or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces Aperture - Page 5

post #161 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazyMacCrazy
I've never used film (well a little at college) and love the look of this integrated solution - I usually cataliPhoton iPhoto and photoshopphotoshopmade in photshop can be added to the stacks etc. automatically -photshopAperture does support PSD. I can't wait to buy this program - now to find the money!

I don't see how Aperture could know what sort of edits you have done while in Photoshop (it can tell that it is modified, but not in what way) so it wouldn't be able to apply them to multiple images. You would have to bring the whole stack into Photoshop and then do some sort of group apply there.

Another thing I just thought of: Using Photoshop from Aperture would ruin the process of CoreData, since Aperture does not know the mechanism by CoreDataotoshop is editing the picture, Aperture must make a copy of the image so as not to ruin the master.
post #162 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
I don't see how Aperture could know what sort of edits you have done while in Photoshop (it can tell that it is modified, but not in what way) so it wouldn't be able to apply them to multiple images. You would have to bring the whole stack into Photoshop and then do some sort of group apply there.

I just thought it could automatically add a version of the photo - not necessarily tell you what you did. For example you would right click on the image - edit in photoshop, do the edit and save and it would automatically save as part of aperture. This kind of integration is unlikely.
post #163 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Do you think that this was intended to appeal to guys who likely don't earn more than three or four times that, because most don't.

I think you're being just a tad bit ridiculous.

Does FCP run best on dual 30" monitors and a quad PowerMac? Does Motion? Will Aperture?

Yes, yes, and yes. Of course.

Will FCP, Motion, and Aperture run less than perfect on lesser Macs. Of course. Does it matter to some people? Yes. Does it matter to others? No. Heck, a few posts above this, MacCrazy said that Motion ran "fine" (for him) on his PowerBook. Will some people find that Aperture runs "good enough" on their PowerBooks? Of course they will! Will it be perfect? No.

I mean, does every photographer have a 12 megapixel pro camera? Are 6 megappixel cameras good enough, if your income isn't astronomical? Yes, they are. Why is computer hardware any different?

Everyone makes compromises, and successful people make a balance between cost and performance. Nothing new here.
post #164 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
I don't see how Aperture could know what sort of edits you have done while in Photoshop (it can tell that it is modified, but not in what way) so it wouldn't be able to apply them to multiple images. You would have to bring the whole stack into Photoshop and then do some sort of group apply there.

Another thing I just thought of: Using Photoshop from Aperture would ruin the process of CoreData, since Aperture does not know the mechanism by CoreDataotoshop is editing the picture, Aperture must make a copy of the image so as not to ruin the master.

While PS doesn't, at this time, use Core anything, it does do non destructive editing. Eithe use layers or simply hit "copy" and work from that.

I don't know why you would want to go from PS to Aperture. It would be the other way around.
post #165 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know why you would want to go from PS to Aperture. It would be the other way around.

It would be round trip: Tweak your raw file in Aperture, and if you need to make pixel-level adjustments, then open it in Photoshop and do your thing. When you're done, it gets reimported to Aperture. At this point it's not clear if it would considered the same image or a new image.

In any case your Photoshopped image could now be "louped", stacked, "light-tabled", printed, exported to books, etc. All the stuff that Aperture is good at.

Photoshop becomes just an editor. Aperture is the "Finder" for photographs--it's where they're stored and organized.
post #166 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
It would be round trip: Tweak your raw file in Aperture, and if you need to make pixel-level adjustments, then open it in Photoshop and do your thing. When you're done, it gets reimported to Aperture. At this point it's not clear if it would considered the same image or a new image.

In any case your Photoshopped image could now be "louped", stacked, "light-tabled", printed, exported to books, etc. All the stuff that Aperture is good at.

Photoshop becomes just an editor. Aperture is the "Finder" for photographs--it's where they're stored and organized.

Yes, yes and yes!
post #167 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
I think you're being just a tad bit ridiculous.

Does FCP run best on dual 30" monitors and a quad PowerMac? Does Motion? Will Aperture?

Yes, yes, and yes. Of course.

