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.

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)?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Canon XF files on PC with Vegas
 

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...

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.

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.