Lightroom: Quicktime for Windows to be phased out - no longer supported by Apple

  • 12
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • (Edited)
Is LR going to be updated to replace the functions of Apple's Quicktime for Windows?
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 438 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 12
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4790 Posts
  • 1318 Reply Likes
For reference, see this article from the US-CERT: https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA16-105A
Photo of Vienna

Vienna

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4790 Posts
  • 1318 Reply Likes
To summarize the alert from the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (part of the US Department of Homeland Security): 

Trend Micro's ZeroDayInitiative.com discovered two flaws in Windows Quicktime and reported them to Apple November 2015. In March 2016, ZDI called Apple, who informed ZDI that Windows Quicktime was being deprecated and that Apple would publish removal instructions. When ZDI informed Apple they intended to publish the vulnerability at ZDI, Apple acknowledged that and provided removal instructions.
(Edited)
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4790 Posts
  • 1318 Reply Likes
See this post by Adobe: https://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/quicktime-on-windows/. It appears focused on Adobe's professional video-editing tools, and there's no mention of LR.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 16272 Posts
  • 2583 Reply Likes
Lightroom uses the same libraries for transcoding as the professional video editing tools.
Photo of Peter Church

Peter Church

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
This needs to be fixed urgently by Adobe users of lIghtroom can only view video's this way at the moment
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 16272 Posts
  • 2583 Reply Likes
Are you encountering an video formats that aren't playing back for you? Most camera (e.g. iPhone) and DSLR videos should still be supported with Lightroom CC 2015/6 without QT.
Photo of HHCUBED

HHCUBED

  • 16 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes

I have the same problem using Lightroom CC. The videos DO come from "older" Canon cameras, most notably for the recent activity, the Powershot SX30. I believe the extension(s) I have my only experience with are .MOV and .MP4, mostly the former as that is the video format of the SX30. Again, Adobe feels they are able to force the purchase of newer equipment/technology in order to keep up with their own "deprecations" of sorts. Quicktime should have never been the ex post facto required application to be used as a "subroutine" to include video in the catalog. There should have been native programming--if that is the correct terminology--to play the videos from within the Lightroom catalog.

It is tiring, aggravating, and frankly prejudicial that Adobe continues to snub the Windows OS users in favor of the Macintosh. I have a Windows-based PC(s) for a reason. It is what is most used in MY career as a corporate business professional. Not everything (applications) is available on the Macintosh platform in the commercial sector. I am tired of being made to feel that the only way to enjoy the benefits of Adobe products, as pro-sumer, semi-professional photographer, is to get a Macintosh computer.

It is also narrow-minded of Apple for supporting the Windows version of their application, and dealing with the vulnerabilities which continue to creep in on ALL platforms. To continue support on ONLY Macintosh OS is like leaving Windows users mortally wounded after enticing/inviting/making available, ALL web users to download Quicktime viewers, no matter what OS was used.

I sincerely hope that Adobe reads and acts upon these and other posts, as there will be a significant effect on the software developer's subscription base, namely Windows users of the Photoshop/Lightroom CC applications.

Hank H.

(Edited)
Photo of HHCUBED

HHCUBED

  • 16 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes

"It is also narrow-minded of Apple for [NOT] supporting the Windows version..." I forgot the word "NOT" while trying to type as fast as my thoughts were forming. Apologies if there was a "huh?" moment while reading.


Hank

(Edited)
Photo of Decent60 .

Decent60 .

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
According to Trend Micro, the only thing affected by the exploit is in the player, not the Codec. Installing QuickTime Essentials (and deselecting the player) should by-pass the vulnerability until Adobe can (or Apple) can create a more integrated solution.
(Edited)
Photo of jsdibelka

jsdibelka

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Adobe, you have left me hanging out here in the wind and expecting functional resolution soonest.  That is all.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 16272 Posts
  • 2583 Reply Likes
Official Response
See this: https://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/quicktime-on-windows/ (current versions of Lightroom and Photoshop use the same video library as the pro video apps). Most camera (e.g. iPhone) and DSLR videos should still be supported with Lightroom CC 2015/6 without QT. It looks like there are some issues with Panasonic cameras that use "Motion JPEG" as their codec.

