Aperture update to improve image export quality

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 65
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion

    Right melgross, there are many Mac users in Arse forums, and the Macintoshian Achaia forum is especially useful for Apple users. But there is also an undeniable population of long time Mac haters and Microsoft's paid shills that rule the Battlefront forum especially. Some are even moderators!





    Hey, welcome to the internet! If you go anywhere that's not a 100% mac community, you're going to find mac haters. Its life.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion

    But back to the topic at hand, yes Aperture has flaws, and 1.0.1 is just the first of many "improvements" to the program. The RAW conversion process, being a core graphics implementation, will be improved with 10.4.4 and future OSX updates.





    (Warning! Just what you all need, commentary from a know-nothing message board poster who doesn't do pictures and cameras! - Hey, I'm talking about me hear, by the way.8) )



    First off, I'd like to point out that in no way in my mind should I expect any piece of software to be improved by an OS release. That in of itself worries me. But that's a different story.



    Secondly, I'd like to point out that one of the large concerns I've read about Aperture is this exact thing: That the RAW conversion is handled by CoreImage, and that updates to the OS will update the RAW conversion. Great. But how is this going to affect all existing images that have been processed? The way I understand it, the RAW images are untouched, the modifications to it are stored in a file that are executed on the RAW image to produce the results. If the RAW converter changes, doesn't that affect the way the photo is looked at tomorrow?
  • Reply 22 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    First off, I'd like to point out that in no way in my mind should I expect any piece of software to be improved by an OS release. That in of itself worries me. But that's a different story.



    Secondly, I'd like to point out that one of the large concerns I've read about Aperture is this exact thing: That the RAW conversion is handled by CoreImage, and that updates to the OS will update the RAW conversion. Great. But how is this going to affect all existing images that have been processed? The way I understand it, the RAW images are untouched, the modifications to it are stored in a file that are executed on the RAW image to produce the results. If the RAW converter changes, doesn't that affect the way the photo is looked at tomorrow? [/B]



    That's one of the things we are worried about.



    Read my and bikertwin's posts above.
  • Reply 23 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    If you're refering to the one long page review that you posted, then yes.



    Ars' review is fairly comprehensive, if both parts are taken. Why wouldn't you think so?




    ?!
  • Reply 24 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bikertwin

    ?!



    Could you be more explicit?
  • Reply 25 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Hey, welcome to the internet! If you go anywhere that's not a 100% mac community, you're going to find mac haters. Its life... one of the large concerns I've read about Aperture is this exact thing: That the RAW conversion is handled by CoreImage, and that updates to the OS will update the RAW conversion. Great. But how is this going to affect all existing images that have been processed?...



    Welcome to the Internet? I was on bulletin boards with Xmodem when you were probably still in diapers. And there are haters of all types everywhere, it's only when they are elevated to moderators that I take exception to their presence on "open" forums.



    That changes to core graphics may effect previous images processed by Aperture is a HUGE concern and I am sure that Apple will address this issue when those changes are implemented. I would expect that some sort of versioning capability for Aperture will accompany these changes.



    Photoshop has a compatibility dialog box for it's color profiling that allows compatibility with 1998 versions of Photoshop color profiles. Apple will most likely do something very similar.
  • Reply 26 of 65
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion

    Welcome to the Internet? I was on bulletin boards with Xmodem when you were probably still in diapers. And there are haters of all types everywhere, it's only when they are elevated to moderators that I take exception to their presence on "open" forums.





    Wow, you've been xmodeming since the early 70's (OK, so I had a bladder problem when I was young, that's no reason to ridicule me!) That's a long time. Keep in mind that its not like there's rules out there saying a moderator has to be impartial. Hell, if you're going to insist on that, the next thing you know you'll be wanting people to fact-check everything they want to write before posting information...



    Again, welcome to the internet...



