or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple Releases Aperture 2 with improved interface

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple Releases Aperture 2 with improved interface
 - Page 2

post #41 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.

Have you tried it?

I have all three, and can make some comparisons.

Of the three, Aperture has given the lowest quality results. This is due to a number of factors. While the basic conversion was seriously improved after the initial fiasco, it lacked serious tools to improve upon the basic conversion. Both Lightroom, and Camera Raw, have been much more sophisticated in that regard. CS3 only increased that lead. Camera Raw 4.3 is so good, it may not be required to even go into Ps itself, unless one needs to make non global corrections, or editing.

Lightroom actually had slightly better sharpening, but CR 4.3 caught up pretty much.

With the long awaited Aperture 2, Apple has taken some of Adobe's ideas. That is good, but Apple is still behind. Its sharpening, and other correction tools still lag Adobe's.

To be fair, Adobe has been doing this for a much longer time. Their beta program is far more extensive than Apple's, as I can attest to. If Apple found it to be in their hearts to extend that beta program, they would get the feedback they need.

Quite frankly, very few pro's use Aperture. more use Lightroom, but most use CR and PS together.
post #42 of 88
Quote:
Of the three, Aperture has given the lowest quality results. This is due to a number of factors. While the basic conversion was seriously improved after the initial fiasco,

Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.

My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
post #43 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.

My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.

There is no simple answer. The sensor is providing a system of sampling, as such, any detail that's smaller than a photocell is lost, and not only that, any detail that hits a photocell but not in the cell's color is also lost. All that is interpolated, and it looks like there may be different interpolation algorithms.

The sensor data is actually pretty ugly, it's a pretty nasty version of pointillism:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sensors.htm
post #44 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.

My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.

Trying to remember what the original picture looked like is an exercise in frustration. We don't have a good enough memory for visual and aural phenomena for that to work. In addition, no media can duplicate it. What we can do is to attempt to reconstruct that so it appears to our liking in a way that seems to be correct, and pleasing.

Therefore, what we attempt to do in our programs is to extract as much information from the file as possible. We can then work out how we want that information to appear.

Aperture extracts less information than does Camera Raw. You can tell by working on the same image file. It isn't magic. You don't have to know what information is encoded from the sensor. After you do enough files, and understand the programs well enough, you will find it to be easy to see the differences.

Until now, Aperture couldn't extract the "lost" highlight information that Camera Raw 4.+ could do so well. That wasn't difficult to know. Aperture didn't have the tools to do it. CR 4 did. This was a major advantage to CR 4 that pro's are well aware of, and use constantly.

We will have to see how effective the new one in Aperture is.

That is just a part of the toolset. CR 4 has many more.

This can't be qualified in a post. I can give you some links tomorrow, if you are interested.
post #45 of 88
Quote:
Trying to remember what the original picture looked like is an exercise in frustration. We don't have a good enough memory for visual and aural phenomena for that to work. In addition, no media can duplicate it.

I'm not talking about how faithfully the camera recreated the original scene. I'm simply talking about the picture the camera did take.

Quote:
What we can do is to attempt to reconstruct that so it appears to our liking in a way that seems to be correct, and pleasing.

Consistency and predictability is very important. I come from the cinema way of thinking about this. In cinema we test all of our equipment to get to know its strengths, weakness, and idiosyncrasies. That includes the lens, filters, film or digital sensor, film lab, photochemical manipulation, digital scanning equipment, and any post digital manipulation.

We will test all of this equipment by starting with a neutral benchmark. Such as a pure white, pure black, and 18% grey charts. We also test color charts next to a neutral skin tone. To eliminate any bias and receive a fair evaluation each element is tested against these neutral benchmarks.

From there you find out if a filter is too green or too yellow, if a lens is too soft or has too much highlight flair, if a film stock has too much contrast or too grainy, if a digital sensor adds to much artificial sharpening or introduces noise, if a certain photochemical process gives you the final look you want or if a digital process gives you the final look you want.

Granted cinema is different from photography. In that cinema is a two hour movie that has been produced over a month or two. So consistency and predictability is extremely important. While a picture generally stands on its own and does not have to be consistent with anything else.

Quote:
Aperture extracts less information than does Camera Raw. Yo can tell by working on the same image file. It isn't magic. You don't have to know what information is encoded from the sensor. After you do enough files, and understand the programs well enough, you will find it to be easy to see the differences.

I don't see how you can eliminate the camera and lens as important variables. What Aperture and Lightroom interpret is directly from what the camera has captured.

When Aperture first came out the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about noise. You would see more noise in Aperture pictures than in Lightroom pictures. I would ask how do you know that noise is not really in the picture and Lightroom is covering it up. Because the evaluation did not start from a neutral place their was no way to know for sure. How do you really know this is not a problem with the camera or lens.

Quote:
Until now, Aperture couldn't extract the "lost" highlight information that Camera Raw 4.+ could do so well. That wasn't difficult to know. Aperture didn't have the tools to do it. CR 4 did. This was a major advantage to CR 4 that pro's are well aware of, and use constantly.

Back when Aperture first came out I don't recall this as a major complaint. Yes differences in dynamic range are a lot easier to discern than differences in color, exposure, or sharpness. Pictures from Lightroom have more highlight and shadow information than pictures from Aperture. Its true this would not be difficult to see.

But like I said I don't recall that being the major complaint.
post #46 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm not talking about how faithfully the camera recreated the original scene. I'm simply talking about the picture the camera did take.



Consistency and predictability is very important. I come from the cinema way of thinking about this. In cinema we test all of our equipment to get to know its strengths, weakness, and idiosyncrasies. That includes the lens, filters, film or digital sensor, film lab, photochemical manipulation, digital scanning equipment, and any post digital manipulation.

We will test all of this equipment by starting with a neutral benchmark. Such as a pure white, pure black, and 18% grey charts. We also test color charts next to a neutral skin tone. To eliminate any bias and receive a fair evaluation each element is tested against these neutral benchmarks.

From there you find out if a filter is too green or too yellow, if a lens is too soft or has too much highlight flair, if a film stock has too much contrast or too grainy, if a digital sensor adds to much artificial sharpening or introduces noise, if a certain photochemical process gives you the final look you want or if a digital process gives you the final look you want.

