them, and from talking with a couple different program managers, many of the more common requests are ... well ... hardly practical or of interest to any regular user. To be polite. So when parsing the numbers, one has to deal with some decent numbers of things most of us wouldn't want them to waste time on.
Also ... the program managers are one of the people getting a say in what's done. But only one. I don't know how many layers of management may be involved, this is all kept rather murky it seems ... but there seem to be several. And with different parts of the company ... with different ideas as to what the User Base would or should want of their own.
And within each program, the manager may be more or less interested in different features & parts of the programs. Therefore more or less interested in spending what part of the budget he/she actually controls on ... what.
Having dealt with the new head of PrPro back when he was the head of SpeedGrade at NAB, I do rather like his outlook on relating with the U-B.
I've put in a lot of requests myself ... and actually have I think two that have made the product, but ... that product (SpeedGrade) ... seems moribund at the moment. Alas.
Hi R Neil, no no I get it lol. It's a meme brother. Kidding on the square. The idea is that some features the subscriber base under the age of 35 now (Millenials, Video Gamers, YouTubers, Live Streamers, Meme makers, etc etc), I think ask for, the situation seems like they're being ignored. Project managers or .. program managers, I think would acknowledge new trends/demands but yes with different layers of decision making... let's face it... in an overgeneralizing sense... baby boomers and even Gen X just can't stand Millennials. There's likely going to be some baby boomer in management that thinks the millennial feature requests (MKVs, GIFs, VFR, etc etc) are stupid or not worth investing in. And... I'm willing to bet Millennials make up a big portion of the subscriber base. Isn't that something.. lol. But that's the political climate right now with many traditional businesses that aren't thinking outside their "box" mindset. And, imo, for the most part, I think Adobe is struggling with that across the board, even though they are attempting to make strides at it.
P.S. Yes this is me overgeneralizing and being opinionated.. but.. it's not without some merit/insight.
I've been to NAB for several years, and a teaching assistant at Adobe MAX in San Diego last November. Adobe is running out a constant stream of mobile apps especially in the graphics area of Illustrator/InDesign & 3D ... collaborative things that allow you to work part of even a 3d graphics project on your phone or device, add bits to a Library, share that with your desktop app, share that with your mates ... review and change things back with the phone/device, immediately ported back to the entire group ... so I think Adobe in general is working very hard at "modern" life.
Personally, I love [edit: NOT Captivate, sigh] Capture. I don't make "brushes" and other things with it, but it's got a wondrous feature to create Looks that can be saved to my Library and used in PrPro ... I don't understand why it's not nearly everyone's go-to phone app!
With that, and knowing that a number of folks who have been major program managers and have been replaced are still working within Adobe, but nobody will say ... on ... what? ... makes me wonder what else they've got cooking in the test kitchens. No clue, but they tend to roll out DVA things either at NAB or MAX. They always have some fun surprises to wow the crowd at the daily mass-programs at MAX.
Unfortunately, not all the new Wow stuff immediately seems to work as seamlessly as one would hope ... but again, Captivate is a pretty cool app. Some of the others are in the process of becoming ... and should get somewhere very useful pretty soon in software terms.
When sitting with a cup of coffee with a program manager and one of his supervisory sub-managers and the topic of the Wish Requests come up, and they both either laugh or roll their eyes at some of what they receive, I've thought it might be fun to actually see that list. Or at least parts of it ... but no, that's not happenin' baby, not no way not no how.
But yea, there seems to be a feeling about being around Adobe ...
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present for your consideration ...
There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ...
... The Adobe Zone.
Something I find a little off...
Mr. Simon, and the above Mr Haugen, both criticize requests and are very disparaging of others opinions, as though you'all have to defend the honour of Adobe, as if it cant defend itself ???!!!
The impression is you're beating a dead horse that was itself grasping for straws...
From the research I've done you are no more "professional" nor "expert" than virtually all the people who have requested MKV container support. !!!!!!!!!!!!!
So why continue to quibble?
People more professional than you have requested MKV for YEARS.
Other features that have LESS requests (and cost more) have been implemented.
Clearly the discussion should be on the real reasons: maybe Licensing, Resistance to Open Standards, the general evilness and amorality of Apple, etc, etc ?
Personally I use VLC for conversion into desired formats, that clients pay for - making the process "professional"
Puzzling post. Your assumptions are rather ... well, incomplete, would be polite. If you had any actual knowledge of either Jim or myself's participation on this forum (and the SpeedGrade one for myself) you wouldn't have written this. We've both got our areas we think are adequate to good, and areas we've excoriated "Adobe" over.''
So your "research" seems a bit suspect.
I'd have no problem with Adobe adding mkv ... though in checking around at NAB, this isn't a format that very many seem at all interested in. It's got many options that would be useful, sure. But I don't see any interest in either the engineers I've talked with nor most of the users there. Hence I've suggested people use the Feature Request form process.
I'd perhaps consider Apple more the spoiled kindergarten child ... what's yours is mine, what I got bored with yesterday becomes mine as soon as you pick it up ... I don't tell you nothin' ... if you touch my stuff I punch your nose ... and ... everything's my stuff if I say so.
As to the licensing things, well ... that's not something I've got any knowledge about, so wild speculation seems a bit of a waste.