Will FCP, Motion, and Aperture run less than perfect on lesser Macs. Of course. Does it matter to some people? Yes. Does it matter to others? No. Heck, a few posts above this, MacCrazy said that Motion ran "fine" (for him) on his PowerBook. Will some people find that Aperture runs "good enough" on their PowerBooks? Of course they will! Will it be perfect? No.

I mean, does every photographer have a 12 megapixel pro camera? Are 6 megappixel cameras good enough, if your income isn't astronomical? Yes, they are. Why is computer hardware any different?

Everyone makes compromises, and successful people make a balance between cost and performance. Nothing new here.

You're missing the point. Some programs will run acceptably even if slowly if the user isn't using functions in the program that will stress their machine. You might think that Motion is one of them. Have you used it?

But admittedly there are different levels to everything. Someone who is not a full time pro and uses, let's say, Motion on a less rigorous schelule, might find it to be satisfactory, even if it is a bit slow.

But some programs have an interface that IS the program. Aperture is one of those. If the interface is slow, then the entire program becomes difficult to use. Apple was moving images around on the desktop as though they were real pieces of film. Swish, swish, swish. The magnifier, which everyone loved so much is very much cpu dependent. They admitted that. They were sliding it around like a real magnifier. In real time. On a Quad. On the duals, it was slower. How will that work on a single 1.25GHz PB? They didn't give us the opportunity to find out.

Isn't that strange?

I go to all the shows in the NE, at least, and I've never seen a program that wasn't only being marketed to high end users being demo'd on nothing but high end machines. Companies go out of their way to show that their programs can be used on less than state of the art equipment.

Believe me, I wasn't the only there asking these questions.
post #168 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Believe me, I wasn't the only there asking these questions.

This is why I'm going to try out the software first on one of the PowerBooks in store!
post #169 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
It would be round trip: Tweak your raw file in Aperture, and if you need to make pixel-level adjustments, then open it in Photoshop and do your thing. When you're done, it gets reimported to Aperture. At this point it's not clear if it would considered the same image or a new image.

In any case your Photoshopped image could now be "louped", stacked, "light-tabled", printed, exported to books, etc. All the stuff that Aperture is good at.

Photoshop becomes just an editor. Aperture is the "Finder" for photographs--it's where they're stored and organized.

Yes, I suppose you can. Apple was very much stressing the other direction. It seemed as though handling of PSD's was not as smoothly done as RAW files.

Also, remember that it doesn't really handle PS files well. Only flattened ones. You would have to go back to the original layered file in PS, then re-import it into Aperture again if you would want to make a change.
post #170 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
This is why I'm going to try out the software first on one of the PowerBooks in store!

Let me tell you that I'm hoping this program does well. Don't get me wrong here.

After having used this, I can see it actually helping PS on the Mac. Apple's share of the PS market has fallen to 27% of the total. This is not good at all.

It has to be understood what is happening here.

Apple's advantage over the PC market has been in file handling and organization. In this area, XP falls short. It has always been so. even before.

This has been a major reason why the publishing industry has been partial to Macs.

But, starting with CS and now more so with CS2, Adobe has been countering that advantage. Both Bridge and Version Cue have not only given our PC brethren the same abilities that OS X has, but it's gone much further. The talk in the industry about this is not insignificant.

I believe very strongly that Aperture is Apple's response to that. Apple is trying to say that what Adobe did is good but we can do it much better.

So, as an adjunct to PS this is good. As a replacement it's not.

If this can keep people from moving over to the PC while using CS2, then Apple will have done it's job well.

If not, then this will not help.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
post #171 of 538
You have identified my fear as well - Abobe cannot move away from the Mac - this would be dreadful for me and as well as Apple. I would be forced, along with many, to switch. Apple have to stop with photos what's already happened with CAD.
post #172 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Perhaps then, you should filter everyone's posts through your spell checker before you read them.

Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
As a long as a post is coherent there's no need to criticise [sic] grammar.

Placing the burden of comprehension on the reader is the very definition of bad writing.

