Apple introduces Aperture - Page 7

Have you found any of those cards available with less memory?

Hadn't thoroughly checked though I thought there might be a 64MB version for at least one of 'em, e.g. ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 in the previous PB? You may be right that 128MB is implied. I was just wondering where Mel had seen/heard that number mentioned explicitly by Apple since I hadn't found it.

Right now (2005) this statment is true. Back in 2000 this wasn't the case. At that time Avid's low end was far beyond FCP v.1.

I can agree on looking at this way. FCP created a new market for mid-level nonlinear DV desktop editor. Premeire wan't good enough, Avid was more than needed and cost too much. FCP filled the area between. Because of FCP Avid changed the working model of Xpress. Xpress used to be a lesser capable version of its high end machine. Now Xpress is more like FCP.


Its ture that Apple is gaining but Avid Xpress is used because of compatibility with high end pro Avid systems. If FCP ever becomes as compatible and easy to use with high end Avid's then it could make Xpress obsolete.

The reason FCP has surpassed Xpress in features is because Avid doesn't want Xpress to compete with its high end systems. Apple is free to add as many features to FCP as is technically feasible.

FCP has made inroads into standard def television. It's a great system if the final product is delivered on DV or uncompressed SD for broadcast television. Avid right now is best if the final product is delivered on HD or Film.


I would say most of the people who use Final Cut Studio are people who could never afford a pro Avid work station. Or are working in Standard Def televison and don't need Avid's advanced work flow.


I agree. The Quad, PCIe, advanced graphics cards, and graphic accelorators such as Black Magic's Decklink. All bring more power at a lower cost to the average desk top. Which will allow FCP to rival Avid's features.

Soon television production company's will require all shows to be recorded on HD. Because of HD broadcast and because of long term archiving. Which will significantly raise computer workload and storage needs. The Quad is a great advance which will allow FCP to meet this future workflow.


I'm sure these are mostly people who work in standard def television.


To a degree this is happening. For FCP to dominate the lower end editing market, it needs to be seamlessly compatible with the higher end Avid's.

A task which I'm sure Apple is working on.

For one thing, I was told that explicitly at the show by two Apple reps. They said that it wouldn't even work without it. Someone here wanted me to ask.

Another member was also at the show, and was told the same thing.

Most of the boards on Apple's site I recognize, and they all have at least 128MB RAM. The others I don't know enough about. The mobility chips will be in portables, so you will have to do some work and see if they are (were) in machines that had 128MB RAM or not.

I can only report what I was told by Apple.

Apple's hi-def solution is very popular as well.

As far as the lower end of Hi-Def, Apple's support is what has validated the concept. Panasonic's recorders success has depended upon it, as is Sony's with their new low cost systems. Canon has told me at the Photo Expo that they are also relying to a certain extent upon Apple's support. This new Camcorder has, as an addition, uncompressed digital HD and SD through an SDI output. Also will work with Apple's solution.

Apple has been supplying a Hi Def solution for years.

When did they start? I thought they didn't have HD support until version 4.

Hardware, not software.

I didn't accually think of it this way, and you are probably right that Core Image does differ quite a lot from adobes implementation to make them uncompatible.

On the other hand, when Apple does make these great frameworks available to use for any programmer, other software companies that are mac-only or that have their largest market share on macs, will probably use Core Image (as it saves them from implementing their own, and they get access to first-grade quality apis).

Any photoshop competitor is a LONG ways off (and might never see the day), but with simpler applications like iMaginator that uses Core Image, one can clearly see the advantages of having this being the same accross all applications. It then becomes more of a "which application implements its functionality in the most intuitive, accessible and easy to use way", instead of "which application has this or that effect, and which one is better".

As a programmer I can clearly see the major advantages of having open frameworks like this available to any developer for their application!

Slightly off topic, but hey

We don't know just how good these filters are as compared to PS's and others. They may be the same, they may be better, and they may be worse.

They can be different. I also made that point.

If it's a Mac only app, that would be fine.

But I and others who have been working with PS for a long time are used to the results we get, so are the clients. Something different, even if "better" might not be acceptable.

However, it's possible that Adobe might be able to build their own filters using the Core services.

That would answer a lot of questions and solve a lot of problems.

Adobe have been slack in some areas of their support for Apple.

That's why Apple have created Final Cut and iPhoto. Either Adobe didn't plan offer or offered lacklustre alternatives. If Avid or M$ or Adobe fail of threaten to fail support for a need Apple deems important?

We get Final Cut. iPhoto. Safari.

Steve Jobs said he hoped or where trying to persuade Adobe to put Core Image support into Photoshop.

Politics sez they won't do it.

Ergo: Apple release Apperture to show that it can be done. And it shows Photoshop up for the dinosaur that it is.

It maybe a/the standard.

But all empires end, Melgross.

10 years is a long time in the computer business.

Aperture shows what can be done in relatively little time. These aren't the early days of computing. Apple isn't the Apple of GX.

This Apple gets things done. Makes things happen. And because they do such a good job and tie it so well into the tech of the OS, their Pro and Consumer choices are compelling.

Adobe and PC / Photoshop vs Apple Mac with Aperture/Photoshop replacement? I know which I'd go for...

Quark was entrenched because it didn't have compelling competition. That's changing with Indesign.

I can see Aperture making inroads into many a Photographers workflow...and it is only version 1.

Lemon Bon Bon

As for Apple not picking up Metacreations stable of apps.

I often wondered that myself.

But as resources were probably deemed more important for other things...then I guess what we've seen over the years answers your question. Getting the OS right. Getting some software bundled with Macs. Gettting the hardware right. Getting some Pro apps. Metacreations had some nice but half finished pieces of heavily pirated software...and gimmicky half finished at that. Poser, Painter have come along way since then...

Where M$ threaten to give lacklustre support eg IE Apple gives us Safari. Word/Powerpoint may be the 'standard'...but I think they suck royaly compared to Pages/keynote/iWorks.

Where Adobe gives us lacklustre (in light of Core Image...Video...) apps eg Premiere and Photoshop...we get Final Cut and Aperture.

Stagnation vs Innovation.

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. I'd love to see Apple pick up Painter and blend it with Aperture. That would add the painting tools... Corel are always hard up. Apple could pick it up for a snip.

Apple is making a big push to move the Mac forwards with OS X and the Intel transition.

Innovation is etched over everything they do.

If Adobe and M$ want to produce mediocre products...

...then Apple has shown a ruthless ability to encroach.

More tanks on the lawn of Redmond...

...Photoshop enters the target cross-hare sights of Cupertino...'We can see you...'

Lemon Bon Bon

...and Apple doesn't necessarily have to write all these apps from scratch. If they don't make it from scratch, they buy a good product in and give it the Apple touch.

Final Cut.

Or make one themselves.

Aperture.

Now is a very exciting time to be part of the Apple scene.

In 1997. How much software did Apple have?

2005. How much software do Apple have?

2007. How much software will Apple have?

...software revenues are increasing by stealth...

Lemon Bon Bon

Good points. As I am not a professional photographer or photo-manipulator I am speaking as a photographic amateur (or, a photo-entusiast). As a student I simply do not have the budget and/or the need for what I'd like to call "professional tools". While it might not be acceptable for a professional who relies heavily on the known outcome of his tools, for the tools to change - even in cases where the results are better, change is usually accepted and welcomed by people in my situation.

Now, Aperture it self is not out of my price range, although its hardware requirements are.

I'll go slighly off topic here and talk about Aperture and iPhoto instead of Aperture and Photoshop.

I see Aperture as being a great application for professionals and semi-professionals. but as it only relies on RAW images, its feature set - no matter how great - are not useful to me at all. Partly because I do not have a dSLR, and partly because I would be likely to shoot in JPEG even if I did. My work-flow goes something like this: Half (or there abouts) of my photographs are taken on a "normal" SLR and go on slide film. The rest are taken wiht a "high-end" digital compact. Digital photographs gets imported straight into iPhoto, while the slides gets scanned as JPEG at home, and then imported into iPhoto.

What I'd like to see though, is some of Apertures features to find its way into iPhoto 6 (ot 5.5, or whatever the next version is). I don't expect to get a full-featured iPhoto, but some of these features should (in my view) scale very well down to iPhoto. I'm thinking especially on the "magnifying glass" and some of the color correction functionalities and effects. In my opinion (and this is usually because I like to keep my OS and applications up-to-date) the next iPhoto (I'm going to call this iPhoto 6) should rely heavily on Core Image and Core Data in much the same way as Aperture. There is really no reason for it to not do this. I would love to be able to enhance some of my photos without being forced to store it as a seperate copy. My iPhoto library contains over 10.000 photographs and weighs in at over 15 GB. About 4 GB of this is used to store duplicates, which in effect wastes 5% of my total hard-drive capacity (PowerBook with 80GB). I would love to be able to get these 4GB back (On another note, my iPod Photo Cache weights is at almost 7GB, and I really wish Apple found a better solution for this issue!).

iPhoto is less of a workflow-type application and more of a digital photo library with "enhanced features", so I do not think any of the workflow-functionalities are applicable, but I do think that most (if not all) color-management (except the different color profiles, etc) and filters are applicable. They are a part of Core Image, and should therefore be available in all of apples image-applications (yes, even preview).

The reason I don't think any of the work-flow features are applicable in iPhoto is based on the different shooting-frequencies between amateurs (and "pro" amateurs) and professionals (and semi-pros). Where I might shoot 6-7 photos if I find something exciting, a pro might shoot ten times that, which is where the need for great workflow features come into play (i know theres other useages).

I hope that Apple continues on this path to create freely available frameworks accross the OS that anyone can use. It does increase the quality of all applications that are built on the technology. Just look at the slideshow example in OS X now. The same functionality is available in the Finder, in Preview, iPhoto and even in Mail. This is the type of cross-application functionality that might help Apple gain marketshare, in my opinion.

Yes, this is also a very good point. Apple keeps creating these really great applications that fits into a market very nicely. They started with the free i-apps, but have since moved on to create great applications to attempt to promote the platform - and I think they are successful. At times like this where a major change is right around the corner (Intel), Apple keeps selling more computers and more software, it should really be the other way around.

Trying to list the applications that have been released by Apple since 1997 from the top of my head:

iTunes (and the whole iPod experience)
iPhoto
iDVD
iMovie
iChat
Safari
Final Cut Express
Final Cut Pro
DVD Studio Pro
Logic (is there express and pro here too ?)
Soundtrack
GarageBand
Pages
Keynote
Motion

Thats a serious amount of applications being pushed out (with a high quality) in 7-8 years (I'm not sure when iTunes first got released, but I remember owning Sound Jam before that). Apple is slowly targeting themselves as a total solution within a range of professions, while keeping it the "Apple way" with great ease of use and innovative solutions.

I don't know about all of that, and I don't recall Jobs saying he wanted Adobe to use Core Image.

How do you know that? The naming scheme kinda implies a yearly upgrade.

Office is older, but you aren't saying that MS hasn't shown any interest in doing anything with it.

BUT!! iWork is not supposed to compete with Office - MS Works perhaps, but not Office.



Not in this part of the world.



It's not supposed to compete with Photoshop FCOL!!!

CreativePro interviews Aperture's Product Manager

Interesting interview. Finally, some substantive information is released.

Remember that iPhoto is the most popular part of iLife. Also Aperture will support most image files it just won't be as useful on JPGs. Personally i have a camera with RAW capability but iPhoto doesn't support it and RAW images take up too much space. My 100GB PowerBook hard drive is almost full and I like to have all my photos on it. I hope Apple can't get multiple hard drive support into Aperture though for my older pics - maybe a solution where it scales them down for the computer and stores them at high-res elsewhere?

The latest full-length Inside Mac podcast from last Saturday had an interview with one of the people associated with Aperture at Apple. One of the things mentioned was the ability to have vaults, which he referenced as external Firewire or USB drives, that Aperture can use for photo manipulation and storage.

I recall him saying that he wanted the Mac version of Photoshop to be better then the windows version after a demonstration of Core Image - I remember that for sure, because I said to myself, no way that will ever happen.

Well, he was just expressing his wish - may it be a warning to Adobe - possibly? Although MS is worse and that's been left alone.

double post

It occured to me to mention to everyone that says that the CoreImage version of PS would be different then the Windows version. Adobe could write their own filters that would act exactly like the Windows code. Adobe does not have to use Apple's filters.

Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.

A system like CoreImage really needs to be implemented into the whole operating system like it is on Mac OS, and not individual software. Windows does not have any such a system, and it would be very disadvantageous for Adobe if the implemented a feature locking out Windows users from viewing images edited on a Mac version of PS.

To you maybe.

MS talks about what it intends to do with its software all of the time. They talk about the features, about the file standards, etc. Apple talks about nothing.

I wasn't the one that made iWork out as a possible Office replacement. Find the post of whomever did and speak to him.

In just about every place in the west.

I've been the one who has been arguing that is isn't supposed to be competing with PS. Again bother to read the posts and get things right.

Whatever you mean by FCOL?

That's why I earlier said that if that could be done it would solve problems.