    BTW, I can tell you've been around for a while, since you still have the typewriter habit of double-spacing after a sentence. [For those of you too young to know, a typewriter is an ancient machine in which one would press keys, and the corresponding symbol would be generated onto a piece of paper immediately. Sure, it sounds ancient and archaic, but, believe it or not, still easier to use then Wordstar!]



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion

    That changes to core graphics may effect previous images processed by Aperture is a HUGE concern and I am sure that Apple will address this issue when those changes are implemented. I would expect that some sort of versioning capability for Aperture will accompany these changes.





    Call me a pessimist (or a pest, idiot, jerk-wad, self-egrandizing fool, maniac Perot voter, or whatever, just don't call me a Yankees fan), but I just don't see Apple addressing this issue until people confront them about it. It seems like an obvious area of concern, yet then why didn't apple address it in v1.0 (with something like "Hey, and don't worry, switching video cards or upgrading OS X isn't going to screw up these transformations you've made, unless you want them to"). And I've just never seen apple on the forefront on user's issues like this. They're usually reactive, not proactive (woo-hoo! marketing speak!)



    OK, now bck to my nap. I've got a couple more hours of sleep to get in before I head home from work...
  • Reply 27 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Could you be more explicit?



    Yeah, but I think the mods would censor it.
  • Reply 28 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Call me a pessimist (or a pest, idiot, jerk-wad, self-egrandizing fool, maniac Perot voter, or whatever, just don't call me a Yankees fan), but I just don't see Apple addressing this issue until people confront them about it. It seems like an obvious area of concern, yet then why didn't apple address it in v1.0 (with something like "Hey, and don't worry, switching video cards or upgrading OS X isn't going to screw up these transformations you've made, unless you want them to"). And I've just never seen apple on the forefront on user's issues like this. They're usually reactive, not proactive (woo-hoo! marketing speak!)



    OK, now bck to my nap. I've got a couple more hours of sleep to get in before I head home from work...




    Reflecting on this a little bit (between naps, perhaps 8) ), it seems that Apple's/QuickTime's/FinalCutPro's video codecs have changed/improved over time, and no one seems to complain about versioning.



    Generally, they would probably only change significantly after the dawn of a new camera/sensor, and would hopefully only improve.



    But again, only time will tell. I think we'll have to go through a few revisions of the raw converters before people decide whether this is a real problem or not.



    Do I sound indecisive?
  • Reply 29 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    ... just don't call me a Yankees fan...



    Ok, then I shall call you George Steinbrenner



    But you are very observant about my typing style, I so miss the chambered round sound of my IBM selectric each time I punch a key!
  • Reply 30 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bikertwin

    ... it seems that Apple's/QuickTime's/FinalCutPro's video codecs have changed/improved over time, and no one seems to complain about versioning...





    The issue with Aperture's presumed improvements in RAW decoding algorithms is that due to the nature of the way it applies the filters to the RAW file, (on the fly, in real time), the image may change, if ever so slightly, from one version (of core image) to the next.



    I think that this issue is overblown, since most $$$ files will be exported anyway, thus preserving the changes. Still, it limits Aperture's value as an archival tool thus, Louzers issues with Apple aside, they will need to implement versioning for those who will demand that the images they have tweeked remain exactly the same.



    Since it has become an issue I think we will be hearing something from Apple on this, most likely with 10.4.4's release.
  • Reply 31 of 65
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Why does the aperture update appear EVERY time that I check software update???



    I have updated to 1.01 already and it keeps telling me that 1.01 is available for download?



    <deep sigh>



  • Reply 32 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion

    Welcome to the Internet? I was on bulletin boards with Xmodem when you were probably still in diapers. And there are haters of all types everywhere, it's only when they are elevated to moderators that I take exception to their presence on "open" forums.



    That changes to core graphics may effect previous images processed by Aperture is a HUGE concern and I am sure that Apple will address this issue when those changes are implemented. I would expect that some sort of versioning capability for Aperture will accompany these changes.