Look, typos are understandable, this is an online forum and we all make mistakes. But what I'm talking about is this inexplicable scourge of apostrophe misuse that would literally flunk out any second grader. "Camera's"? "One's"? Can somebody please explain to me why everyone suddenly does this, even otherwise obviously educated people? This is *NOT* hitting the wrong key with your pinky by mistake. This is randomly inserting punctuation characters into plain English words. Do you spell cats "cat&s"?

Sorry for the off topic rant, but I'm honestly trying to help, as so many of you obviously think this is acceptable in everyday discourse. God help you filling out a job application or submitting a report to your boss. Seriously, how bad does it have to get before it's appropriate to point it out as it occurs? Use of the Greek alphabet?
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #173 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Placing the burden of comprehension on the reader is the very definition of bad writing.

Look, typos are understandable, this is an online forum and we all make mistakes. But what I'm talking about is this inexplicable scourge of apostrophe misuse that would literally flunk out any second grader. "Camera's"? "One's"? Can somebody please explain to me why everyone suddenly does this, even otherwise obviously educated people? This is *NOT* hitting the wrong key with your pinky by mistake. This is randomly inserting punctuation characters into plain English words. Do you spell cats "cat&s"?

Sorry for the off topic rant, but I'm honestly trying to help, as so many of you obviously think this is acceptable in everyday discourse. God help you filling out a job application or submitting a report to your boss. Seriously, how bad does it have to get before it's appropriate to point it out as it occurs? Use of the Greek alphabet?

It really is off topic.

I know that I try to check my posts, but sometimes I might slip something in that I don't intend. Usually I catch it, but sometimes I don't.

Some of us are more guilty than others. Commas and apostrophes tend to slip into many people's writing. If you have a problem understanding a post because of that, I am incredulous!
post #174 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Yes, yes and yes!

Yeah, Aperture is a really comprehensive way of dealing with photographs, isn't it? I can't wait 'til it's released.
post #175 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Placing the burden of comprehension on the reader is the very definition of bad writing.

For fuck's sake stop being pompous. I was saying that as long as the reader can understand the post it's ok. Obviously the poster will understand it - he's written it. If you can't understand what someone's written, politely ask them to rephrase. Criticising peoples use of apostrophes is pedantic and arrogant. It is not wanted on this forum.
post #176 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yeah, Aperture is a really comprehensive way of dealing with photographs, isn't it? I can't wait 'til it's released.

Are you mocking me I keep on saying I can't wait don't I!
post #177 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But admittedly there are different levels to everything. Someone who is not a full time pro and uses, let's say, Motion on a less rigorous schelule, might find it to be satisfactory, even if it is a bit slow.

I don't understand. On the one hand hand you're derisive of anyone who isn't a super-high-dollar pro, but on the other hand you seem to be a cheerleader for the little guy, who only makes 40 grand a year.

The guy (or gal) who makes 40 grand a year as a photographer simply cannot expect his or her computer to run any pro app the way a six-figure-income pro will. That's life.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But some programs have an interface that IS the program. Aperture is one of those. If the interface is slow, then the entire program becomes difficult to use. Apple was moving images around on the desktop as though they were real pieces of film. Swish, swish, swish. The magnifier, which everyone loved so much is very much cpu dependent. They admitted that. They were sliding it around like a real magnifier. In real time. On a Quad. On the duals, it was slower. How will that work on a single 1.25GHz PB? They didn't give us the opportunity to find out.

Isn't that strange?

No. It's no different from all the "realtime" brouhaha in Final Cut Pro. Sure, on a super high end Power Mac, everything's realtime in FCP. On a lesser Mac, less and less is realtime. So?

Apple makes cutting-edge software that trades high-end hardware requirements for ease of use. Aperture is no different from FCP, DVD SP, or Motion in that regard. Any of those programs will run on a PowerBook. Will they be ideal? No. In fact, I recently sold my PowerBook and got a dualie Power Mac for just that reason. DVD encoding is "leisurely" on a PowerBook. I'm sure Aperture will be the same way. Can you do it? Yes. Is it ideal? No. For some people, the ease of use of Apple's pro apps is a good enough trade off for slow performance on laptops or older desktops.