Granted cinema is different from photography. In that cinema is a two hour movie that has been produced over a month or two. So consistency and predictability is extremely important. While a picture generally stands on its own and does not have to be consistent with anything else.



I don't see how you can eliminate the camera and lens as important variables. What Aperture and Lightroom interpret is directly from what the camera has captured.

When Aperture first came out the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about noise. You would see more noise in Aperture pictures than in Lightroom pictures. I would ask how do you know that noise is not really in the picture and Lightroom is covering it up. Because the evaluation did not start from a neutral place their was no way to know for sure. How do you really know this is not a problem with the camera or lens.



Back when Aperture first came out I don't recall this as a major complaint. Yes differences in dynamic range are a lot easier to discern than differences in color, exposure, or sharpness. Pictures from Lightroom have more highlight and shadow information than pictures from Aperture. Its true this would not be difficult to see.

But like I said I don't recall that being the major complaint.

Teno, I've been in this business since 1969. I understand the equipment and methodology pretty well. I developed some of it myself.

What you must keep in mind is that movies are very poor in quality or consistancy when compared to still photography. The mind is forgiving when watching "moving pictures" but not so kind when looking at prints.

Nevertheless, we are not talking about film and the chemical processes that they require. Digital is a very dfferent world.

Whatever lenses you are using don't matter to the program, except that CR 4 gives you some control over those lens defects, where Aperture doesn't.

The file is the file. It's as simple as that.

How that program treats that file is what we are talking about here. It isn't required to discuss all that you did, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up. The last time we discussed this you brought it up as well. forget about it.

All we are talking about is the file. Anything before that doesn't matter at that point. How the program treats the file is what does matter. The simple fact is that Aperture doesn't give nearly as much control as CR 4 does, nor has it's conversion been as good.

I can eliminate the camera and lens because we are comparing the same file amongst the programs. We are therefore starting out with equal quality. Use a camera with a better lens and body, and the file might be better, unless the photographer doesn't understand the requirements of digital shooting, which is different from that of film. But, even then, the differences between the programs will bcome apparent. The more difficult the file, actually, the more the spread between Aperture and CR 4 will become, as CR 4 has better control over the results.

The reason why highlight recovery wasn't mentioned about Aperture 1.0 is because Adobe hadn't yet developed it for CR 3. It began with CR 4.

Apple is acknowledging that their conversion was not up to the quality required by making a case for why it is improved now. As I said earlier, I'll see for myself tomorrow just how improved it is.

By adding a few more controls, they (Apple) are giving us some power over the process they didn't give before. This is good. But some other tools are still not up to snuff.
post #47 of 88
Quote:
What you must keep in mind is that movies are very poor in quality or consistancy when compared to still photography. The mind is forgiving when watching "moving pictures" but not so kind when looking at prints.

Depends on the end product. A picture has to be flawless in the sense that one frame can be studied for a long period of time.

One frame of a movie doesn't have to be flawless. For every film a look as been agreed upon by the creative team. This look supports the mood and tone that has been set by the story. The lighting, colors, texture must remain consistent to the agreed upon look. That consistency must be maintained over a long period of time. This is not easy and requires a work methodology to achieve.

Quote:
Nevertheless, we are not talking about film and the chemical processes that they require. Digital is a very dfferent world.

It was just an example. Extensive testing is done whether its photochemical or digital.

Quote:
The file is the file. It's as simple as that.

Camera sensors and lenses are not all created the same and they all exhibit different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. This is the first place an image is captured and the first to assign characteristics and limitation to what can be done later on.

Quote:
How that program treats that file is what we are talking about here. It isn't required to discuss all that you did, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up. The last time we discussed this you brought it up as well. forget about it.

I work with a lot of imaging experts who have been working in the industry (insert whatever number of years you find impressive). I've never heard any of them say that the equipment that captures the image (camera/lens) are not relevant to how an image can be treated in its finishing processes.

Quote:
I can eliminate the camera and lens because we are comparing the same file amongst the programs. We are therefore starting out with equal quality.

The flaw in this methodology is in not correctly tracking down where certain characteristics originate. If an Aperture picture is noisy while a Lightroom picture is not noisy. It has been assumed that Aperture has bad processing. If in reality Lightroom is covering the noise and Aperture is not, then Aperture isn't the problem the noise came from the camera.

In cinematography we would have examined every variable to eliminate exactly where that noise originated.

Quote:
Apple is acknowledging that their conversion was not up to the quality required by making a case for why it is improved now. As I said earlier, I'll see for myself tomorrow just how improved it is.

This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
post #48 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.

Of course photographers want that. That's why we have features like noise reduction, sharpening, highlight recovery, shadow recovery, white balance. Everything can be seen as covering up for camera flaws and photographer's mistakes.

Some people (even some pros) shoot straight to JPeg and print automatically. That's fine, but it's not what everybody does.
post #49 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Depends on the end product. A picture has to be flawless in the sense that one frame can be studied for a long period of time.

Yes. That's the point.

Quote:
One frame of a movie doesn't have to be flawless. For every film a look as been agreed upon by the creative team. This look supports the mood and tone that has been set by the story. The lighting, colors, texture must remain consistent to the agreed upon look. That consistency must be maintained over a long period of time. This is not easy and requires a work methodology to achieve.

Despite all that, every camera seems to give a different "look". Color and contrast change, even within the same scene.

Quote:
Camera sensors and lenses are not all created the same and they all exhibit different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. This is the first place an image is captured and the first to assign characteristics and limitation to what can be done later on.

The point to comparing programs is to see how they work with the SAME file. Considering that, what I said before is correct. If you give me a file, from wherever, my programs should be able to give me the identical results. They don't. Some are better than others, and this is all we're talking about.

If you want to discuss cameras and lenses, I'l be happy to do so. But for the purposes of this discussion, they are irrelevant.

Quote:
I work with a lot of imaging experts who have been working in the industry (insert whatever number of years you find impressive). I've never heard any of them say that the equipment that captures the image (camera/lens) are not relevant to how an image can be treated in its finishing processes.

Well, I may not have worked with you, but I was one of those experts. And every one would say the same thing I'm saying for the purposes of this discussion. I'm not saying that one camera, or lens, isn't better than another. In fact, I said the opposite. but, it's not what matters here, except for the reason I also gave earlier. You are ignoring those remarks.

Quote:
The flaw in this methodology is in not correctly tracking down where certain characteristics originate. If an Aperture picture is noisy while a Lightroom picture is not noisy. It has been assumed that Aperture has bad processing. If in reality Lightroom is covering the noise and Aperture is not, then Aperture isn't the problem the noise came from the camera.

I understand your point. but understand mine. Camera Raw doesn't do that at all. noise is in the file, to a certain extent. CR gives you a choice of what to do with it. Earlier versions of Aperture had a flaw in the concept of what to do with a RAW file when processing. I know exactly what the team at Apple was attempting to do, but it was a bad idea. They realized that after all the criticism, and backed off. That was evident.

What they were trying to do was to exume all of the shadow detail. But, if you do that, you bring up the noise level, and increase the shadow contrast, while losing levels. That's exactly what happened. They had to tone it down.

Actually CR has a bit more noise on some files, but there is more detail. Apple backed down a bit too much.

Quote:
In cinematography we would have examined every variable to eliminate exactly where that noise originated.

Believe me, when an image is going to an advertising campaign in high quality magazines, or going on the gallery wall, there is nothing else that is examined in more detail.

Quote:
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.

I doubt it. I've never seen "anomalies" covered up by Aperture, other that by luck. Apple would have no way to do that with Aperture. That's major work.

In fact, there are programs designed specifically to do just that. They don't "cover them up", but rather, eliminate them. Noise reduction programs, such as Noise Ninja, for example. Or DXO OPtics Pro. There are plenty more. CR itself offers adjustable lens correction controls.
post #50 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

No, I will tomorrow perhaps. What computer are you running Spam?

Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5, 2 Gigs RAM, OS 10.4.11.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #51 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5, 2 Gigs RAM, OS 10.4.11.

You're pushing it on the system specs there. A better graphics card would probably do wonders to the speed of Aperture on your computer.

So if I have 1.5, I can do the upgrade for $99?
post #52 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

You're pushing it on the system specs there. A better graphics card would probably do wonders to the speed of Aperture on your computer.

So if I have 1.5, I can do the upgrade for $99?

I did.
post #53 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I did.

Do you think it will work if I have the academic version?
post #54 of 88
Quote:
Despite all that, every camera seems to give a different "look". Color and contrast change, even within the same scene.

With shooting movies its mostly the lens and film that determine the look. Film and lenses from the same manufacturer are all color matched. The camera is mostly a dark box that runs the film at a steady 24 fps.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by color and contrast changing in the same scene. Its a vague statement. But color and contrast do change to some degree when going from day to night or indoor to outdoor. As changing contrast and color are characteristics of these different environments.

Even in that the over all tone and mood of the film does not change. A high key brightly lit comedy such as a Adam Sandler movie is always high key and brightly lit through out the entire film. It never becomes low key and dark like a horror or thriller.

A movie like Saving Private Ryan maintains its deep shadows, blown out highlights, and grainy texture throughout the entire film. It never gains the high key bright look of a comedy or neutral look of a drama.

Quote:
The point to comparing programs is to see how they work with the SAME file. Considering that, what I said before is correct. If you give me a file, from wherever, my programs should be able to give me the identical results. They don't. Some are better than others, and this is all we're talking about.

I see what you are saying. Cameras and lens come into the discussion once you are talking about the amount of information available in the file.

Quote:
What they were trying to do was to exume all of the shadow detail. But, if you do that, you bring up the noise level, and increase the shadow contrast, while losing levels. That's exactly what happened. They had to tone it down.

That makes perfect sense. I heard no one explain that at all when Aperture was initially launched.
post #55 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Do you think it will work if I have the academic version?

I don't se why not. You are still upgrading.
post #56 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

With shooting movies its mostly the lens and film that determine the look. Film and lenses from the same manufacturer are all color matched. The camera is mostly a dark box that runs the film at a steady 24 fps.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by color and contrast changing in the same scene. Its a vague statement. But color and contrast do change to some degree when going from day to night or indoor to outdoor. As changing contrast and color are characteristics of these different environments.

What I'm saying isn't vague. In a multi camera shoot, I can see differences in the color, contrast, and exposure, from camera to camera. I've always seen those differences. It's usually less today than it was in the past, but it still exists.

You do realize that even though film companies buy large amounts of stock to get the same emulsion number batch, there are still differences between the rolls. Kodak puts those differences on the package, so that you know. Later on, those differences are reconciled, but they can never match perfectly. When they go to print, there is more variation. The processing itself isn't exactly the same throughout the day either, no matter how many control strips you run.

Quote:
Even in that the over all tone and mood of the film does not change. A high key brightly lit comedy such as a Adam Sandler movie is always high key and brightly lit through out the entire film. It never becomes low key and dark like a horror or thriller.

I'm not talking about gross differences like that. But film can't be controlled as much as digital is. Eastman stock negative film is plus or minus 15 CC color (times three), and plus or minus 10 density units per emulsion run. The processing adds plus or minus 5 to 10 more in color, and about plus or minus 5 more in density to that.

Then the print adds it's own variation. They filter when making prints, but even that has problems.

Despite how they adjust the camera bodies, the shutter speeds are never exact. Some camera shutters may be a bit slow, and some a bit fast. Don't forget that most of these cameras are 40 or more years old. Some Panascope cameras that were brought back a few years ago and reworked, are 60 years old. The lenses are also not perfectly matched, camera to camera. The spec is usually better than a quarter T stop, but that's still noticeable. And despite being filtered, something we used to do in advertising studio work, there is a small difference between lenses, though new lenses are much better than older ones, many old lenses are still in use. I've seen 40 year old Cooke lenses on sets.

This is why I don't like to talk about movies in the same breath as digital still.

Quote:
A movie like Saving Private Ryan maintains its deep shadows, blown out highlights, and grainy texture throughout the entire film. It never gains the high key bright look of a comedy or neutral look of a drama.

Never saw the movie, but you can see what I'm saying. I'm not talking about overall tonality.

Quote:
I see what you are saying. Cameras and lens come into the discussion once you are talking about the amount of information available in the file.

Yes, that's the point I'm making here.

Quote:
That makes perfect sense. I heard no one explain that at all when Aperture was initially launched.

A lot of the reviewers know their business, but don't work daily in the business of making high end photography work. That was my business. When I first saw the results I was getting from Aperture, I thought, " This looks like the results I would get when I first started doing correction in digital." I learned a lot along the way. They obviously didn't think it through at the beginning.

I know how they felt. They looked at the results from Camera Raw (old), Photo Mechanic, and others, and thought that they were getting more information out than the others were, and probably jumped around in joy. They didn't realize that the others do what they do for a reason. It's a compromise. They then give the tools for the photo editor to go further if they want. That's the way everyone likes it to be. Apple was making the choice for everyone in a way where it couldn't be put back. The tools weren't there.

Teno, I don't want to argue the perfection of film, and movies here more than we have. We're looking at it from two different perspectives, and will likely not reconcile our perspectives on what we perceive as quality. I'm more interested in still work, where even the smallest difference is significant. I probably see differences than most other people don't see, or care about, because I've been working with film, and digital quality for almost 40 years, and so my senses are heightened to small errors.
post #57 of 88
Quote:
Teno, I don't want to argue the perfection of film, and movies here more than we have. We're looking at it from two different perspectives, and will likely not reconcile our perspectives on what we perceive as quality.

I agree I don't want to belabor the issue. And I would leave it alone but many of the things you said in your last post are either really wrong or issues from the past.

Quote:
Despite how they adjust the camera bodies, the shutter speeds are never exact. Some camera shutters may be a bit slow, and some a bit fast. Don't forget that most of these cameras are 40 or more years old.

No one is shooting with 40 year old cameras. The cameras being used today are brand new electronics control the machination of film and shutter movement. Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.

I've never heard of a camera having imprecise shutter movement, unless it was broken. When the film stops in the gate to be exposed if the shutter does not open and close at a precise time the film will not be properly exposed. That can introduce stutter in the motion, streaking highlights, or underexposure.

Quote:
You do realize that even though film companies buy large amounts of stock to get the same emulsion number batch, there are still differences between the rolls. Kodak puts those differences on the package, so that you know. Later on, those differences are reconciled, but they can never match perfectly. When they go to print, there is more variation.

Admittedly I don't know as much about still film. Kodak has put a lot of work into the chemistry of motion picture film. Using advanced dye layers, couplers, and new silver halide crystals. You can shoot any film stock from Kodaks modern line up and they will all match.

The place where variances can happen are in the development bath. The chemical PH of the bath isn't always the same, the temperature fluctuates, the minerals levels in the water can change. All of this can shift color a bit. But in the end this is all accounted for.

Quote:
The lenses are also not perfectly matched, camera to camera. The spec is usually better than a quarter T stop, but that's still noticeable. And despite being filtered, something we used to do in advertising studio work, there is a small difference between lenses,

Modern motion picture lens the color matching tolerances are extremely tight. This still was a slight issue 15 years ago. Today no one even worries about color matching lenses anymore.

Quote:
many old lenses are still in use. I've seen 40 year old Cooke lenses on sets.

At rare times vintage equipment is used for aesthetics. But 99% of the time modern equipment is being used to film movies and television.
post #58 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I agree I don't want to belabor the issue. And I would leave it alone but many of the things you said in your last post are either really wrong or issues from the past.

Not really.

Quote:
No one is shooting with 40 year old cameras. The cameras being used today are brand new electronics control the machination of film and shutter movement. Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.

Not true. Possibly half of all motion picture cameras in use today have been made almost a half century ago. These cameras, as have the Panavision ones, older still, been re-worked, as I mentioned. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. But these film cameras are so expensive, that it's cheaper to modernize old bodies, rather than to make new ones, considering how limited the market is.

Quote:
I've never heard of a camera having imprecise shutter movement, unless it was broken. When the film stops in the gate to be exposed if the shutter does not open and close at a precise time the film will not be properly exposed. That can introduce stutter in the motion, streaking highlights, or underexposure.

Not imprecise shutter movement. But the timings on the shutter exposure on each camera is slightly different. The shutter speed is faster than the frame rate, and has no consequence as to stutter. The slight exposure difference between cameras is exactly what happens. Many cameras don't actually use a shutter, but rather a rotating mirror. This is separate from, though linked to, the pulldown claws.

Quote:
Admittedly I don't know as much about still film. Kodak has put a lot of work into the chemistry of motion picture film. Using advanced dye layers, couplers, and new silver halide crystals. You can shoot any film stock from Kodaks modern line up and they will all match.

I'm talking about motion picture film stock. Those are the specs. You can find them in Kodaks Eastman tech literature.

[q
The place where variances can happen are in the development bath. The chemical PH of the bath isn't always the same, the temperature fluctuates, the minerals levels in the water can change. All of this can shift color a bit. But in the end this is all accounted for. [/quote]

I mentioned that. Even though my processors were all computer controlled, the film itself changes the process environment. It can't be accounted for, because processing is the last stage, and fluctuates unpredictably. Even in my lab, where we maintained the highest standards, we couldn't maintain a perfect line in any of our processes. We were always within Kodaks "professional Limits", which sadly, many labs, even movie labs, are not. But, even those limits are noticeably off, if you look at the extremes, which are much closer than Kodak allows for amateur processing labs.

Quote:
Modern motion picture lens the color matching tolerances are extremely tight. This still was a slight issue 15 years ago. Today no one even worries about color matching lenses anymore.

I agree that modern lenses are much better, in this regard, as I mentioned, but many older lenses are still in use.

The truth is also that more movies these days are being shot in digital as well. Kodak's sales of Eastman film stock are down significantly, as is all film sales. They've discontinued much of the film stock in use ten years ago. I'm talking about motion picture film.

Quote:
At rare times vintage equipment is used for aesthetics. But 99% of the time modern equipment is being used to film movies and television.

Tv is all digital, so new equipment must be used. In fact, most shows are shot in HD, even though they may not be broadcast that way. Even most commercials are shot HD, though, they too, are more often broadcast as SD, though possibly in 16:9, these days.
post #59 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.

That sounds nifty. What model camera & remote would those be?
post #60 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That sounds nifty. What model camera & remote would those be?

He's talking about motion picture cameras.
post #61 of 88
Quote:
Not true. Possibly half of all motion picture cameras in use today have been made almost a half century ago.

What cameras made almost 50 years ago are still in wide use today? Prior to the mid 70's most cameras in use weighed 200 pounds. Today cameras average around 10 - 20 pounds depending on configuration.

Quote:
These cameras, as have the Panavision ones, older still, been re-worked, as I mentioned. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. But these film cameras are so expensive, that it's cheaper to modernize old bodies, rather than to make new ones, considering how limited the market is.

These are the six most popular cameras working in motion picture today.


Arriflex Arricam and Arricam Lite introduced in 2000




Panavision Millennium XL 2 introduced 2005




Arriflex 435 Extreme introduced in 2003



Aaton XTR introduced in 1997




Arriflex 416 introduced in 2006

The Panavision Panaflex Gold and Panavision Panaflex Platinum. The Gold was made in the late 70's and the Platinum in the late 80's. In the late 90's Panavision released the Panaflex Millennium. In 2000 released the Millennium XL. In 2005 the XL 2. All of these updates were brand new cameras with new smaller and lighter bodies. New state of the art electronics with subsequent bells and whistles.

Through the 80's and 90's the Panaflex Gold and Platinum were the gold standard 35mm cameras of the time. Over the years Panavision updated and added new motors and electronic gadgets to the Gold and Platinum. It got to the point where there were gagdets and wires hanging all over the cameras. Panavision developed brand new cameras where all of the newer gadgets and toys were integrated and built into the camera or were made modular so they could fit onto the camera in a more ergonomic way. Once Panavision introduced the Millinium and XL line of cameras they became the primary cameras. The Gold and Platinum became relegated to secondary camera work because they are larger and heavier than the XL. Today the Panaflex Gold or Platinum cameras are rarely used on large budget movies. Panavision rents them to indie and low budget movies for dirt cheap.

Arriflex had 3 versions of the 35BL cameras through the 70's and 80's. In the 80's Arriflex developed the Arri 3 as a multipurpose non-syncsound camera. In 1990 Arriflex introduced the Arri 535 which was a new version of the 35BL with modern electronics. In 1995 Arriflex introduced the Arri 435 to replace the Arri 3. The 435 has been the most popular camera for action movies, commercials, and music videos for the past 18 years. In 2000 Arriflex launched the Arricam Studio and Arricam Lite. These have become the premiere cameras used in motion pictures today.
post #62 of 88
Quote:
But the timings on the shutter exposure on each camera is slightly different. The shutter speed is faster than the frame rate, and has no consequence as to stutter. The slight exposure difference between cameras is exactly what happens. Many cameras don't actually use a shutter, but rather a rotating mirror. This is separate from, though linked to, the pulldown claws.

This is all totally wrong MelGross.




General layout of the film advance and shutter mechanism in a conventional motion picture camera.

All motion picture cameras have basically the exact same shutter design. The shutter on a motion picture camera is a 180 degree half circle. When the circle is open the film frame is held steady in the gate for exposure. When the circle closes the film is being advanced to the next frame. The shutter closing stops any light from exposing the film while it is being advanced to the next frame. The film moves at 24 frames per second, the shutter spins at 1/24th of a second.

There are no slight differences all cameras do this at the same rate. This is important because their are machines that will play back the images later. Those machines will play the film at 24 frames per second and spin a shutter at 1/24th of a second. Those machines will not compensate for any variances. The film is indiscriminately played back at the exact same rate no matter what camera it was shot on.

All motion picture cameras made in the last 30 years have a mirror on the shutter. This is called the reflex viewing system. When the shutter has closed light from exposing the film. The mirror on the shutter reflects light from the lens up into a prism. The prism sends that light into the viewfinder and into the camera operators eye. The camera operator is seeing this light at 1/24th of a second. The old viewing system was called a parallax viewing system where the viewfinder had a different lens from the main lens that exposed the film.

The shutter angle is adjustable on all modern cameras from 11.5 to 180 degrees. The higher end cameras have motors that open and close the shutter from electronic controls. You can even change the shutter angle while the camera is rolling. This can be done to change the exposure without effecting the depth of field. Lower end cameras have shutter that can be manually adjusted using a tool like a hex key.

The pull down claw has nothing directly to do with the shutter. Nearly film camera has a pull down claw. That is how the film is advanced in the gate. Aaton is the only company that does not use pull down claws, they have a magnetic system to advance the film.
post #63 of 88
Quote:
I'm talking about motion picture film stock. Those are the specs. You can find them in Kodaks Eastman tech literature.

Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.

Quote:
Even though my processors were all computer controlled, the film itself changes the process environment. It can't be accounted for, because processing is the last stage, and fluctuates unpredictably.

When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.

The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.

Quote:
The truth is also that more movies these days are being shot in digital as well. Kodak's sales of Eastman film stock are down significantly, as is all film sales. They've discontinued much of the film stock in use ten years ago. I'm talking about motion picture film.

Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.

What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.

Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.


Quote:
Tv is all digital, so new equipment must be used. In fact, most shows are shot in HD, even though they may not be broadcast that way. Even most commercials are shot HD, though, they too, are more often broadcast as SD, though possibly in 16:9, these days.

Not really.

There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.

Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.

Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.

HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.
post #64 of 88
Quote:
That sounds nifty. What model camera & remote would those be?



The Arriflex Wireless Remote Control that works with the Arricam, Arri 435, and Arri 416





Panavision Wireless Remote that works with all models of Panaflex and Millinium XL cameras.
post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What cameras made almost 50 years ago are still in wide use today? Prior to the mid 70's most cameras in use weighed 200 pounds. Today cameras average around 10 - 20 pounds depending on configuration.



These are the six most popular cameras working in motion picture today.

The Panavision Panaflex Gold and Panavision Panaflex Platinum. The Gold was made in the late 70's and the Platinum in the late 80's. In the late 90's Panavision released the Panaflex Millennium. In 2000 released the Millennium XL. In 2005 the XL 2. All of these updates were brand new cameras with new smaller and lighter bodies. New state of the art electronics with subsequent bells and whistles.

Through the 80's and 90's the Panaflex Gold and Platinum were the gold standard 35mm cameras of the time. Over the years Panavision updated and added new motors and electronic gadgets to the Gold and Platinum. It got to the point where there were gagdets and wires hanging all over the cameras. Panavision developed brand new cameras where all of the newer gadgets and toys were integrated and built into the camera or were made modular so they could fit onto the camera in a more ergonomic way. Once Panavision introduced the Millinium and XL line of cameras they became the primary cameras. The Gold and Platinum became relegated to secondary camera work because they are larger and heavier than the XL. Today the Panaflex Gold or Platinum cameras are rarely used on large budget movies. Panavision rents them to indie and low budget movies for dirt cheap.

