I think my subject line says it all! I'm coming across strong opposition from production managers and producers who don't want to use the XF305 as the post route isn't a simple one. I know people at Canon watch and read this site. We really need them to release the XF Plugin utility software as a free download. IMHO it's the main drawback of this camera. If they can't release there own plug in software that comes with the camera please can they get somebody to build a bit of 3rd party software that will work with it.
If you agree please make this sticky add your comments and hopefully somebody at Canon will listen to us.

I agree. They are hurting their loyal base and their own pocketbooks.

What does Canon expect editors to do when they don't have the Utility disc?
I shot 2 jobs and handed the cards over to my clients. They were having editing issues and I had to drive across town to give them the utility disc for their computers before they could edit.
What would happen if the cards were erased and the editor does not have the Utility Disc? Will they have problems with missing files?
Everyone should become aware of the potential workflow problems with the XF series. My understanding is that you need the Utility files to work with the footage but not every editor can wait for the cameraman to drop off the disc. Sometimes, there are deadlines and forcing other editors to try to figure out Canon's editing issues is not very productive.
The solution is a downloadable file on Canon's site for people who want to edit the footage. Otherwise this XF camera series is doomed as a production camera.

Would copying the Utility Disk files to a USB flashdrive work?
You can purchase good 8GB USB flash drives for US $15. They are small and can easily be carried with you.

Everyone should become aware of the potential workflow problems with the XF series.

In my opinion there are several problems with the XF-workflow.

Off course XF-Utility and FC-Plug-In has to be available for everybody.

But also Canon has to fix the XF-Utility-Bugs quite soon. I have lot of problems with this so called utility and I´m not the only one.

regards,

Reinhard

Hi,

I'm considering a Canon XF (in my case 100 or 105) to supplement my Sony EX3 and Canon 7D. Now you've got me concerned...

I have nothing but a 99.9% rock solid, pleasurable and reliable workflow with the EX and FCP using the Sony utilities, XDCAM Transfer and XDCAM Clip Browser (I'm NOT using the new Sony Browser v1.0 software as that has issues as covered elsewhere on here).

Would you care to tell me (and us) more about the problems with the Canon XF Utility? (or point me to where I can read about them as I've missed this whilst I've been researching my potential purchase of an XF.

Many thanks!

Andy,

I go into quite a bit of detail about the problems of XF Utility 1.0 in my XF305/300 training DVD (Mastering the Canon XF305/300 Camcorders training DVD (http://www.vortexmedia.com/DVD_XF305.html)) and it is too complex to repeat here. However, since you are familiar with the SxS workflow, just let me say that you cannot backup, move, restore, and manage Canon's equivalent of Sony's BPAV folder with the same ease. In fact, if you edit with FCP, it is almost impossible to properly backup raw files before they have been converted to MOV. If someone doesn't care about backing up the original files, or offloading cards in the field. then the workflow isn't too bad. I sugggest some workarounds in my DVD, but they aren't ideal and require extra steps that shouldn't even be necessary.

Canon copied a lot of things from Sony when they built the XF305/300, but they sure missed the mark on the software. But since Sony is going backwards and ruining their workflow with the latest browser software, both companies get thumbs down from me right now. I don't think anyone at either company actually uses this stuff or things would be different.

Thanks Doug. Diamond post (as always!) This sounds like a real problem, especially for someone like me who edits in FCP on Macs and Vegas on PCs. I need the unadulterated "Raw Masters" for flexibility in workflow and backups for future use/disaster recovery etc. BPAVs in the Sony workflow are just fine for my needs - perfect in fact.

This sounds like Canon need to address this critical oversight with some speed. I may well put my planned XF100/105 purchase early next year on hold now - or go a different non-Canon route.

Andy,
...just let me say that you cannot backup, move, restore, and manage Canon's equivalent of Sony's BPAV folder with the same ease.


???
I just use MS Windows Explorer to copy the folders from the CF cards to my main drive.
Then I copy the folder to backup drives.
Then I delete the folder(s) from the mounted CF card.
Then I start working with them on my main hard drive.

I've just backed-up, moved and managed my folders. Seemed trivially easy to me, and the same I would handle data on any Flash card.

Is Apple that much harder? Ouch.

Hi Brett,

thats not the point. Of course I also can copy, delete or backup MXF-Files with Apples Finder.
But then I´m loosing all metadatas.

