Apple clearly has a strong basis for a Photoshop killer though. This is impressive stuff. And it's an Apple app, so I'd bet that a few plug-ins and this would have everything necessary to kill PS. I'd agree that this is Apple's warning shot to Adobe, that they can take another market from them.
I don't see Apple ever making a direct competitor to photoshop - far too risky.
All of the machines they had around the booth (actually around the booth on both sides. The center was used for the demo and classroom.) were PM's. I didn't ask which, but each one was using two 30" displays.
The classroom was also using PM's with 23" displays. I think they would have used 30", but you couldn't have seen above them to the screen in front.
I asked. They told me the demo machines driving the 2x30" displays were Quad G5s and the machines in the classroom area were duals (they weren't sure what speed, but I'm sure dual 2.7s). They didn't tell me what video card they were running. The person I spoke with thought performance would be driven buy a combination of all three of processor, RAM and video card (I'd assume the system will be limited by the weakest link).
It should be interesting, the Powerbooks BARELY squeak by the minimum requirements:
[snip]
No way, no how are you going to want to run Aperture on a G4 laptop. While you might get it to launch, using it would probably be so painful as to defeat the purpose. Even on the Dual G5s that they were using in the classroom at the show, the interface lagged at times (not often, but at times). Given that those machines are easily 3 or more times the speed of any laptop Apple now ships, I'm sure that on a G4 laptop the program will be practically unusable.
Intel laptops are more interesting, and I'd think if Apple can produce something decent next year there'd be real possibilities there.
I asked. They told me the demo machines driving the 2x30" displays were Quad G5s and the machines in the classroom area were duals (they weren't sure what speed, but I'm sure dual 2.7s). They didn't tell me what video card they were running. The person I spoke with thought performance would be driven buy a combination of all three of processor, RAM and video card (I'd assume the system will be limited by the weakest link).
I was going to ask, but I wasn't sure if I really wanted to know.
Yeah, this is a very hardware driven system. It's why, despite what Apple might say, it's not for everyone.
Adobe demo's PS with a combination (on the Mac side) of PM's, PB's, iMacs, etc.
No way, no how are you going to want to run Aperture on a G4 laptop. While you might get it to launch, using it would probably be so painful as to defeat the purpose. Even on the Dual G5s that they were using in the classroom at the show, the interface lagged at times (not often, but at times). Given that those machines are easily 3 or more times the speed of any laptop Apple now ships, I'm sure that on a G4 laptop the program will be practically unusable.
Intel laptops are more interesting, and I'd think if Apple can produce something decent next year there'd be real possibilities there.
The guys at the show were clearly uncomfortable when I asked about performance with older machines and PB's. That was when I asked about the 128MB RAM for the card.
What strikes me as strange is that the group who would benefit most from this program are going to have the machines least capabile of using it (wedding and event people), while those needing it the least (commercial and fashion studiios) will have the machines able to use it best.
The only thing I can think of is that we will have to grow into it over the next couple of years as machines speed up.
I'm sure Apple knows most photographer's will be using Power Book's.
It would lessen the effectiveness and efficiency of Aperture if they have no choice but to use it on a PowerMac.
I'm sure Apple realizes this and has a solution on the way.
I don't know. Why wouldn't they have accounted for that when they first proposed the program. That's when the user base is considered. The performance goals should have been determined then.
It really seems to be an afterthought. I'm also not so sure that most photog's do use PB's. I don't doubt many have them as a secondary machine.
I hope Apple has a solution on the way... but we probably won't see it until next year with Intel Powerbooks. That will finally give the notebooks the power they need to run software like Aperture and many others. The minimum system requirements for Aperture when those new systems come out better look miniscule compared to the hardware the PBs have in them!
I understand that Aperture is state-of-the-art and should be run on a Power Mac G5 Quad. I have no problems with that. But just as you said, Mel, the product would be better used by people with lesser systems than the ones it runs on best. What individual wedding photographer has a Power Mac G5 Quad with dual 30" Cinema Displays sitting in his basement? What photo-geek traveling to Africa on a Safari has that setup sitting in his/her hotel room? It's going to be hard for people using their older systems to enjoy this software. BUT people can upgrade their hardware if they really want to use the software. Get an iMac that meets the requirements and enjoy.
What makes no sense to me whatsoever is the fact that someone could buy a 12" Powerbook TODAY (supposedly a pro system) and not run Aperture. I understand that Aperture will not or should not run on a 1024x768 screen. There's a lot of software that just plain sucks at that resolution anyhow. But the 12" Powerbook (not the iBook) can connect to a 23" Cinema Display, can have 1 GB of RAM or a little bit more and meets the 1.25 GHz minimum requirement. The only thing that holds it back is the video card with 64 MB. If I had bought this system even 4 months ago and could not run Aperture because it was too "old" for it, I'd understand. That's the way hardware goes sometimes - it's obsolete for what you want to use before you know it.
But I don't own this system yet but need to soon for portability, presentations, etc. while working on my PhD and would like to use Aperture for my photography as well. Sorry - out of luck. I can literally buy a system TODAY ... or for that matter TWO MONTHS FROM NOW assuming no more 12" updates ... and have the system be obsolete BEFORE I even buy it! That's crazy.
Apple: pull the 12" PB entirely and allow the 12" iBooks to hook up to your Cinema Displays or upgrade the blasted 12" Powerbook to the point where you can at least install and run, however slowly, all the "professional" applications you release for your "professional" machines.
I don't mind so much that the hardware line-up needs to grow to meet Aperture's requirements. That's a price of bleeding edge technology. The hardware (including the laptops) will catch up. In the meantime, why limit those who can afford the speedy hardware?
The existence of Aperture does not obsolete the 12" PowerBooks. It just makes them less desirable. If IBM had delivered a G5 PB, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. We know Apple is taking drastic measures to fix the laptop situation. What more do you want? Should a problem in the portable line-up stall all progress?
I don't mind so much that the hardware line-up needs to grow to meet Aperture's requirements. That's a price of bleeding edge technology. The hardware (including the laptops) will catch up. In the meantime, why limit those who can afford the speedy hardware?
The existence of Aperture does not obsolete the 12" PowerBooks. It just makes them less desirable. If IBM had delivered a G5 PB, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. We know Apple is taking drastic measures to fix the laptop situation. What more do you want? Should a problem in the portable line-up stall all progress?
No, absolutely not. It will give those with machinesthat don't run this well an excuse to upgrade.
What strikes me as strange is that the group who would benefit most from this program are going to have the machines least capabile of using it (wedding and event people), while those needing it the least (commercial and fashion studiios) will have the machines able to use it best.
Is it really the case that wedding and event photographers shooting digital shouldn't be expected to have at least a dual G5 at this point? $4000 (for computer plus monitor) doesn't strike me as a lot for the technology at the core of a studio's image production operations. I don't think the intent is to capture to the computer in the field. If I were a wedding photographer, I'd think I'd be shooting on multiple cards and backing up to an Epson P-4000 or other HDD based file vault while on location and would then transfer to the computer back in the studio.
Yeah, this is a very hardware driven system. It's why, despite what Apple might say, it's not for everyone.
But think about it. By its very design, it should scale well.
On the one hand everyone is complaining that they don't have quad G5s with dual 30" monitors. Well, dual 30" monitors is a *lot* of pixels to push around. You need a quad G5 for that.
If you have a more modest monitor setup, then the hardware requirements would scale down proportionally, so you can get by with less.
But think about it. By its very design, it should scale well.
On the one hand everyone is complaining that they don't have quad G5s with dual 30" monitors. Well, dual 30" monitors is a *lot* of pixels to push around. You need a quad G5 for that.
If you have a more modest monitor setup, then the hardware requirements would scale down proportionally, so you can get by with less.
That's possible. However, I bet that a pretty decent chunk of the power that's needed for Aperture involves processing the RAW originals and caching the resulting full-resolution files. I don't see how you can move the loupe around on the screen without a cached copy of the file in full resolution. That means each time you loupe over an additional file, the computer needs to read and process another RAW file. With a 4-5 megapixel file, this may not be a big deal. With an 8-12 megapixel file, the time involved is non-trivial. This is all before a single bit gets pushed to the screen. A key component of Aperture is the ability to flip between files to compare and select. I don't think the size of the monitor is going to change the time that takes.