Arriflex had 3 versions of the 35BL cameras through the 70's and 80's. In the 80's Arriflex developed the Arri 3 as a multipurpose non-syncsound camera. In 1990 Arriflex introduced the Arri 535 which was a new version of the 35BL with modern electronics. In 1995 Arriflex introduced the Arri 435 to replace the Arri 3. The 435 has been the most popular camera for action movies, commercials, and music videos for the past 18 years. In 2000 Arriflex launched the Arricam Studio and Arricam Lite. These have become the premiere cameras used in motion pictures today.

If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.

I used to use the Mitchel 35 and Arri 35 for commercial shoots, but that was a while ago.
post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is all totally wrong MelGross.




General layout of the film advance and shutter mechanism in a conventional motion picture camera.

All motion picture cameras have basically the exact same shutter design. The shutter on a motion picture camera is a 180 degree half circle. When the circle is open the film frame is held steady in the gate for exposure. When the circle closes the film is being advanced to the next frame. The shutter closing stops any light from exposing the film while it is being advanced to the next frame. The film moves at 24 frames per second, the shutter spins at 1/24th of a second.

There are no slight differences all cameras do this at the same rate. This is important because their are machines that will play back the images later. Those machines will play the film at 24 frames per second and spin a shutter at 1/24th of a second. Those machines will not compensate for any variances. The film is indiscriminately played back at the exact same rate no matter what camera it was shot on.

All motion picture cameras made in the last 30 years have a mirror on the shutter. This is called the reflex viewing system. When the shutter has closed light from exposing the film. The mirror on the shutter reflects light from the lens up into a prism. The prism sends that light into the viewfinder and into the camera operators eye. The camera operator is seeing this light at 1/24th of a second. The old viewing system was called a parallax viewing system where the viewfinder had a different lens from the main lens that exposed the film.

The shutter angle is adjustable on all modern cameras from 11.5 to 180 degrees. The higher end cameras have motors that open and close the shutter from electronic controls. You can even change the shutter angle while the camera is rolling. This can be done to change the exposure without effecting the depth of field. Lower end cameras have shutter that can be manually adjusted using a tool like a hex key.

The pull down claw has nothing directly to do with the shutter. Nearly film camera has a pull down claw. That is how the film is advanced in the gate. Aaton is the only company that does not use pull down claws, they have a magnetic system to advance the film.

I said that the shutter is indepenrent of the shutter. you mistake my statement.

The

I also said that the shutters use mirrors. all you are doing is confirming what I already said, except that the shutter itself is subject to slight variances. An attempt to prevent that was to use a mirrored shutter that rotated so that light was reflected through the gate only when the mirror was at a specific angle.

The point is that whether a motor is used, or electronic methods are used, all shutters are subject to variances.
post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.

Color matched within a certain range. not color matched, as in excatly matched. That would be impossible.

What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".

Quote:
When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.

This is not different to what we would do in our process of duping 70mm, or even single frame work.

But, in the end, there is a final process that comes after all the testing, matching and enumeration, that moves the product out of where perfection would be.

Quote:
The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.

I wish it was as accurate as you like.

Quote:
Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.

Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.

It has some of the films shot with it (there are more). It also mentions a few of the Tv shows, there are also more. I'm sure Panavision would be glad to provide all of the films shot with their camera, as will any of the other digital makers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(Panavision)

Considering that this is only one of a number of digital cameras in use today, the list of films is much more extensive than this, as are the Tv programs.

Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film. The major late night shows are also shot that way, as are news broadcasts, morning shows, nature shows, sports, etc. Some networks are shooting all of their new programing in Hd, such as the Nat Geographic channel, Universal HD, HBO, etc.

Quote:
What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.

What I've heard from kodak is that there was a resurgence in the mid to late '90's, but that it has died out.

Considering that most movies are made in third world countries such as India and China, and their production values, for the most part, are lower than those in the west, it's true that for a time most of their productions will continue to use film and older equipment. But as digital continues to drop in price, that will change before too long.

Quote:
Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.

Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.

Quote:
Not really.

There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.

Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.

Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.

HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.

I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.
post #68 of 88
Quote:
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.

Lets say over the past two years there have been about 600 major theatrically released films. The Genesis has been used to shoot about 15 of them.

Arriflex has the D20. It has been used on a few productions. But Arri's heart isn't really into digital cinema. Most of their innovation is still in film cameras.

Quote:
I said that the shutter is independent of the stutter. you mistake my statement.

"Many cameras have variable shutters. The widest standard shutter is 210 degrees. Which is not appreciably different from 180 degree. Closing the shutter down more and more has an effect on the image. The more closed down the shutter, the shorter the exposure, and therefore the sharper the image. A shutter angle of 90 degrees for example will be a much cleaner sharper image of any moving object. Beyond 90 degrees there is another effect in addition to sharpeness. Since the shutter is now closed significantly longer than it is open, the subject has more time to move between exposures. This will result in a strobe effect with a stuttering motion effect. This was used extensively in Saving Private Ryan and Three Kings as well as many music videos."

From the book Cinematography: Theory and Practice.

Quote:
I also said that the shutters use mirrors.

You said many cameras don't use shutters but rather a rotating mirror. The shutter does rotate and the mirror is on the shutter.

Quote:
The point is that whether a motor is used, or electronic methods are used, all shutters are subject to variances.

At worst its such an infinitesimally small error its inconsequential.
post #69 of 88
Quote:
What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".

Whatever they do I can shoot 5205 and 5218. As long the exposure and contrast are comparable they will cut seamlessly together in editing.

Quote:
Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.

Half of the films listed the Genesis was used for VFX plate shots. The principle photography was on 35mm.

Quote:
Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film.

Here are the shows shot on 35mm and a few on super 16.

