or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jlandd

Oy vey.
   Respectfully, drblank, again you are missing the jist of the issue, and in the process not getting the information right.  I hate adding this in, because it doesn't add much, but I've been making my living as a recording engineer for 30 years and have gone through enough converters and the rest to fill a closet, and I'm well versed in the subject.  It is NOT my contention that "ALL 16 bit converters A/D and D/A and all 24 bit converters regardless of sample rate all...
 I didn't imply that. You've misinterpreted something.  I said that when you're only dealing with levels in the upper part of the range there is no advantage to 24 bit, especially as a delivery to consumer medium, because the extra bits only come into play in the lower realm of the range.  A/D or D/A it doesn't matter.  If the signal never drops to the range where it makes a difference then there's no advantage to it.  More bits, as a format, is all about increased...
   That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats.  If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.   And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback.  Even if it's not actually remastered...
 Wrote a reply and then saw that Lorin Schultz responded perfectly.  Agree 100%.  Yep.  If you've got content there, it will hold useful info.  If not it won't.  Though I think saying there's almost nothing above 10k is probably the coffee talking   :  )   Valuable content between 10 and 20k.  This is the whole bit discussion in a nutshell.  Original recording should be at the highest bit rate currently available.  But once you've summed the tracks to a mixed piece of...
   Because you're using a completely flawed use of the chart to make your point.  First of all, the chart Aperture is #5 on is for the top grossing apps, not the most downloaded or used, where it's actually #16, so that's your figure.  The image editor Acorn is the #1 purchased app of all according to the App Store charts and no one could use that fact to argue that Acorn is the #1 most used Mac program and especially that it is therefore a major presence in the world of...
Wasn't commenting on the value or quality or pros or cons of either program.   Plenty of photographers (including myself) do pro work with Aperture.    But LR's presence in the pro community, where nearly everyone who has LR also has their $80 download of Aperture, has always been higher, and over the past few years Aperture's share among them has decreased.   It's just the way it is.  
 
 PhilBoogie, there isn't a migration tool.  Aperture Versions can't be imported into LR.  Moving a library over means doing the same adjustments over again, which has its upside. because, although if you've got huge amounts of images it's ridiculous to redo them all, I always find that taking a second crack later at images that are important to me often yields worthwhile improvements.   Redoing brushwork is a PITA, but otherwise making the same global changes isn't that...
I agree with defraserii, Mel, igamogam, et al regarding Aperture.  As far as LR's interface it's really the issue of moving away from a UI/paradigm that one has used since the start.  LR seems really awful until you decide you simply must get on with it, and then anything is possible.  I've owned it for a year and barely cracked it because I far prefer the Aperture way I've been working for so long that I haven't gotten up to speed on it, so whenever getting a lot done in...
New Posts  All Forums: