I'm just pointing out that this program, while seemingly best for the "little guys", seems to be designed to function well on computers bought by the "big guys".
And I'm just pointing out: How is this any different from FCP or DVDSP or Motion?
Has that hampered those applications' ability to garner best-of-breed status in reviews, and industry acceptance?
First of all PS does not function the same on both platforms. There are still areas in which Mac usability is greater. numerous little things still have advantages on the Mac. As my point in that post was about file and management, you can see the difference there. Both Bridge and Version Cue have markedly lower usefullness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite is bought. That still gives an advantage to the Mac.
Sorry, I don't understand that paragraph at all.
1. What Photoshop features work differently on OS X compared to Windows?
2. How does Bridge & Version Cue having markedly lower usefulness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite have anything to do with whether those applications work differently on different operating systems?
A review about Motion that I read said that the Mac was the most expensive dongle to a $300 program he ever saw. He thought that it was worth it, but felt that he had to point that out as being Apple's philosophy.
And that reviewer was absolutely right. That's what I'm saying, too.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, other than Aperture will run slower on slower hardware. No one's disputing that.
And I'm just pointing out: How is this any different from FCP or DVDSP or Motion?
Has that hampered those applications' ability to garner best-of-breed status in reviews, and industry acceptance?
FCP can be used on a more moderate machine because its use, most of the time, is not hampered by a less than state of the art machine.
Hell, when I first started using ver 1, I had a 733MHz G4 Digital Audio!
Rendering was SLOW, but I could walk away, or even come back the next day.
It depends, as I said before, on what you do. Not everyone uses real time effects on FCP. In fact, most people do not.
The complaints about the requirements for Motion are well known and have been mentioned in all the publications that discuss video. Not just the one I mentioned. If it works for you that's fine. Again, it depends on what you do with it.
You mean DVD Studio? The interface is fine. It's the rendering that's slow. But, again, that's different. The working of the program is fine on many lessor machines than Aperture was being demoed with. Rendering doesn't count.
Were you at the show? Did you see it run? How are you making these comparisons then? The other person who was at the show as well also said the same things I've said.
You are ignoring the facts I'm presenting as if they don't exist. At least think about the possibility that it might be true.
1. What Photoshop features work differently on OS X compared to Windows?
2. How does Bridge & Version Cue having markedly lower usefulness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite have anything to do with whether those applications work differently on different operating systems?
That paragraph was pretty straightfoward. I don't know how I could make it any clearer.
I'm not going to run through all the differences, but things such as magnification, shortcuts, opening and closing dialogs, etc.
Bridge and Version Cue help tremendusly when moving and tracking files between the programs in the suite. They don't have the same functionality when just one of those programs is being used. Then the Mac OS still has the advantage.
And that reviewer was absolutely right. That's what I'm saying, too.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, other than Aperture will run slower on slower hardware. No one's disputing that.
We both agree with that, he was right.
What I, and others, were seeing was that Aperture might run unsatisfactorily, not just slower, on machines that were much slower than the one's at the show.
You can't compare this to FCP or DVD Studio where you do what you do and then walk away while the program renders it.
If the high level effects of the interface slow down so that it feels as though you are waiting for it to happen, then it will be difficult to use. I already explained how they were using it.
The metaphor of the program as light-box is to move images about as though you were sliding them around on the box. If that has delays, it could be uncomfortable. The same thing with the magnifier. These boys were whipping that thing around the screen as though they were holding it in their hand. It worked great when I tried it on the Quad, but it lagged on the dual, with a much smaller screen.
If that happened on a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz machine with 2GB RAM, what will happen on a single 1.25GHz PB?
I'm not saying that you couldn't actually use it. What I'm saying is that Apple was apparently trying, with this program, to imitate the feel of a real light-box, as much as you can with a cursor. They were playing that feel up as much as possible. If that feel is not there, then it will be difficult.
Did you ever use Painter? If you did, do you remember the way complex brushstrokes took a while to draw after you completed the stroke? It hindered creativity. You had to wait for the stroke to complete before you could do another one. So what happened? We either used simpler brushes that were much faster, or abandoned the program. And Painter always got fabulous reviews. But the need for faster machines was always mentioned. It might have been much more popular if it were faster.
That's what I mean by a slow interface. The same thing with the screen redraw in OS X. When you drag the corner of the window to change the size, it lags. It only became pretty much realtime with the dual 2.5's.
Compare that to the same thing in OS 9, and you will understand what I mean.
Criticising peoples [sic] use of apostrophes is pedantic and arrogant. It is not wanted on this forum.
It may not be wanted, but it is, nonetheless, desperately needed. My comments stand as I leave you AI denizens to your grammatically challenged futures. Good luck with those resumes, excuse me, "resume's".
It may not be wanted, but it is, nonetheless, desperately needed. My comments stand as I leave you AI denizens to your grammatically challenged futures. Good luck with those resumes, excuse me, "resume's".
Farewell.
It is needed, I agree, in resumes and CVs as well as job applications. This is none of those - it's a forum. I agree the level of English has deteriorated and people have got lazy but come on this is not the time or place for it. Post your comments in the AppleOutsider part of the forum.
Incidentally 'peoples use' was a typo - I checked my post and it seemed right. We all make mistakes you know!
I'm sure you're a great guy but people don't respond well to criticism and it's not warranted.
It is needed, I agree, in resumes and CVs as well as job applications. This is none of those - it's a forum. I agree the level of English has deteriorated and people have got lazy but come on this is not the time or place for it. Post your comments in the AppleOutsider part of the forum.
Incidentally 'peoples use' was a typo - I checked my post and it seemed right. We all make mistakes you know!
I'm sure you're a great guy but people don't respond well to criticism and it's not warranted.
Well, now that that's out of the way, can we get back to arguing about what's important? 's's's's's's's
One thing hurting the Mac that has caused movement to the PC is the percieved higher prices of our platform. Apple has to address that directly. There has been a lot of head scratching about the new PM's for example. Aperture can't counter that.
Why would anybody would be scratching their heads about the cost of the new PM's?
Why would anybody would be scratching their heads about the cost of the new PM's?
I've been reading around, and speaking to people. There seems to be a consensus that the new line is imbalanced.
dual core 2GHz $2,000
dual core 2.3GHz $2,500
Quad core 2.5 GHz $3,300
The feeling, and I concur, is that it should have been more linear. Also, why are the dual cores which are less expensive than two chips, and lower speed as well, the same price as the previous models? It's thought, though I don't know if anyone has been able to look, that the single chip models use one of the cooling units that were used before. I don't know if that's true, or whether they use a newly designed unit. It's been previously speculated by some in the business that the old units were over spec'd for the chips they were used on. If so, then Apple saved the price of an entire water cooling module, as well as any extra circuitry that went with them.
On the PC side, Express boards haven't proven to be all that much more costly than PCI boards have been. Gateway has an Express machine for $650.
So, the expectation was that the machines should be more like this.
dual core 2GHz $1,800
dual core 2.5GHz $2,300
Quad core 2.3GHz $2,800
Quad core 2.5GHz $3,300
Notice that the first Quad is slower than the highest single chip machine. The reason would be that people might need the extra power for apps where four cores will make a big difference, but where apps like Office are fast enough already, and won't benefit much by the 200MHZ difference.
I'm not going to run through all the differences, but things such as magnification, shortcuts, opening and closing dialogs, etc.
So you're saying that opening and closing dialogs is somehow easier in OS X than in Windows, and that's an advantage to using Adobe products on OS X? Are you serious?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Bridge and Version Cue help tremendusly when moving and tracking files between the programs in the suite. They don't have the same functionality when just one of those programs is being used. Then the Mac OS still has the advantage.
That's exactly what you said the last time. I still don't see how the first two sentences logically result in the third sentence.
You can't compare this to FCP or DVD Studio where you do what you do and then walk away while the program renders it.
...
The metaphor of the program as light-box is to move images about as though you were sliding them around on the box. If that has delays, it could be uncomfortable. The same thing with the magnifier. These boys were whipping that thing around the screen as though they were holding it in their hand. It worked great when I tried it on the Quad, but it lagged on the dual, with a much smaller screen.
If that happened on a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz machine with 2GB RAM, what will happen on a single 1.25GHz PB?
Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window.
What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware?
[edit]
I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation.
What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution, it gives you more of a general idea of what the changes do rather than an exact pixel-by-pixel rendering.
Is that useful? Sure it is! It's much more productive to get a realtime 1/2x resolution rendering than to sit for 30 seconds and wait while it renders a 1x resolution rendering--it speeds your workflow up tremendously.
There's no reason Aperture can't do the same thing. Maybe the loupe's circle will be smaller on lighter hardware, or maybe it'll be a 1/2x resolution rendering. Or maybe both. Who knows?
All you're doing is spreading FUD about potential problems, without knowing if they truly are problems.
So you're saying that opening and closing dialogs is somehow easier in OS X than in Windows, and that's an advantage to using Adobe products on OS X? Are you serious?
That's exactly what you said the last time. I still don't see how the first two sentences logically result in the third sentence.
Even though you say you're gone, I'll answer anyway.
I'm not saying that opening and closing dialogs is better. I admit that I should have used a different word. I said opening and closing. The two words somehow just went together. What I meant to say was that opening and SAVING dialogs, windows, or however you want to describe them. This goes to the file management we're talking about.
Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window.
What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware?
[edit]
I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation.
What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution, it gives you more of a general idea of what the changes do rather than an exact pixel-by-pixel rendering.
Is that useful? Sure it is! It's much more productive to get a realtime 1/2x resolution rendering than to sit for 30 seconds and wait while it renders a 1x resolution rendering--it speeds your workflow up tremendously.
There's no reason Aperture can't do the same thing. Maybe the loupe's circle will be smaller on lighter hardware, or maybe it'll be a 1/2x resolution rendering. Or maybe both. Who knows?
All you're doing is spreading FUD about potential problems, without knowing if they truly are problems.
Adios, amigo, I'm outta here.
Obviously, the Preview window is what I'm talking about. Your explanation illustrates the very point I'm making. I didn't bother to describe it because I felt as though you knew it already, which you do.
The smaller the monitor, the less pixels to be pushed around, and the faster it goes - to a certain extent. But the program is working with the same file sizes as before, and it's cpu limited. You can change the size of the magnifier, but then it can get too small to be of much use.
I think it's funny that you would end this with an accusation of FUD, when you never saw or used the program, but I did.
In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.
And it hits the bulls eye beautifully!
Actually I know a lot of painters and other visual artists (excluding photographers who we already assume will be interested in this) will be VERY interested in this. All visual artists as part of their job description have to be photographers as well, whether you make paintings, drawings, sculpture, installations you have to have great photographs of your work in order for it to be seen. Anything you apply for, a grant a juried exhibition, or your first intro to a gallery you're courting depends very much on your slides or photographs of your work.
About a year and a half ago, I invested quite a bit of money in a good digital camera so that I could get rid of my dependency on slides. For this situations where I need actual slides because someplace I'm working with hasn't caught up with the technology I can have slides made from digitals. (Which seems expensive at 9-10 ten bucks per slide, but if I use those as your master slides it works out and then make $1 copies for the actual send out, I actually save money on film and processing, not having to take three rolls of slide film just to get five images I can use.)
More on to my point. Having the right photograph to represent an object is very important, so that means often taking dozens of shots just for one object. Those dozens add up pretty quickly. And although iPhoto (in tandem with Photoshop Elements for most editing) in its way of being able to cross reference and sort things in tons of different ways with dates, keywords and ratings, Aperture seems like a godsend. I was making a list of feature requests for iPhoto to send to Apple, because although I knew there were other solutions (usually more expensive) I didn't like how those other solutions worked. So my best bet was to hope iPhoto built on top of its (limited) good thing. But here they go and introduce Aperture with all my wanted features and some that hadn't occurred to me but I see as being essential in making this a real professional app (Loupe, and side by side comparison, zooming on multiple images, working directly from RAW and keeping a copy of the digital negative, and modifications are simply instructions on how to modify, not saved multiples of essentially the same image.
Being able to more easily work with RAW to set white balance (which is VERY important in work with lots of white or light colors close to white). Because of RAW slowness I'd usually just capture in JPEG and take my chances in hoping I'd get the right white balance, which is sometime precarious, even using custom white balance on my camera. This is like I said a godsend, having all the features to work with photos that I wanted, and all the features I never knew I needed, but seem essential to me. There is probably nothing in Aperture that I can't use to my advantage, the things getting the least use from me are the web galleries. Depending on how flexible and customizable it is I could use it to build certain pages for my website, but most of that I'll still do by hand. The books on the other hand will be great. I have been wanting to put a couple books together of my work and use iPhoto, but I'll wait and use this in Aperture.
And the biggest struggle having so many pictures is the amount of time to compare and sort through and organize everything. This seems to be the most intuitive and straightforward solution possible now and for the foreseeable future. I expect the time it takes me to do all my documenting of my work to be SIGNIFICANTLY decreased.
This will definitely hasten my purchase of a Powermac, which I've been preparing and saving for for a couple years. The things I do in Photoshop and most visual artists (excluding those working in digital mediums) use photoshop for are exactly the things that Aperture does and appear to do it so well. Most of the things that Photoshop has to offer don't do me any good personally. They're great features if you need them, but there's not much use for them in my line, aside from levels, color balancing and sharpening, noise reduction.
Now the price is pretty high, especially considering most of us don't have a machine that this will run well on, but I just happened to be in the market for a new Powermac anyway to speed up the sort of tedious flow of sorting and organizing in iPhoto, waiting for Photoshop to load the huge files, editing, and waiting for the files to be saved again. So just speeding up that would have been nice, but most of the wait time of opening and closing with Aperture looks like it will be eliminated, and then sorting and comparing will be a totally different experience.
But if you look at it this way, I'll have a $100 copy of Photoshop Elements which I'll probably use on VERY rare occasions mostly to square off images accidently shot not head-on and then I have Aperture for $500 to do all the 95% of the others things I need to do for the same price as a full version of Photoshop. Which I still have 85-90% of the functionality of Photoshop in Photoshop Elements PLUS all the things Aperture does. Not a bad deal from where I stand
So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.
So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.
Great first post, welcome to the forum! I agree and for people like me who are in education it's even cheaper - only £220 - which I suppose isn't that much less than the US full price!
I don't understand. On the one hand hand you're derisive of anyone who isn't a super-high-dollar pro, but on the other hand you seem to be a cheerleader for the little guy, who only makes 40 grand a year.
The guy (or gal) who makes 40 grand a year as a photographer simply cannot expect his or her computer to run any pro app the way a six-figure-income pro will. That's life.
Also workload is a factor: the 6-figure guy probably NEEDS way more power than the little guy
Little guy takes 500 shots at a wedding:
Big shot takes 1200 shots at a pro football game
Little guy has a week or two to get the photos done and proof sheets made
Depending on when the paper/magazine goes to press or when teh web site is updated, the big guy may only have a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
I'm just pointing out that this program, while seemingly best for the "little guys", seems to be designed to function well on computers bought by the "big guys".
And I'm just pointing out: How is this any different from FCP or DVDSP or Motion?
Has that hampered those applications' ability to garner best-of-breed status in reviews, and industry acceptance?
Originally posted by melgross
No. That's not it.
First of all PS does not function the same on both platforms. There are still areas in which Mac usability is greater. numerous little things still have advantages on the Mac. As my point in that post was about file and management, you can see the difference there. Both Bridge and Version Cue have markedly lower usefullness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite is bought. That still gives an advantage to the Mac.
Sorry, I don't understand that paragraph at all.
1. What Photoshop features work differently on OS X compared to Windows?
2. How does Bridge & Version Cue having markedly lower usefulness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite have anything to do with whether those applications work differently on different operating systems?
Originally posted by melgross
A review about Motion that I read said that the Mac was the most expensive dongle to a $300 program he ever saw. He thought that it was worth it, but felt that he had to point that out as being Apple's philosophy.
And that reviewer was absolutely right. That's what I'm saying, too.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, other than Aperture will run slower on slower hardware. No one's disputing that.
Originally posted by bikertwin
And I'm just pointing out: How is this any different from FCP or DVDSP or Motion?
Has that hampered those applications' ability to garner best-of-breed status in reviews, and industry acceptance?
FCP can be used on a more moderate machine because its use, most of the time, is not hampered by a less than state of the art machine.
Hell, when I first started using ver 1, I had a 733MHz G4 Digital Audio!
Rendering was SLOW, but I could walk away, or even come back the next day.
It depends, as I said before, on what you do. Not everyone uses real time effects on FCP. In fact, most people do not.
The complaints about the requirements for Motion are well known and have been mentioned in all the publications that discuss video. Not just the one I mentioned. If it works for you that's fine. Again, it depends on what you do with it.
You mean DVD Studio? The interface is fine. It's the rendering that's slow. But, again, that's different. The working of the program is fine on many lessor machines than Aperture was being demoed with. Rendering doesn't count.
Were you at the show? Did you see it run? How are you making these comparisons then? The other person who was at the show as well also said the same things I've said.
You are ignoring the facts I'm presenting as if they don't exist. At least think about the possibility that it might be true.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Sorry, I don't understand that paragraph at all.
1. What Photoshop features work differently on OS X compared to Windows?
2. How does Bridge & Version Cue having markedly lower usefulness when only one of the programs in the CS2 suite have anything to do with whether those applications work differently on different operating systems?
That paragraph was pretty straightfoward. I don't know how I could make it any clearer.
I'm not going to run through all the differences, but things such as magnification, shortcuts, opening and closing dialogs, etc.
Bridge and Version Cue help tremendusly when moving and tracking files between the programs in the suite. They don't have the same functionality when just one of those programs is being used. Then the Mac OS still has the advantage.
Originally posted by bikertwin
And that reviewer was absolutely right. That's what I'm saying, too.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, other than Aperture will run slower on slower hardware. No one's disputing that.
We both agree with that, he was right.
What I, and others, were seeing was that Aperture might run unsatisfactorily, not just slower, on machines that were much slower than the one's at the show.
You can't compare this to FCP or DVD Studio where you do what you do and then walk away while the program renders it.
If the high level effects of the interface slow down so that it feels as though you are waiting for it to happen, then it will be difficult to use. I already explained how they were using it.
The metaphor of the program as light-box is to move images about as though you were sliding them around on the box. If that has delays, it could be uncomfortable. The same thing with the magnifier. These boys were whipping that thing around the screen as though they were holding it in their hand. It worked great when I tried it on the Quad, but it lagged on the dual, with a much smaller screen.
If that happened on a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz machine with 2GB RAM, what will happen on a single 1.25GHz PB?
I'm not saying that you couldn't actually use it. What I'm saying is that Apple was apparently trying, with this program, to imitate the feel of a real light-box, as much as you can with a cursor. They were playing that feel up as much as possible. If that feel is not there, then it will be difficult.
Did you ever use Painter? If you did, do you remember the way complex brushstrokes took a while to draw after you completed the stroke? It hindered creativity. You had to wait for the stroke to complete before you could do another one. So what happened? We either used simpler brushes that were much faster, or abandoned the program. And Painter always got fabulous reviews. But the need for faster machines was always mentioned. It might have been much more popular if it were faster.
That's what I mean by a slow interface. The same thing with the screen redraw in OS X. When you drag the corner of the window to change the size, it lags. It only became pretty much realtime with the dual 2.5's.
Compare that to the same thing in OS 9, and you will understand what I mean.
A photographer who doesn't like computers would be attracted to buy this and therefore would buy a new Mac.
A photographer who does like computers would upgrade to run it - if they couldn't they obviously don't need it.
I really don't see the problem.
I wish I'd bought a PowerMac and 20" screen in January instead of my PowerBook!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Criticising peoples [sic] use of apostrophes is pedantic and arrogant. It is not wanted on this forum.
It may not be wanted, but it is, nonetheless, desperately needed. My comments stand as I leave you AI denizens to your grammatically challenged futures. Good luck with those resumes, excuse me, "resume's".
Farewell.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
It may not be wanted, but it is, nonetheless, desperately needed. My comments stand as I leave you AI denizens to your grammatically challenged futures. Good luck with those resumes, excuse me, "resume's".
Farewell.
It is needed, I agree, in resumes and CVs as well as job applications. This is none of those - it's a forum. I agree the level of English has deteriorated and people have got lazy but come on this is not the time or place for it. Post your comments in the AppleOutsider part of the forum.
Incidentally 'peoples use' was a typo - I checked my post and it seemed right. We all make mistakes you know!
I'm sure you're a great guy but people don't respond well to criticism and it's not warranted.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
It is needed, I agree, in resumes and CVs as well as job applications. This is none of those - it's a forum. I agree the level of English has deteriorated and people have got lazy but come on this is not the time or place for it. Post your comments in the AppleOutsider part of the forum.
Incidentally 'peoples use' was a typo - I checked my post and it seemed right. We all make mistakes you know!
I'm sure you're a great guy but people don't respond well to criticism and it's not warranted.
Well, now that that's out of the way, can we get back to arguing about what's important? 's's's's's's's
Originally posted by melgross
Well, now that that's out of the way, can we get back to arguing about what's important? 's's's's's's's
that's what' I' was' saying' I can't wait for Aperture!
Originally posted by melgross
One thing hurting the Mac that has caused movement to the PC is the percieved higher prices of our platform. Apple has to address that directly. There has been a lot of head scratching about the new PM's for example. Aperture can't counter that.
Why would anybody would be scratching their heads about the cost of the new PM's?
Originally posted by vinney57
Why would anybody would be scratching their heads about the cost of the new PM's?
I've been reading around, and speaking to people. There seems to be a consensus that the new line is imbalanced.
dual core 2GHz $2,000
dual core 2.3GHz $2,500
Quad core 2.5 GHz $3,300
The feeling, and I concur, is that it should have been more linear. Also, why are the dual cores which are less expensive than two chips, and lower speed as well, the same price as the previous models? It's thought, though I don't know if anyone has been able to look, that the single chip models use one of the cooling units that were used before. I don't know if that's true, or whether they use a newly designed unit. It's been previously speculated by some in the business that the old units were over spec'd for the chips they were used on. If so, then Apple saved the price of an entire water cooling module, as well as any extra circuitry that went with them.
On the PC side, Express boards haven't proven to be all that much more costly than PCI boards have been. Gateway has an Express machine for $650.
So, the expectation was that the machines should be more like this.
dual core 2GHz $1,800
dual core 2.5GHz $2,300
Quad core 2.3GHz $2,800
Quad core 2.5GHz $3,300
Notice that the first Quad is slower than the highest single chip machine. The reason would be that people might need the extra power for apps where four cores will make a big difference, but where apps like Office are fast enough already, and won't benefit much by the 200MHZ difference.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not going to run through all the differences, but things such as magnification, shortcuts, opening and closing dialogs, etc.
So you're saying that opening and closing dialogs is somehow easier in OS X than in Windows, and that's an advantage to using Adobe products on OS X? Are you serious?
Originally posted by melgross
Bridge and Version Cue help tremendusly when moving and tracking files between the programs in the suite. They don't have the same functionality when just one of those programs is being used. Then the Mac OS still has the advantage.
That's exactly what you said the last time. I still don't see how the first two sentences logically result in the third sentence.
Originally posted by melgross
You can't compare this to FCP or DVD Studio where you do what you do and then walk away while the program renders it.
...
The metaphor of the program as light-box is to move images about as though you were sliding them around on the box. If that has delays, it could be uncomfortable. The same thing with the magnifier. These boys were whipping that thing around the screen as though they were holding it in their hand. It worked great when I tried it on the Quad, but it lagged on the dual, with a much smaller screen.
If that happened on a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz machine with 2GB RAM, what will happen on a single 1.25GHz PB?
Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window.
What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware?
[edit]
I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation.
What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution, it gives you more of a general idea of what the changes do rather than an exact pixel-by-pixel rendering.
Is that useful? Sure it is! It's much more productive to get a realtime 1/2x resolution rendering than to sit for 30 seconds and wait while it renders a 1x resolution rendering--it speeds your workflow up tremendously.
There's no reason Aperture can't do the same thing. Maybe the loupe's circle will be smaller on lighter hardware, or maybe it'll be a 1/2x resolution rendering. Or maybe both. Who knows?
All you're doing is spreading FUD about potential problems, without knowing if they truly are problems.
Adios, amigo, I'm outta here.
Originally posted by bikertwin
So you're saying that opening and closing dialogs is somehow easier in OS X than in Windows, and that's an advantage to using Adobe products on OS X? Are you serious?
That's exactly what you said the last time. I still don't see how the first two sentences logically result in the third sentence.
Even though you say you're gone, I'll answer anyway.
I'm not saying that opening and closing dialogs is better. I admit that I should have used a different word. I said opening and closing. The two words somehow just went together. What I meant to say was that opening and SAVING dialogs, windows, or however you want to describe them. This goes to the file management we're talking about.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window.
What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware?
[edit]
I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation.
What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution, it gives you more of a general idea of what the changes do rather than an exact pixel-by-pixel rendering.
Is that useful? Sure it is! It's much more productive to get a realtime 1/2x resolution rendering than to sit for 30 seconds and wait while it renders a 1x resolution rendering--it speeds your workflow up tremendously.
There's no reason Aperture can't do the same thing. Maybe the loupe's circle will be smaller on lighter hardware, or maybe it'll be a 1/2x resolution rendering. Or maybe both. Who knows?
All you're doing is spreading FUD about potential problems, without knowing if they truly are problems.
Adios, amigo, I'm outta here.
Obviously, the Preview window is what I'm talking about. Your explanation illustrates the very point I'm making. I didn't bother to describe it because I felt as though you knew it already, which you do.
The smaller the monitor, the less pixels to be pushed around, and the faster it goes - to a certain extent. But the program is working with the same file sizes as before, and it's cpu limited. You can change the size of the magnifier, but then it can get too small to be of much use.
I think it's funny that you would end this with an accusation of FUD, when you never saw or used the program, but I did.
Originally posted by bikertwin
In the same vein, Aperture was designed for photographers. Not photo illustrators, not printing/production, not painters. It's for photographers.
And it hits the bulls eye beautifully!
Actually I know a lot of painters and other visual artists (excluding photographers who we already assume will be interested in this) will be VERY interested in this. All visual artists as part of their job description have to be photographers as well, whether you make paintings, drawings, sculpture, installations you have to have great photographs of your work in order for it to be seen. Anything you apply for, a grant a juried exhibition, or your first intro to a gallery you're courting depends very much on your slides or photographs of your work.
About a year and a half ago, I invested quite a bit of money in a good digital camera so that I could get rid of my dependency on slides. For this situations where I need actual slides because someplace I'm working with hasn't caught up with the technology I can have slides made from digitals. (Which seems expensive at 9-10 ten bucks per slide, but if I use those as your master slides it works out and then make $1 copies for the actual send out, I actually save money on film and processing, not having to take three rolls of slide film just to get five images I can use.)
More on to my point. Having the right photograph to represent an object is very important, so that means often taking dozens of shots just for one object. Those dozens add up pretty quickly. And although iPhoto (in tandem with Photoshop Elements for most editing) in its way of being able to cross reference and sort things in tons of different ways with dates, keywords and ratings, Aperture seems like a godsend. I was making a list of feature requests for iPhoto to send to Apple, because although I knew there were other solutions (usually more expensive) I didn't like how those other solutions worked. So my best bet was to hope iPhoto built on top of its (limited) good thing. But here they go and introduce Aperture with all my wanted features and some that hadn't occurred to me but I see as being essential in making this a real professional app (Loupe, and side by side comparison, zooming on multiple images, working directly from RAW and keeping a copy of the digital negative, and modifications are simply instructions on how to modify, not saved multiples of essentially the same image.
Being able to more easily work with RAW to set white balance (which is VERY important in work with lots of white or light colors close to white). Because of RAW slowness I'd usually just capture in JPEG and take my chances in hoping I'd get the right white balance, which is sometime precarious, even using custom white balance on my camera. This is like I said a godsend, having all the features to work with photos that I wanted, and all the features I never knew I needed, but seem essential to me. There is probably nothing in Aperture that I can't use to my advantage, the things getting the least use from me are the web galleries. Depending on how flexible and customizable it is I could use it to build certain pages for my website, but most of that I'll still do by hand. The books on the other hand will be great. I have been wanting to put a couple books together of my work and use iPhoto, but I'll wait and use this in Aperture.
And the biggest struggle having so many pictures is the amount of time to compare and sort through and organize everything. This seems to be the most intuitive and straightforward solution possible now and for the foreseeable future. I expect the time it takes me to do all my documenting of my work to be SIGNIFICANTLY decreased.
This will definitely hasten my purchase of a Powermac, which I've been preparing and saving for for a couple years. The things I do in Photoshop and most visual artists (excluding those working in digital mediums) use photoshop for are exactly the things that Aperture does and appear to do it so well. Most of the things that Photoshop has to offer don't do me any good personally. They're great features if you need them, but there's not much use for them in my line, aside from levels, color balancing and sharpening, noise reduction.
Now the price is pretty high, especially considering most of us don't have a machine that this will run well on, but I just happened to be in the market for a new Powermac anyway to speed up the sort of tedious flow of sorting and organizing in iPhoto, waiting for Photoshop to load the huge files, editing, and waiting for the files to be saved again. So just speeding up that would have been nice, but most of the wait time of opening and closing with Aperture looks like it will be eliminated, and then sorting and comparing will be a totally different experience.
But if you look at it this way, I'll have a $100 copy of Photoshop Elements which I'll probably use on VERY rare occasions mostly to square off images accidently shot not head-on and then I have Aperture for $500 to do all the 95% of the others things I need to do for the same price as a full version of Photoshop. Which I still have 85-90% of the functionality of Photoshop in Photoshop Elements PLUS all the things Aperture does. Not a bad deal from where I stand
So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.
Originally posted by androit
So this is for photographers AND all of those people who have to be a part time photographer as part of their job description.
Great first post, welcome to the forum! I agree and for people like me who are in education it's even cheaper - only £220 - which I suppose isn't that much less than the US full price!
Originally posted by bikertwin
I don't understand. On the one hand hand you're derisive of anyone who isn't a super-high-dollar pro, but on the other hand you seem to be a cheerleader for the little guy, who only makes 40 grand a year.
The guy (or gal) who makes 40 grand a year as a photographer simply cannot expect his or her computer to run any pro app the way a six-figure-income pro will. That's life.
Also workload is a factor: the 6-figure guy probably NEEDS way more power than the little guy
Little guy takes 500 shots at a wedding:
Big shot takes 1200 shots at a pro football game
Little guy has a week or two to get the photos done and proof sheets made
Depending on when the paper/magazine goes to press or when teh web site is updated, the big guy may only have a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes.
To whome much is given, much is expected.