ABC:
Boston Legal
Brothers & Sisters
Desperate Housewives
Dirty Sexy Money
Eli Stone
Grey's Anatomy
Lost
Men In Trees
Private Practice
Pushing Daisies

NBC:
30 Rock
Bionic Woman
Chuck
ER
Heros
Friday Night Lights
Knight Rider
Las Vegas
Law & Order
L&O SVU
Lipstick Jungle
Medium
My Name is Earl
Scrubs (super 16)

CBS:
Cold Case
CSI
CSI: Miami
CSI: New York
Ghost Whisperer
Jericho
NCIS
Numb3ers
The Unit
Without A Trace


Fox/FX:
24
Bones
House
Prison Break
Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles
Nip Tuck
The Shield (super 16)

CW:
Reaper
One Tree Hill
Supernatural
Smallville
Aliens in America

HBO:
The Sopranos
The Wire
Entourage
Big Love
Rome
Deadwood
Six Feet Under
Sex And The City (super 16)
Carnival



Scripted shows shot in HD.

ABC:
According to Jim

NBC:
The Office

CBS:
Two and a Half Men

CW:
Everybody Hates Chris

FX:
Rescue Me
Damages
Dirt

Showtime:
The L Word
Weeds
Dexter
Californication


HBO:
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Extras
Flight of The Concords
post #70 of 88
Quote:
Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.

Kodak's list of motion picture film stocks in the 90's

5245/7245 EXR 50D
5248/7248 EXR 100T
5274/7274 VISION 200T
5246/7246 VISION 250D
5277/7277 VISION 320T
5263/7263 VISION 500T
5279/7279 VISION 500T
5284/7284 VISION 500T "Expression"
5289/7289 VISION 800T


Kodaks list of motion picture film stocks 2008.

5201/7201 VISION2 50D
5212/7212 VISION2 100T
5217/7217 VISION2 200T
5205/7205 VISION2 250D
5218/7218 VISION2 500T
5229/7229 VISION2 500T "Expression"
5299/7299 VISION2 500T
5219/7219 VISION3 500T

Kodak has said they will release more Vision 3 stocks.

Quote:
I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.

- This is the industry I work in. These are the tools I work with everyday.

- The choice to use or not use HD for production has nothing to do with what televisions people are using.

- Just because you are watching a show in HD does not mean it was produced in HD. Film images are transfered to HD and broadcast in HD.
post #71 of 88
I'm looking to buy Aperture 2.0 off the Apple website. My question is: how many computers will I be able to install it on if I opt to have an installation disk sent to me? I would assume at least 2, but I want to make sure before I assume.
I want to put a ding in the universe.
Reply
I want to put a ding in the universe.
Reply
post #72 of 88
I downloaded the trial of Aperture 2 but i can't find the filters anywhere! Is it that there aren't any? If not, how could Apple have overlooked this? Surely there should have been support for Core Image filters...It astonishes me that they're not there as it would have been really easy for Apple to implement. Is there a plugin that will give me access to the filters?

Other than that it's a great program, and pretty fast so I don't know what people are complaining about.
post #73 of 88
As far as I know, Apple doesn't use activation, as long as you have a valid serial you could install it on two or more computers, though if you buy a single user license I think it implies that only you could use the computers, if anyone else is using the software, they need to buy their own license! Make sense? That's my interpretation anyway. So in answer, as many computers as you like, but don't let anyone else use the software!
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

I downloaded the trial of Aperture 2 but i can't find the filters anywhere! Is it that there aren't any? If not, how could Apple have overlooked this? Surely there should have been support for Core Image filters...It astonishes me that they're not there as it would have been really easy for Apple to implement. Is there a plugin that will give me access to the filters?

Other than that it's a great program, and pretty fast so I don't know what people are complaining about.

Filters? What kind of filters would you like and what would you use them for?
I'm using aperture since 1.0 and find it pretty much does all I need it to do for my photography needs (amateur, using digital rebel), so I'm curious to what more you need/want.
post #75 of 88
Well, the core image filters allow you to do a variety of things, but I guess this is more classed as photo editing rather than photo import/organisation. I found a cool image application that uses the Core Image filters called Pixelmator. I now have little to no need for Photoshop!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear View Post

Filters? What kind of filters would you like and what would you use them for?
I'm using aperture since 1.0 and find it pretty much does all I need it to do for my photography needs (amateur, using digital rebel), so I'm curious to what more you need/want.
post #76 of 88
I personally prefer Photoshop more not only because of its detail enhancement but also due to its radically-conjured filters and effects. If Aperture would utilize some of that same techonolgy in a way that outdoes Adobe's, then I would definitely consider Aperture.
post #77 of 88
That was one monster pissing contest you guys had there. However, the questions about Aperture and Photoshop were the ones I was actually interested in. One of you stated CR4 has a lot more control. Cool, but anything of importance? Something someone might miss more than once every 100 years?

Maybe you could focus on that instead of just saying CR4 has more stuff. So tell us what's the more stuff is so we can decide if it's stuff we'd use.

I use CS2 for most of my image processing now, and in 90% of my pictures that doesn't involve much more than doing an Apple-Shift-I and a resize. The lack of a cataloguing and storage function in CS2 is the majour issue for me. I've started using iPhoto for storage and CS2 for processing images seperately. It is a pain to have to use different software for different functions. That is the appeal of Aperture. The issue raised about "maximum image quality" is kind of moot. Without clear examples, there's no way to evaluate what that might be worth to me. Given the ease of use of Aperture and it's integration with other Apple software that I use everyday, there's going to have to be an easily noticeable difference. If I have to blow things up to 200% to see the difference, I'm not going to care.

Another point would be the assertation that CR4 produces better images with the same raw data. OK, that should be easy to show with a couple of pictures. I have to say, to make a statement like that you really need to have blind tested the products and done a side by side comparison, without knowing which is which. I actually wouldn't make a statement like the one you made unless I had done that. Unless of course you're saying the differences are so obvious any amateur can pick them out.

Now if you just want to say the images from CR4 make you happier that's a wonderful thing. But I think the question being asked, is, how do you know what makes you happy will make anyone else happy?

I once saw a comparison in a popular magazine of my camera and a few others. The writer talked about punch, contrast all the things you need in a finished image. From his perspective every other DSLR out there was better than mine. But when I actually looked at the images I realized there was way more detail in the highlights and shadows. The pictures were a little flatter than the others, but, I can create shadows and highlights in the processing. I was always taught , go for every bit of information you can in your original. So I came away from the article thinking that even though my camera was the lowest rated, it was the best for the way I was taught to shoot.

