Take the 2-minute tour ×
Video Production Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts spanning the fields of video, and media creation. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is the assumption in the title true?

What is preventing the use of ffmpeg when producing a movie or broadcast quality material?

Are there any prominent or well known users of ffmpeg?

What is used instead of ffmpeg? Quicktime pro? Final Cut Pro/Adobe Premiere/Avid media composer?


One interesting indication of ffmpeg usage could be job offer listings from major media firms where they are looking for ffmpeg skills.

share|improve this question
If you say "ffmpeg skills" do you mean "I am able to read documentation and use (standard) tools" or do you mean "I know the sourcecode and can add any feature you want". The former is nothing special, the later is highly sought. –  Andreas Jan 3 at 13:25
add comment

3 Answers

FFmpeg is probably being used more than you believe. I think the BBC uses it for some workflows, there is evidence that Laika and Weta may use it, and there is a fork called FFmbc which is targeted for professional broadcast usage.

YouTube probably uses FFmpeg to decode as shown by some unique decoding issues (but this was several years ago that I read about this and I'm not sure of the current status).

Also see the FFmpeg Projects page for a small list of who uses FFmpeg in their projects.

share|improve this answer
Could you please add some reference link about the usage of ffmpeg at BBC or Laika, or somewhere else? –  dontomaso Dec 4 '13 at 14:35
@dontomaso No, unfortunately. These are just inferences from observing who is asking questions in the ffmpeg-user mailing list and some discussions in various IRC channels. Perhaps you can ask on ffmpeg-user who is actually using ffmpeg and get answers straight from the source. –  LordNeckbeard Dec 4 '13 at 18:02
Some of the FFmbc development was funded by the BBC. They are credited inside the source code. –  UmNyobe Mar 14 at 15:31
add comment

The main reason is support, usability and control. First, lets clarify that FFMPEG is an encoder, QuickTime Pro is a video utility that happens to include multiple encoders and Final Cut Pro is a non-linear editor and has nothing to do with encoders other than the fact it can output to an encoder (generally QuickTime I believe).

For big budget commercial projects, the emphasis is going to be on having the highest possible quality encoding which often will involve manual review of the content and tweaking the way things are encoded to minimize artifacts and maximize the quality. Commercial encoders or even proprietary ones used internally by encoding houses have far more control, support and development than ffmpeg. It's great for a free tool, but it isn't a high end commercial product.

For smaller commercial projects, you may find some users, but most often people use the encoders that come with their NLEs at that level (such as QuickTime Pro or Adobe Media Encoder). The main reason at that level is convenience since they are tied directly in to the NLEs and are easy to configure and behave well with good quality results.

I can't guarantee that there aren't any production chains that use FFMPEG or a modified form of it, but in general, it is worth simply pointing out that not all encoders are created equally and while ffmpeg does very, very well for being free, it isn't the best option in all cases all the time, even if for business reasons rather than technical ones.

share|improve this answer
It is debatable that commercial encoders have more active development that ffmpeg. Just look at the large number of commits to FFmpeg per week. Of course the commercial stuff will not disclose their information. As for quality I can get what I want with FFmpeg, but AME is often more annoying than useful. How to encode with ffmpeg from Adobe Premiere Pro may interest some users. –  LordNeckbeard Dec 3 '13 at 18:18
There is more to amount of development than the number of commits. There is the level of responsiveness to industry concerns that come up. If a production studio has a problem with a commercial encoder, they can get direct professional support. They can't do this without having their own in house developer for FFmpeg. That said, nice link about the using ffmpeg with Adobe Premiere Pro. I'll probably give that a shot as I'm always a fan of having more options available even if I generally find AME to be useful. –  AJ Henderson Dec 3 '13 at 18:33
FFmpeg has good, free user support and interested developers can also be hired for employment or direct consulting support. –  LordNeckbeard Dec 3 '13 at 18:38
@LordNeckbeard - yes, but a production company isn't a software company and doesn't want to have to deal with developers. They want an organization to be the knowledge expert on it for them so they don't have to worry about it. This is the same reason that commercial software continues to do well in so many other areas where there is similar open source products available. I'm not saying you couldn't necessarily accomplish the same thing with FFmpeg, but by the time you do, it's likely going to cost more than commercial options. That's just a general rule of thumb for FOSS. It's time vs $ –  AJ Henderson Dec 3 '13 at 18:43
I'd like to add that our team uses FFMPEG pretty regularly, but the learning curve was not pretty. I think this holds back a lot of other video pros I talk to. I've heard countless stories of people who tried FFMPEG once or twice, got an unexpected result, and returned to the encoder they're more comfortable with. I can't really blame them, time is money. We use FFMPEG because we make backend video frameworks, and easily being able to access FFMPEG from Python and command line are invaluable to us. –  elburzs Jan 2 at 2:28
add comment

I use it in my professional production chain all the time. Last week I was using it to batch through dozens of videos that needed subtitles burnt-in. It would have taken me weeks of tedious labour with Final Cut, it took me a couple of days burning the srts in with ffmpeg, and I was able to automatically rename the files and compress them for the various playback devices at the same time, and keep editing in the background.

I'd say unfamiliarity with the command line is the major reason most people don't use it. Typy-typy is too scary, they need clicky-clicky. Though there are definitely some areas - archival preservation for one, where it is one of the main tools of choice. In any situation where you need to automate video manipulation or conversion there is really nothing that beats it.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.