Everyone has a different threshold for pain.

No one here is disputing that Aperture will run slower on older/portable hardware. We won't know just how much slower until it's released in final form.
post #178 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It has to be understood what is happening here.

Apple's advantage over the PC market has been in file handling and organization. In this area, XP falls short. It has always been so. even before.

This has been a major reason why the publishing industry has been partial to Macs.

But, starting with CS and now more so with CS2, Adobe has been countering that advantage. Both Bridge and Version Cue have not only given our PC brethren the same abilities that OS X has, but it's gone much further. The talk in the industry about this is not insignificant.

I believe very strongly that Aperture is Apple's response to that. Apple is trying to say that what Adobe did is good but we can do it much better.

You're not seeing the big picture.

With Adobe making the Windows and Mac versions of PS identical, that causes a commoditization of the operating system. There's no reason to buy a Mac if PS runs exactly the same on Windows as it does on OS X.

By coming out with all this cutting edge pro software--only on the Mac--Apple is saying, "Look. We make the very best software that will make your job the easiest. The only way to get our software is to use a Mac."

If you want the best (Apple pro software), you need a Mac. If you use Adobe apps, you can use OS X or Windows.

Big difference. Apple software is designed to drive Apple hardware sales.
post #179 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
I don't understand. On the one hand hand you're derisive of anyone who isn't a super-high-dollar pro, but on the other hand you seem to be a cheerleader for the little guy, who only makes 40 grand a year.

The guy (or gal) who makes 40 grand a year as a photographer simply cannot expect his or her computer to run any pro app the way a six-figure-income pro will. That's life.



No. It's no different from all the "realtime" brouhaha in Final Cut Pro. Sure, on a super high end Power Mac, everything's realtime in FCP. On a lesser Mac, less and less is realtime. So?

Apple makes cutting-edge software that trades high-end hardware requirements for ease of use. Aperture is no different from FCP, DVD SP, or Motion in that regard. Any of those programs will run on a PowerBook. Will they be ideal? No. In fact, I recently sold my PowerBook and got a dualie Power Mac for just that reason. DVD encoding is "leisurely" on a PowerBook. I'm sure Aperture will be the same way. Can you do it? Yes. Is it ideal? No. For some people, the ease of use of Apple's pro apps is a good enough trade off for slow performance on laptops or older desktops.

Everyone has a different threshold for pain.

No one here is disputing that Aperture will run slower on older/portable hardware. We won't know just how much slower until it's released in final form.

I've NEVER been derisive of someone who isn't a high end pro. That's just your take on it. Many of my best customers, and friends, were, and still are, "little guys".

I'm just pointing out that this program, while seemingly best for the "little guys", seems to be designed to function well on computers bought by the "big guys". Apple won't show us how well it works on those "little guy" machines. That is very unusual. So unusual that you have to wonder why.

If you aren't wondering why, then you are making assumptions that can't be made at this point. I hope it works well enough on a PB. Maybe it will. But lots of people were asking this same question there, and Apple didn't have a good answer. Just a "if you meet the minimum requirements, it will run". Period!

FCP doesn't work in real time except on expensive equipment. And only some things work in real time even then.
post #180 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Are you mocking me I keep on saying I can't wait don't I!

I think we're all gonna drive ourselves stir crazy waiting for Apple to release Aperture!
post #181 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
You're not seeing the big picture.

With Adobe making the Windows and Mac versions of PS identical, that causes a commoditization of the operating system. There's no reason to buy a Mac if PS runs exactly the same on Windows as it does on OS X.

By coming out with all this cutting edge pro software--only on the Mac--Apple is saying, "Look. We make the very best software that will make your job the easiest. The only way to get our software is to use a Mac."

If you want the best (Apple pro software), you need a Mac. If you use Adobe apps, you can use OS X or Windows.

Big difference. Apple software is designed to drive Apple hardware sales.

No. That's not it.