As for all the comments about Aperture 1 and 1.5, I really don't need to hear them. I don't plan to buy 1 or 1.5. Apple says they have an all new image processing engine. For all we know they licensed it from Adobe or someone else.

A couple of images illustrating your points would be pretty much all I'd look at. You can go on with the theoretical crap all you want. We're talking about pictures. Arguing about who's processing engine is better and blah blah blah is meaningless, if I can't see a difference. So if you want to argue that one gives you more control over the others , that's good, but also, let us know in what percent of the images we take, are those controls needed. For those of us who take thousands of images every year, we aren't going to tweak every image to get the maximum out of it. There'd be no point in doing so. You seem to be saying you can't achieve acceptable results in Aperture and then doing the whole ego thing about how high your standards are. SO I have to ask, if you concerns about image engines are so high, why aren't you shooting with a Sigma and the Foveon sensor? It kind makes the whole image engine thing a moot point doesn't it?
I wouldn't join any club that would have
someone like me as a member.
Reply
I wouldn't join any club that would have
someone like me as a member.
Reply
post #78 of 88
normhead, I think there is a way to know this and avoid any potential posturing. Apple offers a free 30 day trial for Aperture. Adobe offers the same for Lightroom. You can try them both out and test it for yourself on your own pictures.

But yes, I think I understand your points about the camera, it's a tool. Anyone that understands the limitations and capabilities of the tool is going to get more out of it than those that don't, and even exceed that of less knowledgeable people with better equipment. If what you have suits your shooting style, then that's wonderful.
post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by normhead View Post

That was one monster pissing contest you guys had there. However, the questions about Aperture and Photoshop were the ones I was actually interested in. One of you stated CR4 has a lot more control. Cool, but anything of importance? Something someone might miss more than once every 100 years?

Maybe you could focus on that instead of just saying CR4 has more stuff. So tell us what's the more stuff is so we can decide if it's stuff we'd use.

I use CS2 for most of my image processing now, and in 90% of my pictures that doesn't involve much more than doing an Apple-Shift-I and a resize. The lack of a cataloguing and storage function in CS2 is the majour issue for me. I've started using iPhoto for storage and CS2 for processing images seperately. It is a pain to have to use different software for different functions. That is the appeal of Aperture. The issue raised about "maximum image quality" is kind of moot. Without clear examples, there's no way to evaluate what that might be worth to me. Given the ease of use of Aperture and it's integration with other Apple software that I use everyday, there's going to have to be an easily noticeable difference. If I have to blow things up to 200% to see the difference, I'm not going to care.

Another point would be the assertation that CR4 produces better images with the same raw data. OK, that should be easy to show with a couple of pictures. I have to say, to make a statement like that you really need to have blind tested the products and done a side by side comparison, without knowing which is which. I actually wouldn't make a statement like the one you made unless I had done that. Unless of course you're saying the differences are so obvious any amateur can pick them out.

Now if you just want to say the images from CR4 make you happier that's a wonderful thing. But I think the question being asked, is, how do you know what makes you happy will make anyone else happy?

I once saw a comparison in a popular magazine of my camera and a few others. The writer talked about punch, contrast all the things you need in a finished image. From his perspective every other DSLR out there was better than mine. But when I actually looked at the images I realized there was way more detail in the highlights and shadows. The pictures were a little flatter than the others, but, I can create shadows and highlights in the processing. I was always taught , go for every bit of information you can in your original. So I came away from the article thinking that even though my camera was the lowest rated, it was the best for the way I was taught to shoot.

As for all the comments about Aperture 1 and 1.5, I really don't need to hear them. I don't plan to buy 1 or 1.5. Apple says they have an all new image processing engine. For all we know they licensed it from Adobe or someone else.

A couple of images illustrating your points would be pretty much all I'd look at. You can go on with the theoretical crap all you want. We're talking about pictures. Arguing about who's processing engine is better and blah blah blah is meaningless, if I can't see a difference. So if you want to argue that one gives you more control over the others , that's good, but also, let us know in what percent of the images we take, are those controls needed. For those of us who take thousands of images every year, we aren't going to tweak every image to get the maximum out of it. There'd be no point in doing so. You seem to be saying you can't achieve acceptable results in Aperture and then doing the whole ego thing about how high your standards are. SO I have to ask, if you concerns about image engines are so high, why aren't you shooting with a Sigma and the Foveon sensor? It kind makes the whole image engine thing a moot point doesn't it?

Showing a couple of images on the internet is the worst way to show the differences. You don't now what has been done to the files, so you have no way to verify if the work done was even correctly done.

If you know Photoshop well, then the best thing to do is to go to Adobe's site, and download the 30 day free trial, and try it out for yourself.

If you don't know it all that well, and from what you say you do to a file, it sounds as though that may be the case, then it doesn't matter that much.

The differences are going to matter the most to those who wish to get the most out of every image. If that isn't required, then it doesn't matter which program you use.

Don't be a smartass, and accuse those of us who do care about the highest quality we get, of being egotists. For those of us who do, or did, commercial work, the clients demand that quality. It's not an option.

For those of us who do take thousands of pictures a year, there are automation features in both CR5 and PS to take care of the drudge work. I don't have to tweak each image in a batch individually most of the time, because generally, many of those images require the same treatment, particuarly those taken within controlled situations.

I can often take four or five minutes to work on one, and have the program apply it to all the images that need it. It's called batch processing, and all heavy PS users know about, and use it.

We also don't care if YOU don't care about the differences between Aperture 1 and 1.5. There are other people on this thread, and there are those who do care. Pass those comments that aren't of interest by.

As for the Sigma and Foveon chip. Well, quite frankly, neither is very impressive.

If you want information here, then ask some more specific questions, and we'll see if we have answers for you.
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you want information here, then ask some more specific questions, and we'll see if we have answers for you.

I was particularly interested in your assertion the the image processing engine was better in one than in the other. I assume that having said that, a demonstration would be easy to do, since that is the first step in whatever comes after. Start with the same raw image load it into one program, load it into the other, show us the difference. How long could it take? If you don't want to do it no problem, just when people make statements like that, I like to see examples. If it's too much work, don't bother.
I wouldn't join any club that would have
someone like me as a member.
Reply
I wouldn't join any club that would have
someone like me as a member.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple Releases Aperture 2 with improved interface