Older versions of Photoshop (CS3-CS5) and Lightroom (3) are entirely reliant QuickTime for rendering and playing back video. Lightroom 4-5 are less reliant on QuickTime, but do leverage QuickTime codecs more than the current version. Details here: https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/quicktime-uninstallation-impact.html
(Edited)
Photo of Tycho

Tycho

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Lightroom CC 2015.5 is unable to play videos taken with Snapchat on my iPhone (MPEG-4 Base Media / Version 2 ), but is able to play regular videos taken on the iPhone (MPEG-4 Quicktime)
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4790 Posts
  • 1318 Reply Likes
"Most camera (e.g. iPhone) and DSLR videos should still be supported with Lightroom CC 2015/6 without QT."

That is the case with my small collection of personal video clips.  I have a random assortment of 351 clips dating back to 2000, from all sorts of devices and software.  After uninstalling QuickTime, only 14 no longer played in LR and could not be imported:

- 1 MPEG-4/QuickTime video from the iPhone 5

- 6 MPEG-4/Base Media v2 videos produced by Handbrake

- 2 MPEG-4/QuickTime videos produced by iMovie (OS X 10.11).

- 1 MPEG-4/Base Media video produced by Magisto

- 4 QuickTime videos from 2000 (originally produced by some ancient Webcam software)

See this spreadsheet for gory detailed info from MediaInfo.

Not perfect, but pretty good.  


"Installing QuickTime Essentials (and deselecting the player) should by-pass the vulnerability"

That's what I've done, though I don't have huge confidence that the vulnerability is restricted to just the player.
(Edited)
Photo of HHCUBED

HHCUBED

  • 16 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes

"Not perfect, but pretty good."

Situation shouldn't even be evaluated that way...ONLY *IF* there is a promise and fulfillment thereof that the "deprecation" problem will be fixed.

How does a person, a corporation, an industry determine what part of a life's history (let's make this personal: YOUR life, MY life, those of family and friends) is deemed "irrelevant" or no longer "retrievable" or viewable when working with a cataloging system (namely LR) that purports to handle not just still images anymore, but also video, simply because it needs either a): a player that seemingly won't be supported anymore (see sentence above on irrelevance), or b): there is deemed no "need" to support older versions because they don't exist as technology marches on.

Yeah, yeah, this ability comes out of the rise f video on a still image DSLR... But, the point-n-shoots ability to record video, and the capturing of VCR/camcorder tape to digital came LONG before.

So, maybe we should go back to cassette tapes (hard copy), slides (hard copy), and prints (hard copy) so we don't lose our individual histories, heritages, memories, etc.

Sad world we live in that tells us what is current and relevant...


Hank

(Edited)
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 86 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
> So, maybe we should go back to cassette tapes (hard copy), slides (hard copy), and prints (hard copy) so we don't lose our individual histories, heritages, memories, etc.>

Well, yes, it IS up to us to future proof our histories. It's something we discuss with regularity on photography forums. How are we going to try to ensure something, anything, survives for at least another generation or two. Or 5 years from now?

Film isn't dead, and film cameras can be had cheap. Film processing for some types is still available. But most of us love what digital has brought us, and we're willing to invest in good printers and good papers to try to emulate the shoebox method of archiving. Not everything is going to make that cut.

Don't forget that cassette tapes were miserable, always getting stuck, tangled, stretched. Vinyl got scratched to the point it wasn't playable, even if we could stand to listen to it sound scratchy. Glass got broken, slides and negatives were poorly processed, damaged with storage, simply gave up the ghost with the natural breakdown of chemicals. Movie film is new, and much of it hasn't lasted at all well, and only with great care.  Prints got destroyed by storage and display. And it was far less likely in the past to "archive" copies off site,  safer from fire and flood, something easy to do with digital files, although the ability to read them still makes it necessary for us to constantly renew them.

As hard as I look, I just find it hard to think the good ole' days were all that good. The Last Supper didn't survive five years without being repaired, but the medium used certainly was analog.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4790 Posts
  • 1318 Reply Likes
My "pretty good" comment deserves more explanation. It was made in the context of the situation:

- Out of the blue, Homeland Security issues a warning to uninstall Windows Quicktime, catching everyone unaware, including Adobe. 

- Adobe makes the following statement (referenced above): "Adobe’s desire has always been to support everything natively without the need for Quicktime. As a result of the above we intend to increase our efforts to remove these incompatibilities, and provide our customers with a complete native pipeline. We will provide more information on this as we progress." [Emphasis added]

Given the mess Apple created, I was pleasantly surprised that, even after uninstalling Quicktime and seeing LR's warnings, 96% of my video clips played in Windows LR.  Until then, I hadn't realized that LR's video libraries already had so much "native" video support.  