First of all PS does not function the same on both platforms. There are still areas in which Mac usability is greater. numerous little things still have advantages on the Mac. As my point in that post was about file and management, you can see the difference there. Both Bridge and Version Cue have markedly lower usefullness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite is bought. That still gives an advantage to the Mac.

One thing hurting the Mac that has caused movement to the PC is the percieved higher prices of our platform. Apple has to address that directly. There has been a lot of head scratching about the new PM's for example. Aperture can't counter that.

I don't argue about the best software part. I use the FC Suite as well as Logic Pro and other programs, so I'm not against that idea.

A review about Motion that I read said that the Mac was the most expensive dongle to a $300 program he ever saw. He thought that it was worth it, but felt that he had to point that out as being Apple's philosophy.

The big picture is that Apple can't afford to drive companies like Adobe away, and this software isn't designed to do it.
post #182 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm just pointing out that this program, while seemingly best for the "little guys", seems to be designed to function well on computers bought by the "big guys".

And I'm just pointing out: How is this any different from FCP or DVDSP or Motion?

Has that hampered those applications' ability to garner best-of-breed status in reviews, and industry acceptance?
post #183 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No. That's not it.

First of all PS does not function the same on both platforms. There are still areas in which Mac usability is greater. numerous little things still have advantages on the Mac. As my point in that post was about file and management, you can see the difference there. Both Bridge and Version Cue have markedly lower usefullness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite is bought. That still gives an advantage to the Mac.

Sorry, I don't understand that paragraph at all.

1. What Photoshop features work differently on OS X compared to Windows?

2. How does Bridge & Version Cue having markedly lower usefulness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite have anything to do with whether those applications work differently on different operating systems?
post #184 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
A review about Motion that I read said that the Mac was the most expensive dongle to a $300 program he ever saw. He thought that it was worth it, but felt that he had to point that out as being Apple's philosophy.

And that reviewer was absolutely right. That's what I'm saying, too.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, other than Aperture will run slower on slower hardware. No one's disputing that.
post #185 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
And I'm just pointing out: How is this any different from FCP or DVDSP or Motion?

Has that hampered those applications' ability to garner best-of-breed status in reviews, and industry acceptance?

FCP can be used on a more moderate machine because its use, most of the time, is not hampered by a less than state of the art machine.

Hell, when I first started using ver 1, I had a 733MHz G4 Digital Audio!

Rendering was SLOW, but I could walk away, or even come back the next day.

It depends, as I said before, on what you do. Not everyone uses real time effects on FCP. In fact, most people do not.

The complaints about the requirements for Motion are well known and have been mentioned in all the publications that discuss video. Not just the one I mentioned. If it works for you that's fine. Again, it depends on what you do with it.

You mean DVD Studio? The interface is fine. It's the rendering that's slow. But, again, that's different. The working of the program is fine on many lessor machines than Aperture was being demoed with. Rendering doesn't count.

Were you at the show? Did you see it run? How are you making these comparisons then? The other person who was at the show as well also said the same things I've said.

You are ignoring the facts I'm presenting as if they don't exist. At least think about the possibility that it might be true.
post #186 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Sorry, I don't understand that paragraph at all.

1. What Photoshop features work differently on OS X compared to Windows?

2. How does Bridge & Version Cue having markedly lower usefulness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite have anything to do with whether those applications work differently on different operating systems?

That paragraph was pretty straightfoward. I don't know how I could make it any clearer.

I'm not going to run through all the differences, but things such as magnification, shortcuts, opening and closing dialogs, etc.

Bridge and Version Cue help tremendusly when moving and tracking files between the programs in the suite. They don't have the same functionality when just one of those programs is being used. Then the Mac OS still has the advantage.
post #187 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
And that reviewer was absolutely right. That's what I'm saying, too.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, other than Aperture will run slower on slower hardware. No one's disputing that.

We both agree with that, he was right.

What I, and others, were seeing was that Aperture might run unsatisfactorily, not just slower, on machines that were much slower than the one's at the show.

You can't compare this to FCP or DVD Studio where you do what you do and then walk away while the program renders it.

If the high level effects of the interface slow down so that it feels as though you are waiting for it to happen, then it will be difficult to use. I already explained how they were using it.

