Part1. Canon XF305 mxf-files from an Italian forum:

1. AA026401.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?whxk1k1w18i1cwd)
2. AA026501.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?mmmfvbj6vey7dtn)
3. AA027001.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?rikmlc11cyweufk)
4. AA027101.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?8i93r81detcd8tn)
5. AA027301.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?9qc00z9293mo1d6)
6. AA027401.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?z2jto19yyeg22k7)
7. AA027901.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?y5ldutc9tomw2hf)
8. AA028101.MXF (http://www.mediafire.com/?gpbguwmltdnyyrw)

Filming was done at 1080 25P.
Default setting, except Detail -3.
Cam on tripod, manual focus, manual exposure, white presets 5600.
Time - at about 19:00.

------------------------------------------

Part2. Japan site: Canon XF300 Full HD video samples (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openspc2.org%2FHDTV%2FCANON%2FXF300%2F&sl=ja&tl=en)

Zip-archives with MXF-files.
1080 60i, Default setting.

Warning: Archive 0001-1.zip is broken.

Ivan, thank you for sharing these samples.

thanks!
do you know what the bitrate of these are?

Tom,
Sony XDCAM Viewer shows 50 Mbps bitrate on all MXF-files.
The player is free and can be downloaded here: PDZ-VX10 XDCAM Viewer Version 2.30 (PC ONLY) (http://www.pci-support.com/Support/XDCAM/Update-001/XDCAM_Viewer/NOTES.htm)

It can show some metadata: Video format, Bit rate, Frame rate, Max Gop, Timecode, Audio format, Camcorder name, Date, etc.

I had the chance to test the 305 during a weekend and was really impressed with its performance. Exceptional quality at 1080 and 720 very good slow motion and amazing lens. There are some things I still don´t really like. The first one is the sensor size vs DOF. After working the last year with huge sensors I find it hard to work without the really shallow DOF. Another thing I didn´t like was the delay caused i think by the IS that makes it a little hard to control the pans. The last problem was the codec. Really difficult to edit in FCP, EDIUS etc...I even bought calibrated Q but I gave up after one full day/night of editing. I will get back to it in a while. But one thing I noticed was that its 50mbs codec easily beats the Sony EX-3 at least in my humble opinion. A camera to get in a near future to replace some older models. Still the price it´s a little off the charts compairing with the price vs quality ratio of the DSLRS.

This is why we need a real shoot out between the EX and the XF. These picutres are so much better than what Alister posted in his quick test of the XF. And his EX pictures are so much better than what have been floated around here as EX examples.

How should I import these files into Final Cut? There appears to be a "Canon XF Plugin for Final Cut Pro" that is supplied on disk with the camera however I cannot find this plugin online anywhere just a reference to it here Installing and Uninstalling Canon XF Plugin for Final Cut Pro (http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/8200844000.html) The only downloadable software for this camera that I can find is the "Canon XF Plugin for Avid Media Access" Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : XF300 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/camcorders/hd_video_cameras/xf300#DriversAndSoftware)

Nigel,

and therein lies a problem - one cannot import the MXF clips to FCP without the plugin and that needs the file structure from the card to see the clips....

The workaround is Avid to ProRes and then into FCP, but not ideal.

Nick.

and therein lies a problem - one cannot import the MXF clips to FCP without the plugin and that needs the file structure from the card to see the clips....A kind person sent me a copy of the "Canon XF Plugin for Final Cut Pro" but as Nick has pointed out it will not import the .MXF files except from off the card or at least from a file structure that looks like the card. I know that if I am using the "Canon EOS Movie Plugin-E1 for Final Cut Pro" but only have the .MOV files that I can fake it so that the plugin is fooled that there is a card by adding matching .THM files but is there some way of recreating the XF card structure? I am not really concerned with what the XF files are like to edit after conversion to ProRes as I am sure that they are just the same as any other ProRes file. I am more interested in the workflow & time taken to convert to ProRes using the FCP Plugin.

Nigel,

I think I can help with your question regarding the time to import clips native vs. ProRes 422

7 clips
TRT 1:57
50Mbps / 1920x1080 / 30P
Imported driect from CF card via FCP 7.0.2 Log & Transfer

Native (XDCAM 422): :36

ProRes 422: 1:07

So, the conversion to ProRes 422 doubles the time needed to import. It also increases the storage requirements by 270%. In a split screen comparison of both types of clips, there is aboslutly no difference at all in picture quality. You can't even seen the line where the split is occuring. I see no advantagse, and plenty of disadvantages to using ProRes 422.

Really difficult to edit in FCP, EDIUS etc...

That's not what I have experienced. Whether I import them as ProRes 422 or native, the clips are very easy to edit in FCP. I have no complaints at all.

Doug, Nigel,

Firstly, there is no way that I can see to re-create the file structure - I tried! I'm sure there is someone who can crack it, but I did not manage.

ProRes: Yes, space requirements are huge + the transcode is time consuming. My only thought is this (please feel free to correct me) - MPEG2 is a long GOP format, with, I think 15 frames to render for every cut. ProRes is an iFrame codec and it should lessen the processing power required for edit and then rendering.

I'm sure Alister Chapman or Dan Keaton can add far more to this discussion?

Nick.

I've been shooting/editing 100% XDCAM for more that four years now (F350, EX1, EX1R, EX3, F800, NanoFlash), and I have no complaints about working with those files. None. There are no noticable rendering delays or other issues that people fear with Long-GOP.

I've played around with Pro Res just enough to know that it would bring no benefit to my workflow, so why would I put up with huge file sizes and longer ingest times? Plus, I think it's always better to keep transcoding to a minimum. Importing XF files as "native" just puts a different wrapper around them. I'm sure Pro Res has it's place in other workflows, but it's not something I need.

Wonder if the Canon codec is rebranded XDCAM or if there is some significant difference/improvement with Canon's version of 50 mbps Long-GOP 4:2:2 8-bit MPEG-2?

That's not what I have experienced. Whether I import them as ProRes 422 or native, the clips are very easy to edit in FCP. I have no complaints at all.That is very good to hear. Previously I was ingesting DV & HDV tapes & currently am converting Canon 5D Mk II H.264 files to ProRes prior to editing so would really like to find a simpler & faster workflow so ideally I would import & edit the native files.

How do you import the native files to FCP? I have never worked with XDCAM files so have no experience of this workflow but a quick Google throws up an application "MXF Import QT" that appears to do the job but at 399 Euros plus sales tax costs about 50% of the price of the complete Final Cut Studio suite! Must I buy this or is there a cheaper option?

Nigel,

A couple of thoughts. First of all, you will probably still be better off converting the Canon 5D Mk II H.264 to ProRes because that's not XDCAM.

With the Sony XDCAM camcorders, I use Sony's free XDCAM Transfer untility to import the files to my hard drive and the rewrapping to MOV is done automatically. I then just bring those clip directly into a bin in FCP and I'm ready to edit. No other 3rd party sofware or untilties are needed.

With the XF305, I use the Log & Transfer function from within FCP. There is an option that allows you to to tell FCP how you want to import files from the XF305. You can choose from various flavors of ProRes and other options. If you choose "native" and then FCP imports the footage without any transcoding. It just rewraps the files as MOV during the transfer and the ingest is just as fast as a straight file copy would be.

FCP identifies the footage as being XDCAM HD422, exactly the same as clips from the F800/700. I suspect that Canon is using the exact same codec as Sony. Does that mean Canon licensed the technology from Sony like JVC has done? Probably.

Anyway, whether I'm importing Sony XDCAM clips or Canon XF clips, no 3rd party software is needed at any stage of the workflow. You may not have the necessary tools installed on your computer if you have never installed XDCAM Transfer or Canon XF Utility. Once you install one of those, then you might see options you don't see right now. I'm not an expert in this area, and my computer already has both of them installed, so that's just a guess.

Doug, how do you import the video into your editing system? Do you use the camera's USB port (as I've seen in a video demo) or can you just insert the CF card into your computer and directly download from there?
Right now, I use my HPX500 as a download device. There are very few P2 card readers out there, and besides, I'm not gonna leave a $1,000 P2 card with anybody. A CF card, on the other hand, I wouldn't feel too badly about dropping off.

I never use any camera for downloading. It's too much hassle to hook it up, and why put wear and tear on a $6000 - $40,000 camera?

For XDCAM EX, I use a Sony SBAC-US10 reader connected to my Mac tower via USB, or I use the built-in slot in my MacBook Pro if I'm mobile. I also have a PXU-MS240 mobile storage device that I dump all my SxS cards to in the field, and I then can connect to that unit later and off-load the files via USB or eSATA if I've had to re-use any cards.. I can also write files (edited or raw) back to the card with that reader. The reader cost about $250.

For XDCAM optical, I use a PDW-U1 optical drive. It's faster and more convenient than using a camera. Plus I can use the drive for archiving any type of files I want to put on the discs. The drive costs about $2500.

For the XF305, I'm using a cheap $29 Sony 17-in-1 card reader I got at Staples.

In this regard, the Canon camera beats the Sony cameras. When you're comparing the EX3 to the XF305, be sure to factor in about $250 for a SxS card reader.

For the XF305, I'm using a cheap $29 Sony 17-in-1 card reader I got at Staples.

In this regard, the Canon camera beats the Sony cameras. When you're comparing the EX3 to the XF305, be sure to factor in about $250 for a SxS card reader.I can highly recommend the Lexar FW 800 Compact Flash reader which is much faster than using a USB2 reader.

A couple of thoughts. First of all, you will probably still be better off converting the Canon 5D Mk II H.264 to ProRes because that's not XDCAM.I am happy to convert to ProRes for 5DII files or at least it's best option available for them.

FCP identifies the footage as being XDCAM HD422, exactly the same as clips from the F800/700. I suspect that Canon is using the exact same codec as Sony. Does that mean Canon licensed the technology from Sony like JVC has done? Probably.I doubt it for when they announced the XF models Canon made a big song & dance about how good the new CODEC was. I am sure that they wouldn't have done that if it were just licensed from Sony.

Anyway, whether I'm importing Sony XDCAM clips or Canon XF clips, no 3rd party software is needed at any stage of the workflow. You may not have the necessary tools installed on your computer if you have never installed XDCAM Transfer or Canon XF Utility. Once you install one of those, then you might see options you don't see right now. I'm not an expert in this area, and my computer already has both of them installed, so that's just a guess.It's good to hear that editing the native files after they have been rewrapped is OK but I would really like to try this for myself before purchasing. The 5DII files can be edited in FCP & other NLEs but it's really not smooth & easy & it is always preferable to convert to a better CODEC for editing (ProRes for Mac or Cineform for Windows) despite the claims of Adobe & over enthusiastic users of EDIUS or AVID. I really would like to see for myself that taking native files from the XF300/305 it really is as smooth scrubbing along the timeline as it is for the files after they have been converted to ProRes.

If the rewrapping is such a quick & simple operation it's surprising that there is no other simple utility that can achieve the same result.

I can highly recommend the Lexar FW 800 Compact Flash reader which is much faster than using a USB2 reader.

Yes, I already have one of those on order. It's supposed to arrive Wednesday. Thanks for the tip anyway.

I doubt it for when they announced the XF models Canon made a big song & dance about how good the new CODEC was. I am sure that they wouldn't have done that if it were just licensed from Sony..

Are you sure the song and dance wasn't about how much better the 50Mbps codec of the XF305 is compared to the 35Mbps codec of the EX1/3? I'll wait until I hear something official from Sony or Canon about the codec, because according to the properties I see in FCP, they seem to be exctly the same. And besides that, any slight differences, if there are any, would seem to be irrelevant if FCP sees them as being the same.

Also, scrubbing through native XF clips on a timeline is just as smooth as ProRes and could not be better. It would be impossible for you to tell the difference in a double-blind test. You'll see for yourself when you have the chance to test it.

I'm sure someone could write a stand-alone re-wrapping utility, but why would they waste their time? Who would buy it? There are many other advantages to using Log & Transfer (for XF) or XDCAM Transfer (for XDCAM) that you'd lose if all you did was rewrap the files.

It would be a little embarrassing for Canon to make these wonderful claims for their new CODEC if their new "Canon MPEG-2 codec" turns out to be merely the "Sony MPEG-2 codec" with a Canon badge

Canon Professional Network - Canon adopts MPEG-2 codec for future file-based professional camcorder (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/mpeg2_codec.do)
Canon Professional Network - Inside the XF305 and XF300 camcorders: examining the technology and its benefits (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/canon_xf305_xf300.do)
Canon Digital Learning Center - Introducing the XF305 and XF300: Canon's New Pro Camcorders (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3407)

The Canon XF 422 CODEC does have very similar specifications to XDCAM HD422 as used in the Sony PDW-700.

Of course on reflection a simple rewrapping utility for the Canon .MXF files is only of use to someone like myself who doesn't have access to an XF camera & wants to try editing the files in FCP so there is little likelihood that anyone would write such a utility.

Just a thought but if one were to Log & Transfer an XF clip into FCP & then use Media Manager to create a copy of the project then wouldn't it be the rewrapped file that got saved?

Nigel, thanks for the links.

I do see this quote" The use of 4:2:2 colour sampling in the new Canon codec offers higher vertical colour resolution, which significantly improves the quality of changes made in post-production."
So maybe it is different than XDCAM HD422, but I'm still skeptical. How different? One tiny byte of information in the headers or something? :-)

Yes, if you used Media Manager to backup a project, it is the rewrapped version of the file that would be copied. Nothing wrong with that.

FYI, I keep a seperate achive of the native XF files, same as I keep a seperate archive of my native XDCAM files. It's an easy workflow and no big deal at all. There are many reasons to keep the native files that I won't go into here.

In this video from the NAB, Tim Smith of Canon specifically refers to the XF300/305's codec (at 1:08 in the video) as "we're using a whole brand new codec that was developed specifically for this camera by Canon, which is a 50mb compression, 4:2:2, full 1920x1080 image."
Since Tim is a spokesperson for Canon, I have to go by what he said.

YouTube - ‪All about the new Canon XF300 and XF305 HD 4:2:2 cameras @ NAB‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ZriWPQW3s)

Thanks, Glen. That's good enough for me. If Canon says they are using a new codec then it must be different than XDCAM HD422 even if FCP tags it as being the same. I wonder how different it is?

It would be a little embarrassing for Canon to make these wonderful claims for their new CODEC if their new "Canon MPEG-2 codec" turns out to be merely the "Sony MPEG-2 codec" with a Canon badge

It sure seems strange that I can open, play, import, create sublips, and read a lot of metada from Canon's native clips in Sony's XDCAM Transfer program. Just how different is that Canon codec, anyway? I think its just the Sony codec with a Canon paint job.

XDCAM Transfer identifes the codec as: Apple XDCAM HD422 1030p30 (50 Mb/s CBR)

That's exactly the same way Sony files are tagged.

PS. Quicktime player says the same thing.

I think a bit too much is being read into this. Codec specifications only really specify DECODER specs, not coder. As long as the bitstream can be decoded as expected, it doesn't matter exactly how the coding is carried out.

Hence the hardware of Canon and Sony coders are unlikely to be exactly the same. But their outputs are likely to seem the same to any decoder.

MPEG2 technology should be mature enough that both the coders do a pretty similar job.

It sure seems strange that I can open, play, import, create sublips, and read a lot of metada from Canon's native clips in Sony's XDCAM Transfer program. Just how different is that Canon codec, anyway? I think its just the Sony codec with a Canon paint job.

XDCAM Transfer identifes the codec as: Apple XDCAM HD422 1030p30 (50 Mb/s CBR)

That's exactly the same way Sony files are tagged.

PS. Quicktime player says the same thing.

Soooo......

Is this perhaps why the BBC accepted the XF so quickly? Maybe they knew the codec was robust because it's very similar to the Sony F800's codec? Just a thought.

Ivan,

Thanks for the clips.
I borrowed them to test it for Avid's workflow.
One word - fast import!

Here's a quick edit

I can highly recommend the Lexar FW 800 Compact Flash reader which is much faster than using a USB2 reader.

I'm not sure why a firewire flash reader is faster. I want to believe though! Can somebody explain this to me before I spend another $78 dollars on something I don't need?

Isn't it all ultimately limited by the speed of the CF card? My CF cards read/write at 90 MB/s. Sure firewire 800 gives you 800 MB/second and a high speed USB gives you up to 480 MB/second but who needs that bandwidth when you can write/read at only 90 MB/s.

This has all recently been reenforced to me in experience. When I download a full 32 Mb card using a USB stick, it is taking about 12 minutes. Then I was on a shoot with somebody who had a firewire reader and full cards still took about 12 minutes. This wasn't a scientific experiment, perhaps one card wasn't entirely full or and we were downloading on different macs to different hard drives, etc, maybe there was a problem with his macbook's bus compared to my imac's bus -- who knows? Am I completely confused about all this?

Now if there was a firewire reader that could read all three cards at the same time....count me in!

Beyond that...thank you all who posted in this and similar threads about the Canon CF300/305...I recently bought one based, in part, upon the endorsements here and I used it this week to shoot at a convention event. It was extremely fun to use, the focus and lens in particular was easy to handle. The auto focus was fantastic except in low light. Thanks!

Eric.

I can't tell you WHY Firewire is faster, all I can say is that there is no doubt it is faster.
One of the things I cover in my 3.5 hour XF305/300 training DVD that I just finished this week is speed comparisons of various ingest methods and workflows. The Firwire reader I recommend is 2.6x faster than the camera and 1.8x faster than the fastest USB drive that I tested. Isn't that worth $75? I sure think it is!
In fact, the Firewire reader is 7.6x faster than real time even with 50Mpbs footage.

Agree with you Doug. FireWire 400 is faster than USB2, FW800 is super fast. I do not have card (or XF camera) to hand, but a full 32Gb card is around a 15min download from memory?

Nick.

I can ingest a 16GB Hoodman card in just a little over 5 minutes.

Isn't it all ultimately limited by the speed of the CF card? My CF cards read/write at 90 MB/s. Sure firewire 800 gives you 800 MB/second and a high speed USB gives you up to 480 MB/second but who needs that bandwidth when you can write/read at only 90 MB/s.
I know this is a few months old, but wanted to make explain that firewire and USB are specified in Mbs, that is bits per seconds. And the 90MBs of the card is in bytes per second. Normaly the lower case letter b stands for bits, the uppercase letter B stands for bytes.

So 800Mbs (bits) is about 80MByte/s and 480Mbs for the USB is about 48 MByte/s. Which clearly explains why the firewire card reader can read the 90MB/s card faster. Please note that I use a factor 10, as often two extra bits are used for error checking.