Apple Releases Aperture 2 with improved interface
 - Page 2

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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?

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,

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ireland

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

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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

Originally Posted by icfireball

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?

Originally Posted by melgross

I did.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by icfireball

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

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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,

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

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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

Originally Posted by JeffDM

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

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I also said that the shutters use mirrors.

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

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".

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

Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not 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.

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.

Originally Posted by s.metcalf

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.

Originally Posted by dutch pear

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.

Originally Posted by normhead

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?

Originally Posted by melgross

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