Why wouldn't they have accounted for that when they first proposed the program. That's when the user base is considered. The performance goals should have been determined then.
That's essentially what I'm saying, I'm sure Apple recognized this and may have a solution for it soon. Perhaps their major PB up date isn't quite ready yet.
Quote:
I'm also not so sure that most photog's do use PB's. I don't doubt many have them as a secondary machine.
I can't account for most photographer's. But several that I know own PowerBook's. I didn't think that particualar profession would go against the trend of laptops out selling desktops.
Aperture will in many ways be more useful out in the field away from the comfort of an expensive PowerMac. .
More interesting info on Aperture and maybe some insight into its heavy hardware requirments.
Aperture does not have a save command. All changes are saved in an SQL database. All changes are saved and can be accessed if one wants to undo or recreate what was done.
SQL is also what MS was supposed to use in WinFS but cut the function from Vista. Apple has basically put the idea of WinFS in an application.
More interesting info on Aperture and maybe some insight into its heavy hardware requirments.
Aperture does not have a save command. All changes are saved in an SQL database. All changes are saved and can be accessed if one wants to undo or recreate what was done.
SQL is also what MS was supposed to use in WinFS but cut the function from Vista. Apple has basically put the idea of WinFS in an application.
Well...the SQL part is CoreData.
What's going on is that there's a master image. If you start working on the image, each layer of CI transformation is logged into into the database. The database, obviously, remembers the changes and applies the transformations to the master image.
I'm not sure how iPhoto does it right now but I know it doesn't use CoreData. Judging by the time it takes to 'save' the changes (not to mention the word 'save') I suspect if you make a change to a photo in iPhoto, it makes a copy of the photo with the changes. This is a terrible waste of space on the HHD.
Hopefully iLife 06 will become 10.4-only (sorry 10.3 and 10.2 users ) so that Apple can make it user CoreData for versioning.
I bet CoreData is the beginning of a 'versioning' system. I bet that 10.5 will bring some radical new way to use the computer.
Programs that use CoreData will allow a single file to contain all it's versioning info. No amount of changes will be permanent and people will be able to flip flop between versions very easily and track all the changes they've made.
CoreData to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
PS...Another program that supposedly will use CoreData is Sandvox.
Walking away to go watch LotR. Now I have to go watch Gandalf again.
grumble.
Great point though. I want versioning for Core Video in Final Cut Pro 6. Freakin' sweet all I have to same is the mathmatical stacked "blueprint" for my effects. Apple's onto something big here. Adobe and others will follow......emphasis on follow.
Walking away to go watch LotR. Now I have to go watch Gandalf again.
grumble.
Great point though. I want versioning for Core Video in Final Cut Pro 6. Freakin' sweet all I have to same is the mathmatical stacked "blueprint" for my effects. Apple's onto something big here. Adobe and others will follow......emphasis on follow.
Hehe.
The future is looking good. The days of saving files are coming to an end (for the most part). Just like 'Undo' and 'Redo' uses a temporary history of changes to a file, CoreData will keep a permanent history of the changes (provided developers use it that way). The only time you'll ever need to 'Save' is when you want to bookmark a certain place within the history of changes so you can easily go back and check it.
Then there are a number of ways to view this history...I dunno which would be best but the one that pops into my mind is a little history 'slider' that lets you go back and forth on the changes with the 'bookmarks' as guides to where you should put the slider to see the state of the file at that very time.
edit: oh and since things are logged right away in CoreData...a power failure won't destroy your work...you should be able to get right back to work with absolutely nothing lost.
That's possible. However, I bet that a pretty decent chunk of the power that's needed for Aperture involves processing the RAW originals and caching the resulting full-resolution files.
Oh, good point. Certain things might be faster on a smaller monitor with fewer pixels, but probably not as much a difference as I hoped.
Good thing I have a dual processor G5. Just need a better video card than the crappy GeForce FX 5200 I have now. Any suggestions for the $250-$300 range? I haven't really kept up with video card technology since I'm not a gamer.
Comments
Originally posted by macserverX
Apple clearly has a strong basis for a Photoshop killer though. This is impressive stuff. And it's an Apple app, so I'd bet that a few plug-ins and this would have everything necessary to kill PS. I'd agree that this is Apple's warning shot to Adobe, that they can take another market from them.
I don't see Apple ever making a direct competitor to photoshop - far too risky.
Originally posted by melgross
Let me tell you how they demo'd it.
All of the machines they had around the booth (actually around the booth on both sides. The center was used for the demo and classroom.) were PM's. I didn't ask which, but each one was using two 30" displays.
The classroom was also using PM's with 23" displays. I think they would have used 30", but you couldn't have seen above them to the screen in front.
I asked. They told me the demo machines driving the 2x30" displays were Quad G5s and the machines in the classroom area were duals (they weren't sure what speed, but I'm sure dual 2.7s). They didn't tell me what video card they were running. The person I spoke with thought performance would be driven buy a combination of all three of processor, RAM and video card (I'd assume the system will be limited by the weakest link).
Originally posted by the cool gut
It should be interesting, the Powerbooks BARELY squeak by the minimum requirements:
[snip]
No way, no how are you going to want to run Aperture on a G4 laptop. While you might get it to launch, using it would probably be so painful as to defeat the purpose. Even on the Dual G5s that they were using in the classroom at the show, the interface lagged at times (not often, but at times). Given that those machines are easily 3 or more times the speed of any laptop Apple now ships, I'm sure that on a G4 laptop the program will be practically unusable.
Intel laptops are more interesting, and I'd think if Apple can produce something decent next year there'd be real possibilities there.
Originally posted by Osakans
I asked. They told me the demo machines driving the 2x30" displays were Quad G5s and the machines in the classroom area were duals (they weren't sure what speed, but I'm sure dual 2.7s). They didn't tell me what video card they were running. The person I spoke with thought performance would be driven buy a combination of all three of processor, RAM and video card (I'd assume the system will be limited by the weakest link).
I was going to ask, but I wasn't sure if I really wanted to know.
Yeah, this is a very hardware driven system. It's why, despite what Apple might say, it's not for everyone.
Adobe demo's PS with a combination (on the Mac side) of PM's, PB's, iMacs, etc.
Another interesting article:
http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/...pple_aperture/
Originally posted by Osakans
No way, no how are you going to want to run Aperture on a G4 laptop. While you might get it to launch, using it would probably be so painful as to defeat the purpose. Even on the Dual G5s that they were using in the classroom at the show, the interface lagged at times (not often, but at times). Given that those machines are easily 3 or more times the speed of any laptop Apple now ships, I'm sure that on a G4 laptop the program will be practically unusable.
Intel laptops are more interesting, and I'd think if Apple can produce something decent next year there'd be real possibilities there.
The guys at the show were clearly uncomfortable when I asked about performance with older machines and PB's. That was when I asked about the 128MB RAM for the card.
What strikes me as strange is that the group who would benefit most from this program are going to have the machines least capabile of using it (wedding and event people), while those needing it the least (commercial and fashion studiios) will have the machines able to use it best.
The only thing I can think of is that we will have to grow into it over the next couple of years as machines speed up.
It would lessen the effectiveness and efficiency of Aperture if they have no choice but to use it on a PowerMac.
I'm sure Apple realizes this and has a solution on the way.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I'm sure Apple knows most photographer's will be using Power Book's.
It would lessen the effectiveness and efficiency of Aperture if they have no choice but to use it on a PowerMac.
I'm sure Apple realizes this and has a solution on the way.
I don't know. Why wouldn't they have accounted for that when they first proposed the program. That's when the user base is considered. The performance goals should have been determined then.
It really seems to be an afterthought. I'm also not so sure that most photog's do use PB's. I don't doubt many have them as a secondary machine.
I understand that Aperture is state-of-the-art and should be run on a Power Mac G5 Quad. I have no problems with that. But just as you said, Mel, the product would be better used by people with lesser systems than the ones it runs on best. What individual wedding photographer has a Power Mac G5 Quad with dual 30" Cinema Displays sitting in his basement? What photo-geek traveling to Africa on a Safari has that setup sitting in his/her hotel room? It's going to be hard for people using their older systems to enjoy this software. BUT people can upgrade their hardware if they really want to use the software. Get an iMac that meets the requirements and enjoy.
What makes no sense to me whatsoever is the fact that someone could buy a 12" Powerbook TODAY (supposedly a pro system) and not run Aperture. I understand that Aperture will not or should not run on a 1024x768 screen. There's a lot of software that just plain sucks at that resolution anyhow. But the 12" Powerbook (not the iBook) can connect to a 23" Cinema Display, can have 1 GB of RAM or a little bit more and meets the 1.25 GHz minimum requirement. The only thing that holds it back is the video card with 64 MB. If I had bought this system even 4 months ago and could not run Aperture because it was too "old" for it, I'd understand. That's the way hardware goes sometimes - it's obsolete for what you want to use before you know it.
But I don't own this system yet but need to soon for portability, presentations, etc. while working on my PhD and would like to use Aperture for my photography as well. Sorry - out of luck. I can literally buy a system TODAY ... or for that matter TWO MONTHS FROM NOW assuming no more 12" updates ... and have the system be obsolete BEFORE I even buy it! That's crazy.
Apple: pull the 12" PB entirely and allow the 12" iBooks to hook up to your Cinema Displays or upgrade the blasted 12" Powerbook to the point where you can at least install and run, however slowly, all the "professional" applications you release for your "professional" machines.
The existence of Aperture does not obsolete the 12" PowerBooks. It just makes them less desirable. If IBM had delivered a G5 PB, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. We know Apple is taking drastic measures to fix the laptop situation. What more do you want? Should a problem in the portable line-up stall all progress?
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
I don't mind so much that the hardware line-up needs to grow to meet Aperture's requirements. That's a price of bleeding edge technology. The hardware (including the laptops) will catch up. In the meantime, why limit those who can afford the speedy hardware?
The existence of Aperture does not obsolete the 12" PowerBooks. It just makes them less desirable. If IBM had delivered a G5 PB, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. We know Apple is taking drastic measures to fix the laptop situation. What more do you want? Should a problem in the portable line-up stall all progress?
No, absolutely not. It will give those with machinesthat don't run this well an excuse to upgrade.
Originally posted by melgross
What strikes me as strange is that the group who would benefit most from this program are going to have the machines least capabile of using it (wedding and event people), while those needing it the least (commercial and fashion studiios) will have the machines able to use it best.
Is it really the case that wedding and event photographers shooting digital shouldn't be expected to have at least a dual G5 at this point? $4000 (for computer plus monitor) doesn't strike me as a lot for the technology at the core of a studio's image production operations. I don't think the intent is to capture to the computer in the field. If I were a wedding photographer, I'd think I'd be shooting on multiple cards and backing up to an Epson P-4000 or other HDD based file vault while on location and would then transfer to the computer back in the studio.
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, this is a very hardware driven system. It's why, despite what Apple might say, it's not for everyone.
But think about it. By its very design, it should scale well.
On the one hand everyone is complaining that they don't have quad G5s with dual 30" monitors. Well, dual 30" monitors is a *lot* of pixels to push around. You need a quad G5 for that.
If you have a more modest monitor setup, then the hardware requirements would scale down proportionally, so you can get by with less.
Originally posted by bikertwin
But think about it. By its very design, it should scale well.
On the one hand everyone is complaining that they don't have quad G5s with dual 30" monitors. Well, dual 30" monitors is a *lot* of pixels to push around. You need a quad G5 for that.
If you have a more modest monitor setup, then the hardware requirements would scale down proportionally, so you can get by with less.
That's possible. However, I bet that a pretty decent chunk of the power that's needed for Aperture involves processing the RAW originals and caching the resulting full-resolution files. I don't see how you can move the loupe around on the screen without a cached copy of the file in full resolution. That means each time you loupe over an additional file, the computer needs to read and process another RAW file. With a 4-5 megapixel file, this may not be a big deal. With an 8-12 megapixel file, the time involved is non-trivial. This is all before a single bit gets pushed to the screen. A key component of Aperture is the ability to flip between files to compare and select. I don't think the size of the monitor is going to change the time that takes.
Why wouldn't they have accounted for that when they first proposed the program. That's when the user base is considered. The performance goals should have been determined then.
That's essentially what I'm saying, I'm sure Apple recognized this and may have a solution for it soon. Perhaps their major PB up date isn't quite ready yet.
I'm also not so sure that most photog's do use PB's. I don't doubt many have them as a secondary machine.
I can't account for most photographer's. But several that I know own PowerBook's. I didn't think that particualar profession would go against the trend of laptops out selling desktops.
Aperture will in many ways be more useful out in the field away from the comfort of an expensive PowerMac. .
Aperture does not have a save command. All changes are saved in an SQL database. All changes are saved and can be accessed if one wants to undo or recreate what was done.
SQL is also what MS was supposed to use in WinFS but cut the function from Vista. Apple has basically put the idea of WinFS in an application.
Originally posted by TenoBell
More interesting info on Aperture and maybe some insight into its heavy hardware requirments.
Aperture does not have a save command. All changes are saved in an SQL database. All changes are saved and can be accessed if one wants to undo or recreate what was done.
SQL is also what MS was supposed to use in WinFS but cut the function from Vista. Apple has basically put the idea of WinFS in an application.
Well...the SQL part is CoreData.
What's going on is that there's a master image. If you start working on the image, each layer of CI transformation is logged into into the database. The database, obviously, remembers the changes and applies the transformations to the master image.
I'm not sure how iPhoto does it right now but I know it doesn't use CoreData. Judging by the time it takes to 'save' the changes (not to mention the word 'save') I suspect if you make a change to a photo in iPhoto, it makes a copy of the photo with the changes. This is a terrible waste of space on the HHD.
Hopefully iLife 06 will become 10.4-only (sorry 10.3 and 10.2 users
I bet CoreData is the beginning of a 'versioning' system. I bet that 10.5 will bring some radical new way to use the computer.
Programs that use CoreData will allow a single file to contain all it's versioning info. No amount of changes will be permanent and people will be able to flip flop between versions very easily and track all the changes they've made.
CoreData to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
PS...Another program that supposedly will use CoreData is Sandvox.
Walking away to go watch LotR. Now I have to go watch Gandalf again.
grumble.
Great point though. I want versioning for Core Video in Final Cut Pro 6. Freakin' sweet all I have to same is the mathmatical stacked "blueprint" for my effects. Apple's onto something big here. Adobe and others will follow......emphasis on follow.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Dammit Kim Kap Sol...........
Walking away to go watch LotR. Now I have to go watch Gandalf again.
grumble.
Great point though. I want versioning for Core Video in Final Cut Pro 6. Freakin' sweet all I have to same is the mathmatical stacked "blueprint" for my effects. Apple's onto something big here. Adobe and others will follow......emphasis on follow.
Hehe.
The future is looking good.
Then there are a number of ways to view this history...I dunno which would be best but the one that pops into my mind is a little history 'slider' that lets you go back and forth on the changes with the 'bookmarks' as guides to where you should put the slider to see the state of the file at that very time.
edit: oh and since things are logged right away in CoreData...a power failure won't destroy your work...you should be able to get right back to work with absolutely nothing lost.
Originally posted by Osakans
That's possible. However, I bet that a pretty decent chunk of the power that's needed for Aperture involves processing the RAW originals and caching the resulting full-resolution files.
Oh, good point. Certain things might be faster on a smaller monitor with fewer pixels, but probably not as much a difference as I hoped.
Good thing I have a dual processor G5. Just need a better video card than the crappy GeForce FX 5200 I have now. Any suggestions for the $250-$300 range? I haven't really kept up with video card technology since I'm not a gamer.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I bet CoreData is the beginning of a 'versioning' system. I bet that 10.5 will bring some radical new way to use the computer.
I like the way you think! That would be awesome.