But it's a big if at this time.

While it isn't as fast, layers in PS does the same thing. They apply filters or even pixel level edits in a non destructive way. Click off the layer and those edits are gone, click it back and they return.

The image doesn't have to be re rendered each time. Only the first time they are applied.

This is a very interesting article. Looks like Aperture is a bigger shot at Photoshop than most of us want to believe. A few points paraphrased.

Apple watched what features of Photoshop the photographers that they were working with to develop Aperture and have put 90% of them in Aperture.

Aperture not only works with RAW but any file that QT can read. Apple says you can use Aperture to organize your pdfs if you want to.

They have a 90 minute video included in the software box that teaches you another way of thinking that is different than the Adobe way. Instead of starting with "Save As" you just start working with metadata.

It is an interesting article. But what they consider 90% of what photographers use is dependent on which photographers they worked with.

They do admit in the article that it's much slower on a PB. 3 to 4 times as slow in opening a file, and you don't get to see the whole file. He is suggesting that it be used only for filling and browsing.

You see the advantages while I also see the disadvantages.

I can see both. I just posted these particular points because:

There is never any mention of any other formats than RAW in these threads.
Apple is competing with Photoshop more than just indirectly.

The fact that more than just RAW can be used seems to open this app up to a few more people interested in an Apple solution that is more advanced than iPhoto.

The guy is using Aperture on his 15 inch PB. His quote:

"This is where our scheme of loading a proxy image comes in -- the 1024 proxy is often all I need to see at this stage. Depending on how many megabytes each image is, Aperture on a G5 can load the full Raw image in less than a second. On my PowerBook, that same image may take three to four seconds to load fully."

Does that really mean that he is only seeing part of the file on his PB? Just a question. I'm trying to learn here.

There was once another program that came out with intentions of competing with PS. That was in the days of *slow* computers. when a Gaussian blur on a 10MB file could take 10 MINUTES. It worked with proxies. Proxies speed things up, but they are not the pixel by pixel file. A proxy file is the file that PS opens up. It can be a 15% mag image.

He isn't expecting someone using a PB to be doing real work on a file. Just very basic actions other than moving and filing. He reluctently admits that the work can be done

" But a PowerBook is fine for what a lot of photographers do in the field with their laptops: browse images quickly and step through the thumbnails. Maybe tag the images they like, maybe zoom in closely on one. The photo edit stage. For that, a PowerBook does take a speed hit, but it's totally usable."

"totaly usable". That means that it's pretty slow but can be used if you really have to.

But Apple isn't expecting people to do much with it on a PB. That's what I've been saying.

From what I saw at the show, it does need power.

The Apple product manager claims that the price of Aperture is primarily so that people will notice it and think of it as a serious application.

That's a very interesting notion. I would think that if the price was lower more people would use it and after a little while so many would use it and like it, that it would be very well known.

West what? Western part of the world? I think you're looking at the wrong places my friend.

InDesign has grapped a large part of the market from ad agencies and makers of yellow pages to news papers and so on.

This type of operation is what Core Data is used for. Core Data will store all the effects and manipulation that is performed on an image to change the image so that it looks like what you have on-screen last time you saved it. The next time the image is opened, the original will be loaded before Core Data is used to retreive the sequence of effects and manipuations used from Core Image to re-render the manipulated photo.

But you cannot reverse them.

Aperture will never be a high volume product. The majority of cameras being sold do not take raw photos nor do most camera purchasers need to shuttle through thousands of photos after a shoot.

It's always inevitable. Apple announces a Pro app and there's a chorus of "consumers" that want an "express" version. $500 is nothing to a photographer if you can't meet that bar of entry then iPhoto, iviewmedia Pro or Lightzone are going to be your options.

I agree with Apple's choice here. Let the discussion of Aperture come from Pro's and not Joe6 pack who's bought an application beyond his needs.

Of course you can. That's the whole point.

They are mathematical equivalents of the change, as is Core Image. Where do you think Apple got the idea from?

You can go to one of the layers and change it as many times as you want until you're happy with the result. It doesn't render any of the layers unless you tell it to. You can render any layer you want independently of all the others. you can also reorder the layers which will give different priorities to the effects.

In fact, you can do anything you want with layers. You can even have one layer only affect certain other layers if you like.

Unless a layer is a duplicate of the original file, which is done for certain purposes, layers take little memory.

Absolutely correct!

Too many people here are belittling PS, for example, who have never even used it, or if they have, never have done more than scratched the surface.