I take Adobe at it's word that it is accelerating efforts to fully replace Quicktime. We'll have to wait and see how much progress they're able to make. It appears that LR relies on Adobe video libraries that are maintained primarily for Adobe's professional-editing tools.  So I won't be surprised if my 4 Webcam Quicktime videos from 2000 never play in LR going forward.   (A few months ago I had to use a third-party service to convert a few other ancient videos that no desktop player and codec pack I could find would play.)

But I'm confident that, independent of LR, I'll be able to play my archived clips using external tools if necessary.   I don't rely on LR's playback in any case -- it's often choppy.  I use a plugin command to quickly open the video in an external player.  
Photo of HHCUBED

HHCUBED

  • 16 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes

Cristen Gellespie:

Let's please get out of the way that "Last Supper" was an vent. *W*ho instituted the future procedure based on the event never needed repairing, the event never needed repairing, the command will never need repairing or change... Sorry, had to get that in as it's wrong analogy.

Now... Your ARE absolutely correct to extol the notion that we are responsible for future-proofing. And, that it can only go so far. But, that's why there are scanners, cassette (yeah, even 8-track, who knows? :-)  ) converters to CD, etc. But, these are AVAILABLE--or, at least most WERE--conversion methods, even for a fee or buying equipment. We "future-proof" that way. The problem is that software/hardware (in this case, cameras) changes are so fast and frequent(ly) fast that we can hardly keep up with. The point-n-shoots particularly that I have ARE a bit older, but every bit as good, as they are like new. I take care of my "Shtuff", if you get me ;-). But, even then, the cameras--the small point-n-shoots of today--are set at a price point for mass selling; and, as such, I doubt they are going to have the latest and greatest codec that is able to be played in LR, as that would probably change the price-level of the camera. (I dunno...that's been my observation over the last 40 years since purchasing my first Minolta XG-M 35mm, and watching everything get cheaper and more available, and comparing what "used to be" included, to what is now there.

I find that the $500 laptop still costs me the same $1500-2000 after I include all the bells and whistles (hardware configuration, that is) as when I bought a similar laptop even 6-8 years earlier. In fact, some of the hardware quality and configuration has made hardware a "throw-away" commodity. Case in point, here, is the compatibility issue with Creative Cloud and the graphics adapter per Adobe: that the graphics adapter must be upgraded--not the driver, the hardware--in order for CC to be able to work correctly, if at all. GREAT! So then, just change the adapter out--except that the adapter is hardwired (integrated into the motherboard), and is not supported by the hardware manufacturer anymore. Even if the motherboard were available as a "changeout", the cost would be prohibitive, never mind that something else wouldn't be compatible as it "wasn't tested" by the OEM. It's then like getting a pill to fix the  ailment, and getting another pill to fix the effects of the pill that fixed the ailment. Sigh, so it I s planned by industry to keep the circle of purchase going at every 3 to 6 years--if we're lucky--at $1500-2000 per, if we want the same functionality and quality (hopefully)...

Hi John Ellis (your turn, heh heh):

Thank you for qualifying your "pretty good". You must be able to follow Adobe's thoughts, intentions, efforts, whatever, more closely than I can, as I got from "India's" support phone nothing more than "we will take your information down and forward it." The person wasn't even aware of the situation 3 days later when I called until I pointed to him the *ADOBE* announcement link, along with the government link, to let him see for himself. He didn't even acknowledge that his awareness slipped up. Sigh #2. Then his tune changed to say that Adobe "is aware and will be working on the problem". But, he wouldn't commit to email follow-ups or anything. Just wait and see--and a big "maybe" in MY mind. Apple certainly DID make a mess! And, it wouldn't surprise me--even IF the ending of support was already planned--that they put in the screws a little deeper into the coffin in their attitude--at least, when I called THEM--after the San Bernadino incident and the clash between them and the FBI. (That was a side-bar comment not pertinent here vis a vis the "deprecation, but interest in its timing, and the resultant Homeland Security statement, nonetheless.)