The metaphor of the program as light-box is to move images about as though you were sliding them around on the box. If that has delays, it could be uncomfortable. The same thing with the magnifier. These boys were whipping that thing around the screen as though they were holding it in their hand. It worked great when I tried it on the Quad, but it lagged on the dual, with a much smaller screen.

If that happened on a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz machine with 2GB RAM, what will happen on a single 1.25GHz PB?

I'm not saying that you couldn't actually use it. What I'm saying is that Apple was apparently trying, with this program, to imitate the feel of a real light-box, as much as you can with a cursor. They were playing that feel up as much as possible. If that feel is not there, then it will be difficult.

Did you ever use Painter? If you did, do you remember the way complex brushstrokes took a while to draw after you completed the stroke? It hindered creativity. You had to wait for the stroke to complete before you could do another one. So what happened? We either used simpler brushes that were much faster, or abandoned the program. And Painter always got fabulous reviews. But the need for faster machines was always mentioned. It might have been much more popular if it were faster.

That's what I mean by a slow interface. The same thing with the screen redraw in OS X. When you drag the corner of the window to change the size, it lags. It only became pretty much realtime with the dual 2.5's.

Compare that to the same thing in OS 9, and you will understand what I mean.
post #188 of 538
A PowerMac is cheaper than a PowerBook.

A photographer who doesn't like computers would be attracted to buy this and therefore would buy a new Mac.

A photographer who does like computers would upgrade to run it - if they couldn't they obviously don't need it.

I really don't see the problem.

I wish I'd bought a PowerMac and 20" screen in January instead of my PowerBook!
post #189 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Criticising peoples [sic] use of apostrophes is pedantic and arrogant. It is not wanted on this forum.

It may not be wanted, but it is, nonetheless, desperately needed. My comments stand as I leave you AI denizens to your grammatically challenged futures. Good luck with those resumes, excuse me, "resume's".

Farewell.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #190 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
It may not be wanted, but it is, nonetheless, desperately needed. My comments stand as I leave you AI denizens to your grammatically challenged futures. Good luck with those resumes, excuse me, "resume's".

Farewell.

It is needed, I agree, in resumes and CVs as well as job applications. This is none of those - it's a forum. I agree the level of English has deteriorated and people have got lazy but come on this is not the time or place for it. Post your comments in the AppleOutsider part of the forum.

Incidentally 'peoples use' was a typo - I checked my post and it seemed right. We all make mistakes you know!

I'm sure you're a great guy but people don't respond well to criticism and it's not warranted.
post #191 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
It is needed, I agree, in resumes and CVs as well as job applications. This is none of those - it's a forum. I agree the level of English has deteriorated and people have got lazy but come on this is not the time or place for it. Post your comments in the AppleOutsider part of the forum.

Incidentally 'peoples use' was a typo - I checked my post and it seemed right. We all make mistakes you know!

I'm sure you're a great guy but people don't respond well to criticism and it's not warranted.

Well, now that that's out of the way, can we get back to arguing about what's important? 's's's's's's's
post #192 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Well, now that that's out of the way, can we get back to arguing about what's important? 's's's's's's's

that's what' I' was' saying' I can't wait for Aperture!
post #193 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross


One thing hurting the Mac that has caused movement to the PC is the percieved higher prices of our platform. Apple has to address that directly. There has been a lot of head scratching about the new PM's for example. Aperture can't counter that.


Why would anybody would be scratching their heads about the cost of the new PM's?
post #194 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
Why would anybody would be scratching their heads about the cost of the new PM's?

I've been reading around, and speaking to people. There seems to be a consensus that the new line is imbalanced.

dual core 2GHz $2,000

dual core 2.3GHz $2,500

Quad core 2.5 GHz $3,300

The feeling, and I concur, is that it should have been more linear. Also, why are the dual cores which are less expensive than two chips, and lower speed as well, the same price as the previous models? It's thought, though I don't know if anyone has been able to look, that the single chip models use one of the cooling units that were used before. I don't know if that's true, or whether they use a newly designed unit. It's been previously speculated by some in the business that the old units were over spec'd for the chips they were used on. If so, then Apple saved the price of an entire water cooling module, as well as any extra circuitry that went with them.

