If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
You can't just take a PC card and put in your Mac. First, it would have to work on the PCI X bus. Which is possible, but unlikely.
Second, even if it did, the firmware on the card won't allow it to because of endian issues among others. Lastly, the Mac drivers wouldn't see the card.
Some cards can be "flashed", but I don't know about that one. Flashing wouldn't let it work on a bus it isn't designed for.
I can be more productive with - get this! - Fireworks simply because everything is nondestructive and you can choose whether you want to use layers or not. Fireworks is, in my opinion, the middle ground between Illustrator and Photoshop: it has nondestructive effects and a full set of vector tooks like Illustrator, but a bitmap grounding and tons of bitmap alteration tools as well.
But for some reason, it's a toy application in every "professional"'s eyes.
Fireworks is good. But it never made it bigtime because despite is usefullness, it's still just a subset of PS.
Also, it's what you know. Most guys are trained and experienced on PS and Illustrator. The plug-ins for both PS and Illus also give them many more functions.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of Fireworks code.
Apply a gaussian blur on a layer. How will you adjust that?
By making a new fresh layer and apply a new guassian blur on that.
But how do you remember what settings the filter in the first layer had?
Do you write it down or use your own codes in the naming of layers?
What if you want different crops of that photo?
Your understanding of Core Image (I'm not talking about Apperture here) is very incomplete Play a little with Core Image Fun House and see what it can do.
Cropping? And it isn't easier to show them the different versions at the same time?
Again, I'm not talking about Apperture here.
And it will probably do it like Core Image Fun House.
Again, I'm not talking about.... Ahh, what the hell.
We've already had the disscussion about how every filter is not a layer. We're beyond that.
Does Aperture allow you to erase backgrounds - or will I still need photoshop for that? Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop - it's just nowhere near as intuitive as Illustrator.
Does Aperture allow you to erase backgrounds - or will I still need photoshop for that? Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop - it's just nowhere near as intuitive as Illustrator.
I'm not sure what you mean by "erase backgrounds".
Sorry I mean when you wish to delete the area surrounding an object - like a green screen for example.
I don't remember them showing that in the class, and I didn't think to ask the guys I was talking to when I was using the Quad.
I'm sure that they didn't have us work with all of the features. This was at a show, and they try to get as many bodies in front of the machines as possible.
But it doesn't seem as though this program is big on the kind of work where sophisticated masking techniques are going to be needed. At least not at this time.
I don't remember them showing that in the class, and I didn't think to ask the guys I was talking to when I was using the Quad.
I'm sure that they didn't have us work with all of the features. This was at a show, and they try to get as many bodies in front of the machines as possible.
But it doesn't seem as though this program is big on the kind of work where sophisticated masking techniques are going to be needed. At least not at this time.
Some of us remember Quickdraw GX. I mentioned this earlier.
GX was a great 3D standard which failed because It was an Apple only innovation.
At the time, Apple had no real software that could take advantage of it, and other companies, except for small Apple only ones, weren't interested in an Apple only standard.
Apple's new Core technologies are like that with one difference.
Apple now has significant programs that can, or do, take advantage of them. As long as those programs are popular enough for Apple to continue development, they will be around.
The really interesting thing here though is that now MS is going to have pretty much the same, or more, in Vista.
In talking about PS using CI, we are talking about something almost impossible, as it stands. Unless, as I mused earlier, Adobe could somehow figure out a way to get it's own filters to use it.
With Vista having pretty much the same thing, and if Adobe could incorporate those, and if they are close enough to Apple's, we might see some interesting things happening.
Who knows. If Apple really wants Aperture to become an industry standard, it MUST work on PC's. With Vista offering the same, or more, functionality in that area, this might be possible.
It's a question as to whether Apple would want that though. It would depend on whether they believe that Aperture is drawing users to buy its computers. If not, they might offer it. If so, they might not.
Apple now has significant programs that can, or do, take advantage of them. As long as those programs are popular enough for Apple to continue development, they will be around.
The really interesting thing here though is that now MS is going to have pretty much the same, or more, in Vista.
Both MS and Apple want Adobe dead.
It will be too expensive for Adobe to use MS imaging technologies on Vista and Core Image on OS X. Adobe will be at a competitive disadvantage to both MS and Apple, since MS and Apple can leverage their built-in technologies much faster than Adobe can create its own.
Adobe's the last major 3rd party developer. Well, OK, maybe Intuit.
Within 5 years you will own either an Intel box with Windows and (almost) all Microsoft software, or you will own an Intel box with OS X and (almost) all Apple software, or you will own an Intel box with Linux and (almost) all open source software.
They'll be no one else left except small developers.
It will be too expensive for Adobe to use MS imaging technologies on Vista and Core Image on OS X. Adobe will be at a competitive disadvantage to both MS and Apple, since MS and Apple can leverage their built-in technologies much faster than Adobe can create its own.
Adobe's the last major 3rd party developer. Well, OK, maybe Intuit.
Within 5 years you will own either an Intel box with Windows and (almost) all Microsoft software, or you will own an Intel box with OS X and (almost) all Apple software, or you will own an Intel box with Linux and (almost) all open source software.
They'll be no one else left except small developers.
I think that's rather extreme. It's been said before.
I think that's rather extreme. It's been said before.
15 years ago WordPerfect, Lotus, and Borland seemed invincible, too.
In any case, it just seems that's where things are heading at the current moment. It could change. Adobe might come out with OS CS and beat MS & Apple at their own game.
15 years ago WordPerfect, Lotus, and Borland seemed invincible, too.
In any case, it just seems that's where things are heading at the current moment. It could change. Adobe might come out with OS CS and beat MS & Apple at their own game.
Well, let's just hope that none of it ever happens.
I would imagine those steep hardware requirement's only really pertain to RAw images. As I'm reading other people's reports of Aperture, it seems there is no software cap on the number of Raw images that can be stored in Aperture. Your hard drive is the cap.
You do need those headware requirements for hundreds or thousands of RAW images.
But you don't need such heavy hardware for thousands of JPEG's.
I would imagine those steep hardware requirement's only really pertain to RAw images. As I'm reading other people's reports of Aperture, it seems there is no software cap on the number of Raw images that can be stored in Aperture. Your hard drive is the cap.
You do need those headware requirements for hundreds or thousands of RAW images.
But you don't need such heavy hardware for thousands of JPEG's.
It has nothing to do with how many images are being stored on your HD. It has to do with operations on the images you have open, and on the screen.
The images used at the Photo Expo were small. No more than about 20MB each.
My average image size is over 50MB in 24 bit. Many images are in 48 bit - 4 times the file size.
Several times a month I would get file sizes over 300MB, 24 bit. working with just one of those would slow the program down. Remember that CI is not instant. It just seems that way with certain image sizes. PS is also instant with most adjustments on smaller file sizes.
What file size would the GPU and associated memory choke on?
It's unlikely that file type or file size have anything to do with speed in Aperture (other than maybe initially opening/converting it and having Aperture cache it in memory).
Aperture probably opens the file (whether it's raw or JPEG or PSD or whatever) and creates a bitmap in memory of the image. If that's the case, then the only thing that affects speed from that point on is (1) the pixel dimensions of the file and (2) the number of fixes/transitions you've applied in Aperture.
Since Aperture only works with flattened or single-layer PSD images, then whether your file is 300 MB or 20 MB is irrelevant. If both images are, say, 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, then Aperture will treat each one just as fast as the other.
Comments
Originally posted by icfireball
My question is:
I have a PowerMac G5, 1.6 ghz
If i switch the graphics card in that (64 MB) with the graphics card in my PC downstairs, GeForce 5200 (same card actualy, different RAM), which has 128 MB RAM, and I upgrade my computer's RAM from 512 to 1 GB, will Appeture work on my G5?
You can't just take a PC card and put in your Mac. First, it would have to work on the PCI X bus. Which is possible, but unlikely.
Second, even if it did, the firmware on the card won't allow it to because of endian issues among others. Lastly, the Mac drivers wouldn't see the card.
Some cards can be "flashed", but I don't know about that one. Flashing wouldn't let it work on a bus it isn't designed for.
Originally posted by Placebo
Photoshop sucks.
Just thought I'd put that out there.
I can be more productive with - get this! - Fireworks simply because everything is nondestructive and you can choose whether you want to use layers or not. Fireworks is, in my opinion, the middle ground between Illustrator and Photoshop: it has nondestructive effects and a full set of vector tooks like Illustrator, but a bitmap grounding and tons of bitmap alteration tools as well.
But for some reason, it's a toy application in every "professional"'s eyes.
Fireworks is good. But it never made it bigtime because despite is usefullness, it's still just a subset of PS.
Also, it's what you know. Most guys are trained and experienced on PS and Illustrator. The plug-ins for both PS and Illus also give them many more functions.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of Fireworks code.
Originally posted by JLL
No you can't.
Apply a gaussian blur on a layer. How will you adjust that?
By making a new fresh layer and apply a new guassian blur on that.
But how do you remember what settings the filter in the first layer had?
Do you write it down or use your own codes in the naming of layers?
What if you want different crops of that photo?
Your understanding of Core Image (I'm not talking about Apperture here) is very incomplete
Cropping? And it isn't easier to show them the different versions at the same time?
Again, I'm not talking about Apperture here.
And it will probably do it like Core Image Fun House.
Again, I'm not talking about.... Ahh, what the hell.
We've already had the disscussion about how every filter is not a layer. We're beyond that.
Yes, Fun House is fun.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Does Aperture allow you to erase backgrounds - or will I still need photoshop for that? Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop - it's just nowhere near as intuitive as Illustrator.
I'm not sure what you mean by "erase backgrounds".
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not sure what you mean by "erase backgrounds".
Sorry I mean when you wish to delete the area surrounding an object - like a green screen for example.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Sorry I mean when you wish to delete the area surrounding an object - like a green screen for example.
I don't remember them showing that in the class, and I didn't think to ask the guys I was talking to when I was using the Quad.
I'm sure that they didn't have us work with all of the features. This was at a show, and they try to get as many bodies in front of the machines as possible.
But it doesn't seem as though this program is big on the kind of work where sophisticated masking techniques are going to be needed. At least not at this time.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't remember them showing that in the class, and I didn't think to ask the guys I was talking to when I was using the Quad.
I'm sure that they didn't have us work with all of the features. This was at a show, and they try to get as many bodies in front of the machines as possible.
But it doesn't seem as though this program is big on the kind of work where sophisticated masking techniques are going to be needed. At least not at this time.
I was doubting whether it would be included.
Some of us remember Quickdraw GX. I mentioned this earlier.
GX was a great 3D standard which failed because It was an Apple only innovation.
At the time, Apple had no real software that could take advantage of it, and other companies, except for small Apple only ones, weren't interested in an Apple only standard.
Apple's new Core technologies are like that with one difference.
Apple now has significant programs that can, or do, take advantage of them. As long as those programs are popular enough for Apple to continue development, they will be around.
The really interesting thing here though is that now MS is going to have pretty much the same, or more, in Vista.
In talking about PS using CI, we are talking about something almost impossible, as it stands. Unless, as I mused earlier, Adobe could somehow figure out a way to get it's own filters to use it.
With Vista having pretty much the same thing, and if Adobe could incorporate those, and if they are close enough to Apple's, we might see some interesting things happening.
Who knows. If Apple really wants Aperture to become an industry standard, it MUST work on PC's. With Vista offering the same, or more, functionality in that area, this might be possible.
It's a question as to whether Apple would want that though. It would depend on whether they believe that Aperture is drawing users to buy its computers. If not, they might offer it. If so, they might not.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
I'm pretty sure that Apple wants Apeture to draw customers to Mac OS.
I'm sure they do as well. I'm thinking about this because of several things brought up here.
One is that Aperture might be positioned as a PS "Killer".
The second is the hope that Adobe might use CI.
This addresses both of those questions.
I'm not saying what I think Apple will do. I questioned that as well in the post.
But Apple is also making a big push into the highly profitable world of software.
Filemaker is not a Mac only program. iTunes isn't either. Neither is Appleworks. And Quicktime is certainly not.
Possibly this is why Apple seems unconcerned about the steep hardware needs this program has.
Remember that Apple is a major Windows developer. They are playing with the Vista Alpha's and betas just as any other large Windows developer is.
Just the way MS plays with Apples OS Alpha's and betas.
Originally posted by melgross
I was contemplating something very interesting.
...
Apple now has significant programs that can, or do, take advantage of them. As long as those programs are popular enough for Apple to continue development, they will be around.
The really interesting thing here though is that now MS is going to have pretty much the same, or more, in Vista.
Both MS and Apple want Adobe dead.
It will be too expensive for Adobe to use MS imaging technologies on Vista and Core Image on OS X. Adobe will be at a competitive disadvantage to both MS and Apple, since MS and Apple can leverage their built-in technologies much faster than Adobe can create its own.
Adobe's the last major 3rd party developer. Well, OK, maybe Intuit.
Within 5 years you will own either an Intel box with Windows and (almost) all Microsoft software, or you will own an Intel box with OS X and (almost) all Apple software, or you will own an Intel box with Linux and (almost) all open source software.
They'll be no one else left except small developers.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Both MS and Apple want Adobe dead.
It will be too expensive for Adobe to use MS imaging technologies on Vista and Core Image on OS X. Adobe will be at a competitive disadvantage to both MS and Apple, since MS and Apple can leverage their built-in technologies much faster than Adobe can create its own.
Adobe's the last major 3rd party developer. Well, OK, maybe Intuit.
Within 5 years you will own either an Intel box with Windows and (almost) all Microsoft software, or you will own an Intel box with OS X and (almost) all Apple software, or you will own an Intel box with Linux and (almost) all open source software.
They'll be no one else left except small developers.
I think that's rather extreme. It's been said before.
Originally posted by melgross
I think that's rather extreme. It's been said before.
15 years ago WordPerfect, Lotus, and Borland seemed invincible, too.
In any case, it just seems that's where things are heading at the current moment. It could change. Adobe might come out with OS CS and beat MS & Apple at their own game.
Originally posted by bikertwin
15 years ago WordPerfect, Lotus, and Borland seemed invincible, too.
In any case, it just seems that's where things are heading at the current moment. It could change. Adobe might come out with OS CS and beat MS & Apple at their own game.
Well, let's just hope that none of it ever happens.
I would imagine those steep hardware requirement's only really pertain to RAw images. As I'm reading other people's reports of Aperture, it seems there is no software cap on the number of Raw images that can be stored in Aperture. Your hard drive is the cap.
You do need those headware requirements for hundreds or thousands of RAW images.
But you don't need such heavy hardware for thousands of JPEG's.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Looking at the hardware requirements also.
I would imagine those steep hardware requirement's only really pertain to RAw images. As I'm reading other people's reports of Aperture, it seems there is no software cap on the number of Raw images that can be stored in Aperture. Your hard drive is the cap.
You do need those headware requirements for hundreds or thousands of RAW images.
But you don't need such heavy hardware for thousands of JPEG's.
It has nothing to do with how many images are being stored on your HD. It has to do with operations on the images you have open, and on the screen.
The images used at the Photo Expo were small. No more than about 20MB each.
My average image size is over 50MB in 24 bit. Many images are in 48 bit - 4 times the file size.
Several times a month I would get file sizes over 300MB, 24 bit. working with just one of those would slow the program down. Remember that CI is not instant. It just seems that way with certain image sizes. PS is also instant with most adjustments on smaller file sizes.
What file size would the GPU and associated memory choke on?
Originally posted by melgross
It has nothing to do with how many images are being stored on your HD. It has to do with operations on the images you have open, and on the screen.
The images used at the Photo Expo were small. No more than about 20MB each.
Those are RAW files though, right?
Originally posted by the cool gut
Those are RAW files though, right?
Yes indeed. But was that was their opened size
Aperture probably opens the file (whether it's raw or JPEG or PSD or whatever) and creates a bitmap in memory of the image. If that's the case, then the only thing that affects speed from that point on is (1) the pixel dimensions of the file and (2) the number of fixes/transitions you've applied in Aperture.
Since Aperture only works with flattened or single-layer PSD images, then whether your file is 300 MB or 20 MB is irrelevant. If both images are, say, 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, then Aperture will treat each one just as fast as the other.