So, the issue of "playing back" videos externally is not the issue for me, Kohn. Apple told me I can get VLC (videolan.org). I myself have Nero's media suite, and I think QT older formats work there, too. Heck, even Windows updated their Media Player to include the codec. Who woulda ever "thunk!" My concern is workflow. We are all ever "adapting" (for Cristen) our workflows to meet changes. But some changes are not as easy, available, and sometimes affordable as just being able to do what needs to get done, without spinning wheels dealing with the obstacles placed by the industry "powers-that-be." When LR claims that it can be a catalog for ALL your media needs--it started only with still images, then grew to include video: their selling point, one says "YAY!" and starts using LR as such. Now, your workflow includes editing from within LR, playback, slideshows for presentation--whether for friends, groups or clients, etc. etc. etc. for all the "hey! look what can be done, now!" capabilities that LR does. But, we didn't know that they "relied"  upon a third-party "plugin" solely, and not created their own native handling of the newly included media (the video).

I'm trying to come up with a good "analog" analogy here. And, the only thing I can come with is the Sears catalog. Like LR, the Sears catalog had everything: clothing, tools for the dad, toys, for the kids, garden equipment, etc. EVERYBODY goes to the Sears catalog 'cuz they will find whatever they want--there, in the catalog.Then Sears decides that there still will be a catalog, but that the nice long women's skirts and dresses won't be included in the catalog anymore. Your ladies will have to go to the store, if the skirt is there, or somewhere else because, maybe, the skirt(s) are discontinued. They've been "deprecated." Well, this is how I feel about LR right now, especially after forcing us all into a CC subscription. We're trapped. I needed the "new" capabilities in my workflow of the CATALOG to batch rename/renumber the files as they were taken in EXIF (date/time) order. Since I could play videos from my 8-year-old "brand new looking" point-n-shoot, I included in the "mix" of stills and video in the slideshow module if LR. Instead, I had, and still having on occasion, issues with the graphic adapter compatibility due to "outdated" laptop (nothing wrong with it for ANYTHING else); and now, I have a US Govt warned threat about a "deprecated" third-party plugin that won't be updated any longer--for Windows ONLY, mind you--causing me to be impaired in the workflow I was encouraged to develop--by Adobe LR CC.

I sincerely hope that Adobe will be able to meet this challenge. I still think their "pants being caught down" was due to the lack of doing their own work rather than relying on a third party, or as big as Adobe is. But, I hope they learn from this, even as technology marches on. I hope #1, they do their own stuff to make themselves stand out as "premier", #2, they support their legacy users/subscribers who cannot afford a change every 2-3 years by maintaining some sort of way to incorporate software's progress with 8-year-old hardware.

Just think about it. Can you imagine? What if Apple, when the iPhone 6 came out, said to its customers that the iPhone 6 may able to, but NOT guaranteed to, call a 10-yr-old flip phone? Or, an three-yr-old Android? Let's take it home to themselves. What if the iPhone 4 couldn't FaceTime with the iPhone 6? Or, the iPhone 6's text message wouldn't be received by the iPhone 5c? Everybody has to have the iPhone 6 to be guaranteed connectivity? You get the picture.

Thank you all for reading this long and boring prose.


Hank

(Edited)
Photo of David Kessler

David Kessler

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Lightroom does not require CC. What I want to know is what can I use instead of QuickTime for LR6?
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4790 Posts
  • 1318 Reply Likes
As described here, most phone and camera videos should already play in LR CC 2015 / 6 without QuickTime installed.  However, if you have videos in LR that won't play without QuickTime installed, then your options are:

- Uninstall QuickTime and reinstall it, selecting just QuickTime Express as the install option.  There's a belief that the vulnerability is in the QuickTime player app, not in the libraries installed by QuickTime Express.  I haven't seen an authoritative statement to that effect, but that's what I've done (after making sure my anti-virus is current).

- For videos already imported in your catalog that need QuickTime to play inside LR, play the video outside of LR using the native Windows player.   Select the video, right-click and do Show in Explorer, and then double-click the video in Windows File Explorer.  There are at least two plugins that provide shortcuts for doing that: Any File and Open Directly

- Wait until Adobe adds "native" support for the video formats in question.  They haven't published a schedule of which formats/when they'll providing support.  They almost never publish such things ahead of time, but they have said they're increasing their efforts to eliminate the need for QuickTime.
Photo of Demingo Gecko

Demingo Gecko

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi there, are there any news on the efforts of Adobe. Has anything changed after 4 month? Has there been any update fixing the quicktime problem yet?

Maybe someone can give me a hint: I am using Lightroom 5.7.1 and encounter problems watching my old Videos shot wit Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. It is not mentioned here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/quicktime-uninstallation-impact.html
I am wondering if it will fix my problems if I upgrade to LR 6. Does anyone know?

Thankful for any help... Kind regards
(Edited)