On the PC side, Express boards haven't proven to be all that much more costly than PCI boards have been. Gateway has an Express machine for $650.

So, the expectation was that the machines should be more like this.

dual core 2GHz $1,800

dual core 2.5GHz $2,300

Quad core 2.3GHz $2,800

Quad core 2.5GHz $3,300

Notice that the first Quad is slower than the highest single chip machine. The reason would be that people might need the extra power for apps where four cores will make a big difference, but where apps like Office are fast enough already, and won't benefit much by the 200MHZ difference.
post #195 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not going to run through all the differences, but things such as magnification, shortcuts, opening and closing dialogs, etc.

So you're saying that opening and closing dialogs is somehow easier in OS X than in Windows, and that's an advantage to using Adobe products on OS X? Are you serious?

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Bridge and Version Cue help tremendusly when moving and tracking files between the programs in the suite. They don't have the same functionality when just one of those programs is being used. Then the Mac OS still has the advantage.

That's exactly what you said the last time. I still don't see how the first two sentences logically result in the third sentence.
post #196 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You can't compare this to FCP or DVD Studio where you do what you do and then walk away while the program renders it.
...
The metaphor of the program as light-box is to move images about as though you were sliding them around on the box. If that has delays, it could be uncomfortable. The same thing with the magnifier. These boys were whipping that thing around the screen as though they were holding it in their hand. It worked great when I tried it on the Quad, but it lagged on the dual, with a much smaller screen.

If that happened on a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz machine with 2GB RAM, what will happen on a single 1.25GHz PB?

Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window.

What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware?

[edit]

I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation.

What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution, it gives you more of a general idea of what the changes do rather than an exact pixel-by-pixel rendering.

Is that useful? Sure it is! It's much more productive to get a realtime 1/2x resolution rendering than to sit for 30 seconds and wait while it renders a 1x resolution rendering--it speeds your workflow up tremendously.

There's no reason Aperture can't do the same thing. Maybe the loupe's circle will be smaller on lighter hardware, or maybe it'll be a 1/2x resolution rendering. Or maybe both. Who knows?

All you're doing is spreading FUD about potential problems, without knowing if they truly are problems.

Adios, amigo, I'm outta here.
post #197 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
So you're saying that opening and closing dialogs is somehow easier in OS X than in Windows, and that's an advantage to using Adobe products on OS X? Are you serious?



That's exactly what you said the last time. I still don't see how the first two sentences logically result in the third sentence.

Even though you say you're gone, I'll answer anyway.

I'm not saying that opening and closing dialogs is better. I admit that I should have used a different word. I said opening and closing. The two words somehow just went together. What I meant to say was that opening and SAVING dialogs, windows, or however you want to describe them. This goes to the file management we're talking about.
post #198 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window.

What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware?

[edit]

I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation.

What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution, it gives you more of a general idea of what the changes do rather than an exact pixel-by-pixel rendering.

Is that useful? Sure it is! It's much more productive to get a realtime 1/2x resolution rendering than to sit for 30 seconds and wait while it renders a 1x resolution rendering--it speeds your workflow up tremendously.

There's no reason Aperture can't do the same thing. Maybe the loupe's circle will be smaller on lighter hardware, or maybe it'll be a 1/2x resolution rendering. Or maybe both. Who knows?

All you're doing is spreading FUD about potential problems, without knowing if they truly are problems.

Adios, amigo, I'm outta here.

Obviously, the Preview window is what I'm talking about. Your explanation illustrates the very point I'm making. I didn't bother to describe it because I felt as though you knew it already, which you do.

The smaller the monitor, the less pixels to be pushed around, and the faster it goes - to a certain extent. But the program is working with the same file sizes as before, and it's cpu limited. You can change the size of the magnifier, but then it can get too small to be of much use.

I think it's funny that you would end this with an accusation of FUD, when you never saw or used the program, but I did.
post #199 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.