    Photoshop has a compatibility dialog box for it's color profiling that allows compatibility with 1998 versions of Photoshop color profiles. Apple will most likely do something very similar.




    Ah, you remember those days too?



    I can remember how amazed I was when my 300 baud (that's a word out of the past!) modem allowed me to read the letters one at a time as they appeared on the screen from my Compuserve account.



    I also remember being charged almost 10 hours long distance for the number in Florida I had to use as there wasn't a local number. The modem failed to hang up properly, and I didn't notice (they relented when they realised what had happened, and didn't charge me! (At those rates!!!)



    The difference about the way Photoshop does it is that they have their own internal workings. In addition, that is only working space, or a profile. Neither is permanent, and can be changed at will. What Aperture does is different. It would be as though Adobe replaced Adobe 1998 with something else, and the original profile was removed entirely, with the new profile replacing the old. It would be as though the profile actually changed the information in the file if you exported it.
  • Reply 33 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bikertwin

    Reflecting on this a little bit (between naps, perhaps 8) ), it seems that Apple's/QuickTime's/FinalCutPro's video codecs have changed/improved over time, and no one seems to complain about versioning.



    The video world is very different from the still photo world. There were complaints about Apple's first codecs, but they resided within the program. you could use an older version.



    The problem with them residing within the OS is that you won't be able to have access to the older versions as Apple and other software companies tend to require the latest versions of the OS all too often.



    Quote:

    Generally, they would probably only change significantly after the dawn of a new camera/sensor, and would hopefully only improve.



    But again, only time will tell. I think we'll have to go through a few revisions of the raw converters before people decide whether this is a real problem or not.



    Sure, that's likely right, and I would hope so as well.



    Quote:

    Do I sound indecisive?



    NEVER!



    And I wouldn't want it to be any other way.
  • Reply 34 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi

    Why does the aperture update appear EVERY time that I check software update???



    I have updated to 1.01 already and it keeps telling me that 1.01 is available for download?



    <deep sigh>







    Software Update has some known bugs with this very issue.
  • Reply 35 of 65
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Software Update has some known bugs with this very issue.



    Man, you can say that again!



    I mean, why in the world can't software update realize that I have the most current version of iwhatever in a folder named iapps?



    It's the single biggest annoyance of mine with OS X. It drives me batty!
  • Reply 36 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Software Update has some known bugs with this very issue.



    Probably not Software Update per se. I think the Aperture team forgot to change a version string in the updated 1.0.1. Software Update probably still reads Aperture 1.0.1 as Aperture 1.0. I'm sure this could be resolved if you look for the problematic string inside the bundle.
  • Reply 37 of 65
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    It is one of those annoying things that make the (Cr)Aperture experience so...





    how shall I say it.....





    MICROSOFT!!!!!





    There, I said it......





  • Reply 38 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Probably not Software Update per se. I think the Aperture team forgot to change a version string in the updated 1.0.1. Software Update probably still reads Aperture 1.0.1 as Aperture 1.0. I'm sure this could be resolved if you look for the problematic string inside the bundle.



    That's also possible. This isn't the first time this has happened though. It's been discussed on Macfixit and Macintouch for at least a couple of years.
  • Reply 39 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi

    Why does the aperture update appear EVERY time that I check software update???



    I have updated to 1.01 already and it keeps telling me that 1.01 is available for download?



    <deep sigh>







    Took me a while to find you again1



    If you haven't seen this:



    http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?...51229092817471
  • Reply 40 of 65
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    I have said it before, I will say it again, if you are a PRO, or an orginization who relies on your software to do what it is that makes you money, NEVER select a tool that is version 1.0 to be the core of your workflow because 99% of the time it is too inmature, apature is a great example of this. so was Final cut Pro, just wait till 2.0 and you will see a world of differance, and by 3, you may not recognise it.
Sign In or Register to comment.