To keep them you have to use XF-Utility. But unfortunatelly XF-Utility causes different problems. For example it changes file-numbers without prompting (and reason) and the program is not able to handle (reorganzie) files that have been copied without XF-Utility. Not nice.

kind regards,

Reinhard

Brett,

As Reinhard has said, when you move things around with the Finder then you lose the ability to preview clips in XF Utility, organize the clips, view their metadata, and do many other things with the footage. If those things aren't important to someone, then there's really no need to even have XF Utility at all. But those things are very important to me and a lot of people who want to preserve our original clip files before they have been converted to MOV. Why? For several reasons, but mostly because after the conversion, you have lost almost all the metadata and sharing footage with non-FCP editors is much more difficult.

Because of the shortcomings of XF Utility, it's also very difficult to offload cards in the field to a laptop or Nexto and then use XF Utility with them later. So if you don't have enough cards to get through a day's worth of shooting, then you have pretty much eliminated any chance of using XF Utility to preview your clips.

Apparently Canon thought that previewing clips, reading metadata, etc. was important enough to try to build a utility program to do them, but then they didn't finish the job and left us with a half-assed program that doesn't work like it should.

Anyway, my remarks were directed to Andy or anyone who has experience with the XDCAM workflow. Most people I talk to who have experience with XDCAM/FCP are surprised when the find out they can't do the sames things they can do with XDCAM.

I've just backed-up, moved and managed my folders. Seemed trivially easy to me, and the same I would handle data on any Flash card..

Brett,

I'm curious to know if after you have used Explorer to move your clips around into different folders etc. on your PC., can you still open them with the Windows version of XF Utility and view all the metadata, organize them, playback the clips in the preview window, etc.?
What if those clips are on an external hard drive, can you take that drive to another PC and still use XF Utility?

Brett,
Anyway, my remarks were directed to Andy or anyone who has experience with the XDCAM workflow. Most people I talk to who have experience with XDCAM/FCP are surprised when the find out they can't do the sames things they can do with XDCAM.

Too right I was! I've been using XDCAM EX workflow for over 2 years now and I absolutely love it but, because I have some big well know clients (and even if I did n't) I need to be able to create multiple back-ups of my raw clips, sometimes in the field too. I never want to be in a situation where I have to break the news to a client, big or small, that I can't complete his project due to any "technical issue".

This is why I have duplicate and even triple redundancy in my workflows and back-up procedures. I also demand FULL future flexibility in how I (or indeed anyone else) with either Mac or PC workflow, or both, can use "my precious raw clips" - what professional in this game would not!

To also learn that the XF utility "randomly changes file numbers" without prompting or reason is a real, real concern, especially if I ever had to rebuild a project due to, say, a failed HDD, RAID0 etc. What a nightmare that could become.

Canon, if your listening, you may have just lost a potential customer - until I'm convinced this XF Utlity is high on your agenda to get sorted.

QUOTE: . . . the XF utility "randomly changes file numbers"

I don't know where you heard that, but I don't want anyone thinking that is attributable to me.
XF Utility has many problem but I am not aware of that one.

From Reinhard, in his post number 10 above Doug. I don't have an XF or the Utility so I can only go on what I learn on forums like this from those using the tools Canon have created for the XF workflow. If this is a one off, OK, but if others have had this issue I remain very skeptical that the XF workflow is right (and fool proof enough) for me, my clients and my business.

Hi Brett,

thats not the point. Of course I also can copy, delete or backup MXF-Files with Apples Finder.
But then I´m loosing all metadatas.

To keep them you have to use XF-Utility. But unfortunatelly XF-Utility causes different problems. For example it changes file-numbers without prompting (and reason) and the program is not able to handle (reorganzie) files that have been copied without XF-Utility. Not nice.

kind regards,

Reinhard

Wow, maybe I'm missing the boat on some features but I don't use the XF utility. My workflow seems much simpler....

1) shoot video
2) dump cards to my Nexto 2700
3) dump Nexto to customer/project folders on my FCP system which nightly goes to my time machine
4) use L&T to transcode to prores which live on a different drive from project (wipe Nexto and cards for next shoot)
5) edit and send final to client
6) dump prores files and backup client folder which has raw camera folders and project files to my raid system

I used the same system when I had my hmc150 and it's caused no issues even with some clients needing to be revisited months later.

I seem to be in a pool of production people who all use FCP and the utility is a non-issue with all of us.

I do 1-3 shoots a week on average and can't imagine what the utility would add (other than the headaches mentioned)

Just because the included utility isnt great certainly wouldn't make me pass up a camera, especially the 300/305 which is an amazing piece.

Where is the metadata hiding away that it doesn't get copied over? If the XF Utility requires the full file structure on the Compact Flash card isn't the simple answer just to make a disk image of the card using Disk Utility? Then the .DMG file can be copied & duplicated to your hearts content for backup purposes.

Nigel,
No. XF Utiitly won't be able to see the clips in the example you describe. There is no way to navigate into the contents of a hard drive and find the clips manually. If the clips are not located in a folder called CONTENTS, that is located in the root directly of the drive/card/disc, then XF Utility will never see them. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. If you don't have the means to try it yourself, then please take my word for it.

Robert,
If your workflow works for you , that's great. Keep doing exactly what you're doing. But it does not work for those people who (like myself) who prefer to keep a copy of their original MXF files -- for the reasons I have already explained in previous posts. As I have already said, if all you care about archiving is the converted MOV copy of the clps, then you don't need XF Utility at all.

XF Utility does not work like it should. Period. Canon has acknowledged to me privately that they have a problem and that they intend to fix it sometime in the next few months.

QUOTE: . . . the XF utility "randomly changes file numbers"

I don't know where you heard that, but I don't want anyone thinking that is attributable to me.
XF Utility has many problem but I am not aware of that one.

Hi together,

in fact, XF Utility has changed for several times the original numbers of the CF-Card after copying files to my hard-Disk. I tried it again and again, it was always the same mistake.

By the way: we shot around 30 hours for a documentary. I really love the pictures of this small 1/3"-camera but the workflow is terrible. Why does Canon hide the files behind long "trees", why is it not possible to view clips that not have been copied with XF Utility? And last but not least: Why is it not possible to view clips that have been stored on location with my macbook later on in the editing room with my power mac (which also has XF-Utility installed)?

Nigel,
No. XF Utiitly won't be able to see the clips in the example you describe. There is no way to navigate into the contents of a hard drive and find the clips manually. If the clips are not located in a folder called CONTENTS, that is located in the root directly of the drive/card/disc, then XF Utility will never see them. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. If you don't have the means to try it yourself, then please take my word for it.Doug, I will have to take you word for it for as per the subject of this thread as I don't (yet) own an XF300 I do not have the utility or any cards to test.

I just find it difficult to understand in OS X terms why the XF utility wouldn't work with a disk image of the card. In every other case that I have come across in OS X you can clone a disk to an image & then mount that image & use it as though it were the original disk. OS X doesn't see any difference. If there is something weird about the XF utility that it demands a real Compact Flash card then I suppose that one answer is to clone the archived disk image back to a card if you need to access it again with the XF Utility. Unless the XF Utility requires that the cards are still in the camera? If they can be read from a card reader then I cannot see why creating a .DMG file from the disk wouldn't work just the same. Has anyone tried this?

Why does Canon hide the files behind long "trees"Huh? They're using a standard MXF file structure. Have you ever seen the contents of a Panasonic P2 card? Or AVCHD? This is *file based* recording. There's nothing strange about Canon's implementation of MXF relative to other manufacturers.

why is it not possible to view clips that not have been copied with XF Utility?I copy and view XF clips all the time and I don't have XF Utility. I use Sony's excellent XDCAM Viewer (which is free). However, I am using a PC for this purpose, so I can't speak for the Mac experience. I will say however that I firmly believe that working videographers should seriously consider being cross-platform, both Mac and PC.

If they can be read from a card reader then I cannot see why creating a .DMG file from the disk wouldn't work just the same. Has anyone tried this?

Hi Nigel - you are of course right. I came across and Canon XF Card for the first time the other day that wouldn't load when copied to disk - and making a Disk Image was the first thing I tried, and it worked absolutely fine.

However, it is a slow process - that may be because of the card reader I was using though. I was making a Disk Image remains in my opinion the most logical solution for troubleshooting any card related problems on an OSX system.

Canon release XF Utility 1.1 Updater: Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : XF300 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders/xf300#DriversAndSoftware)

Hi Nigel - you are of course right. I came across and Canon XF Card for the first time the other day that wouldn't load when copied to disk - and making a Disk Image was the first thing I tried, and it worked absolutely fine.

However, it is a slow process - that may be because of the card reader I was using though. I was making a Disk Image remains in my opinion the most logical solution for troubleshooting any card related problems on an OSX system.Craig, thank you for confirming that OS X still works in the way that it always has done with regard to disk images. As I said in my earlier post reading the card & creating a .DMG disk image file is the obvious answer for offloading cards in the filed & backup generally.

A FW800 Compact Flash reader is very much faster than a USB one when reading the cards.

I disagree that creating disc images is a viable workaround to the problem. It takes too long, it involves too many extra steps, and is generally a big hassle. I have other workarounds that are already easier than that.

Fortunately, we don't need to debate it anymore because the new XF Utility v1.1.0 update solves the problem and makes the program operate like it should have in the first place. I've tried the update patch and I'm happy to report that it solves the all the issues i didn't like. It may not address other people's complaints, but I'm satisfied.

Ivan, thanks for bringing the update to our attention. I've been in contact with Canon several times via email and telephone over the last few months about this problem and was expecting them to let me know when the update was available. So far, not a word from them, which actually does not surprise me all that much.

In case anyone is interested from a PC point of view the XF mxf files come straight into Sony Vegas with all metadata intact where they can be edited natively quickly and smoothly. No time wasting transcoding required. Can be archived off in their native form with all metadata intact. As Chris H points out Sony's XDCam viewer works fine with them. I have no issues with XF files at all.

With well over 400 TV shows edited on Vegas now using XDCam mxf files I am finding it to be the most stable and user friendly mxf editor out there. Great to see Canon now using the same 422 50-mbit codec like the big XDCams. Just wish the EX range did the same. Have never used the Canon utility and can't see any reason why I would so can't comment on it.

As an aside Vegas with the Blackmagic Decklink Extreme HD card can capture realtime to 50-mbit 422 mxf on the fly from any HD-SDI source. A 100% mxf workflow makes for a very simple fast eficient workflow when pushing out weekly shows with deadlines to meet.

Good to hear that Christopher, since I am contemplating the XF105 for use with Vegas Pro 10...

Canon release XF Utility 1.1 Updater: Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : XF300 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders/xf300#DriversAndSoftware)

Hi, just returning to this thread after a few days away filming.

1. Anyone care to comment from direct experience on what this new version of the XF Utility brings to this discussion?
2. Also, would I be able to use Sony's XDCAM Clip Viewer (Browser?) to view XF 100/105 clips easily on my Mac Pro and MBP? (see Chris H's post earlier about viewing XF300/305 clips with the Sony XDCAM Clip Viewer, all working well on PCs - so at least I know I should be OK with Vegas on my 64-Bit i7 Windows 7 box)....but what about Macs?

Thank you in advance.

Andy,

To answer your questions:

1) See my post #25 above. I am happy with the latest update to XF Utility.

2) No. Maybe on a PC, but not on Mac. I don't see any way you can use any of Sony's three browser programs to easily view native XF files without drilling all the way down into the contents of the card to look at only one clip at a time. Just like XDCAM, every clip is buried within it's own folder, and the Sony software doesn't know how to grab all the clips on an XF card and display them all at once like can be done with SxS cards. Why bother anyway even if you could? Now that XF Utility has been fixed there's nothing to be gained by using the Sony software. XF Utility provides tons of features for XF clips that won't be available if you use Sony's software. Use Sony for Sony and Canon for Canon.

Canon release XF Utility 1.1 Updater: Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : XF300 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders/xf300#DriversAndSoftware)


I have downloaded this and continue to open in OS 10 and it keeps me on a wild goose chase. It does not give me any installer, but just keeps archiving and unarchiving itself.

Thanks Doug, missed that post whilst trying to catch up. Doh!

Bill,
I had no problems installing it on two Macs running OS 10.6.5

I have downloaded this and continue to open in OS 10 and it keeps me on a wild goose chase. It does not give me any installer, but just keeps archiving and unarchiving itself.

Bill,
I had no problems installing it on two Macs running OS 10.6.5

What I discovered was that I had to remove the .gz from the uncompressed file. Then all worked fine.

Hi

This might be completely wrong but is this the software you are looking for? Found it today when I looked for manuals for the XF100/XF300 camcorder.

XF Utilities for WIN (http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0039083.asp?model=)

Also a MAC version

http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0039068.asp?model=

Regards,

/Bo

Bo, that's just the User Manual PDF. Canon posts software updates (that require the original software to be already installed on the system) and documents such as the user manual and brochures, but typically does not make the original software available for download on their website. Same on the US site for every Canon camera that I have owned.

IMO, Canon ought to, at the very least, create a quick, simple, no-charge service for registered owners to download a copy of the original software that is part of the professional camera package they have purchased. For example, the online Canon Store already has the infrastructure to handle this.