And it hits the bulls eye beautifully!


Actually I know a lot of painters and other visual artists (excluding photographers who we already assume will be interested in this) will be VERY interested in this. All visual artists as part of their job description have to be photographers as well, whether you make paintings, drawings, sculpture, installations you have to have great photographs of your work in order for it to be seen. Anything you apply for, a grant a juried exhibition, or your first intro to a gallery you're courting depends very much on your slides or photographs of your work.

About a year and a half ago, I invested quite a bit of money in a good digital camera so that I could get rid of my dependency on slides. For this situations where I need actual slides because someplace I'm working with hasn't caught up with the technology I can have slides made from digitals. (Which seems expensive at 9-10 ten bucks per slide, but if I use those as your master slides it works out and then make $1 copies for the actual send out, I actually save money on film and processing, not having to take three rolls of slide film just to get five images I can use.)

More on to my point. Having the right photograph to represent an object is very important, so that means often taking dozens of shots just for one object. Those dozens add up pretty quickly. And although iPhoto (in tandem with Photoshop Elements for most editing) in its way of being able to cross reference and sort things in tons of different ways with dates, keywords and ratings, Aperture seems like a godsend. I was making a list of feature requests for iPhoto to send to Apple, because although I knew there were other solutions (usually more expensive) I didn't like how those other solutions worked. So my best bet was to hope iPhoto built on top of its (limited) good thing. But here they go and introduce Aperture with all my wanted features and some that hadn't occurred to me but I see as being essential in making this a real professional app (Loupe, and side by side comparison, zooming on multiple images, working directly from RAW and keeping a copy of the digital negative, and modifications are simply instructions on how to modify, not saved multiples of essentially the same image.

Being able to more easily work with RAW to set white balance (which is VERY important in work with lots of white or light colors close to white). Because of RAW slowness I'd usually just capture in JPEG and take my chances in hoping I'd get the right white balance, which is sometime precarious, even using custom white balance on my camera. This is like I said a godsend, having all the features to work with photos that I wanted, and all the features I never knew I needed, but seem essential to me. There is probably nothing in Aperture that I can't use to my advantage, the things getting the least use from me are the web galleries. Depending on how flexible and customizable it is I could use it to build certain pages for my website, but most of that I'll still do by hand. The books on the other hand will be great. I have been wanting to put a couple books together of my work and use iPhoto, but I'll wait and use this in Aperture.

And the biggest struggle having so many pictures is the amount of time to compare and sort through and organize everything. This seems to be the most intuitive and straightforward solution possible now and for the foreseeable future. I expect the time it takes me to do all my documenting of my work to be SIGNIFICANTLY decreased.

This will definitely hasten my purchase of a Powermac, which I've been preparing and saving for for a couple years. The things I do in Photoshop and most visual artists (excluding those working in digital mediums) use photoshop for are exactly the things that Aperture does and appear to do it so well. Most of the things that Photoshop has to offer don't do me any good personally. They're great features if you need them, but there's not much use for them in my line, aside from levels, color balancing and sharpening, noise reduction.

Now the price is pretty high, especially considering most of us don't have a machine that this will run well on, but I just happened to be in the market for a new Powermac anyway to speed up the sort of tedious flow of sorting and organizing in iPhoto, waiting for Photoshop to load the huge files, editing, and waiting for the files to be saved again. So just speeding up that would have been nice, but most of the wait time of opening and closing with Aperture looks like it will be eliminated, and then sorting and comparing will be a totally different experience.

But if you look at it this way, I'll have a $100 copy of Photoshop Elements which I'll probably use on VERY rare occasions mostly to square off images accidently shot not head-on and then I have Aperture for $500 to do all the 95% of the others things I need to do for the same price as a full version of Photoshop. Which I still have 85-90% of the functionality of Photoshop in Photoshop Elements PLUS all the things Aperture does. Not a bad deal from where I stand

So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.
post #200 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by androit
So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.

Great first post, welcome to the forum! I agree and for people like me who are in education it's even cheaper - only £220 - which I suppose isn't that much less than the US full price!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture