Aperture for the next Macbook 13?
I know this all boils down to graphics, but I seriously need to start getting to grips with that programme, and feel fairy let down with the graphic incapacity of the 13' to hold this software up.
Does anyone know, or has something to add on this point, in regards a potential increase in graphic capacity for the next (sept 12. Paris Show) line to be announced?
Thanks,
B.
Does anyone know, or has something to add on this point, in regards a potential increase in graphic capacity for the next (sept 12. Paris Show) line to be announced?
Thanks,
B.
Comments
However bear in mind that Apple wants to keep selling Pro laptops and so it's likely to make sure that it's Pro apps can only be run pleasurably on these Pro machines. I think that if you really need to start to get to grips with it, and want mobility, you should just go for the Pro (when they're updated this month, hopefully).
I think it's highly unlikely. Currently the only thing really separating (justifying the gulf in price, at least) the Macbook and MB Pro lines is the fact that pro users get dedicated graphics. If the Macbook gets any more graphical muscle it will come in the form of the Intel X3000 that may or may not be able to run Aperture.
However bear in mind that Apple wants to keep selling Pro laptops and so it's likely to make sure that it's Pro apps can only be run pleasurably on these Pro machines. I think that if you really need to start to get to grips with it, and want mobility, you should just go for the Pro (when they're updated this month, hopefully).
True that.
i'm running Aperture on a 1.5Ghz G4 powerbook with 1.5G ram (which is the bare minimum) with dual displays. i spent the last six months learning how to use the beast but once you know how to use it, you expect more and more from the software and the hardware can never keep up. especially if you have a camera producing 15Meg Raw files.. Aperture performance was semi-decent when my old camera put out 5Meg Raw files.
I know this all boils down to graphics, but I seriously need to start getting to grips with that programme, and feel fairy let down with the graphic incapacity of the 13' to hold this software up.
But who really knows. However the macbook as far as I've heard is the best selling mac right now. So that may mean one of two things.
1. Apples not going to touch it. And let it continue to sell well the way it is until it becomes absolutely apparent they must update it to stay competitive.
2. They'll update it sooner to try and stay on top of everything and make sure sales don't dip at all because someone else has something slightly newer.
Aside for better graphics I'd also like to see Apple bring out a 15 inch version in the black and white. Kind of like they had the two sizes of iBooks. And I'm sure others would like to see a 12 or 13 inch macbook pro. There is a $500 gap so they've definitely left room for that one in their price heirarchy. It's probably all coming, just a matter of time.
I think it's highly unlikely. Currently the only thing really separating (justifying the gulf in price, at least) the Macbook and MB Pro lines is the fact that pro users get dedicated graphics.
... and a huge screen...
Someone at Apple said a while back that the black MacBook is intended to replace the 12" PowerBook. I read hope into that for the black MacBook eventually getting dedicated graphics. Since currently there's no difference at all from the white MacBook that you can get for $150 cheaper, something's got to happen to that machine. It's probably naïve of me, but hope springs eternal.
I know this all boils down to graphics, but I seriously need to start getting to grips with that programme, and feel fairy let down with the graphic incapacity of the 13' to hold this software up.
Thanks,
B.
There's a common belief that if a program uses graphics in some way, then the graphics hardware will play a big part in the performance of the program.
It just is not so.
Where there are 3D images being manipulated in real-time.(for instance videogames and 3D applications like Maya) then the graphics hardware is a major player.
But for applications like Aperture and Photoshop, it is memory, CPU horsepower and hard disk speed which really determine performance.
How much memory is in your Macbook?
C.
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717
C.
There's a common belief that if a program uses graphics in some way, then the graphics hardware will play a big part in the performance of the program.
It just is not so.
Where there are 3D images being manipulated in real-time.(for instance videogames and 3D applications like Maya) then the graphics hardware is a major player.
But for applications like Aperture and Photoshop, it is memory, CPU horsepower and hard disk speed which really determine performance.
How much memory is in your Macbook?
C.
You do realize that Aperture's speed is almost exclusively dependent on the fill rate of your GPU, right?
Just because something's not 3D doesn't mean it's not hardware accelerated.
You do realize that Aperture's speed is almost exclusively dependent on the fill rate of your GPU, right?
Just because something's not 3D doesn't mean it's not hardware accelerated.
Which speed are you talking about?
Loading, previewing, and general workflow are not fill-rate dependent.
But you can guarantee that running it on a 512meg machine will slow down all of these operations.
Look at this G5 vs Macbook comparison (including an Aperture test)
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/...handbrake.html
Just because everyone wants to belive that the 950 sucks at everything graphics does not make it true. Yes, it really sucks at polygons. But the MacBook is doing tasks faster than a GPU equipped G5 for pretty much every 2D professional app.
C.
Which speed are you talking about?
Loading, previewing, and general workflow are not fill-rate dependent.
But you can guarantee that running it on a 512meg machine will slow down all of these operations.
Look at this G5 vs Macbook comparison (including an Aperture test)
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/...handbrake.html
Just because everyone wants to belive that the 950 sucks at everything graphics does not make it true. Yes, it really sucks at polygons. But the MacBook is doing tasks faster than a GPU equipped G5 for pretty much every 2D professional app.
C.
That page is only testing the Aperture web export. So, the MacBook is doing things faster than a GPU-equipped G5 for everything that DOESN'T USE THE GRAPHICS CARD.
Aperture runs all its graphics manipulations on the graphics card. I'm a huge fan of the 950 in the MacBook because most people don't need any more than it.
But saying that the 950 is satisfactory for Aperture is like suggesting that a G3 is usable with OS X. It will drive you fucking crazy after about 5 minutes.
That page is only testing the Aperture web export. So, the MacBook is doing things faster than a GPU-equipped G5 for everything that DOESN'T USE THE GRAPHICS CARD.
Aperture runs all its graphics manipulations on the graphics card. I'm a huge fan of the 950 in the MacBook because most people don't need any more than it.
But saying that the 950 is satisfactory for Aperture is like suggesting that a G3 is usable with OS X. It will drive you fucking crazy after about 5 minutes.
I do accept that Aperture will be better (at some graphic manipulation) on a system with a 'proper' GPU. But I also think that shedloads of RAM and a fast hard drive also factor in.
You've shifted position a bit. From
"the speed of Aperture is dependent on fill rate"
- to -
"the speed of Aperture when its using the GPU is dependent on the GPU" (paraphrased)
So you are presumably happy to accept that loading, previewing, saving, reviewing, raw conversion - and a ton of other stuff will work acceptibly on the Macbook.
This Macbook Aperture demo seems to suggest that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbj8Sa-s5pQ
So the only issue is how painful is it to manipulate images?
I have become sceptical that all the graphic manipulation is performed on the CPU. I think quite a bit is done on the CPU. Certainly cropping and probably some filtering and scaling.
But I have no direct evidence. All I have to go off is that people ACTUALLY USING APERTURE on Macbook, describe its performance as good or acceptable. The 950 should be about 4 times slower than a proper GPU at coreImage tasks. But anectodal evidence does not bear this out.
Do you have any actual evidence?
C.
I do accept that Aperture will be better (at some graphic manipulation) on a system with a 'proper' GPU. But I also think that shedloads of RAM and a fast hard drive also factor in.
You've shifted position a bit. From
"the speed of Aperture is dependent on fill rate"
- to -
"the speed of Aperture when its using the GPU is dependent on the GPU" (paraphrased)
So you are presumably happy to accept that loading, previewing, saving, reviewing, raw conversion - and a ton of other stuff will work acceptibly on the Macbook.
This Macbook Aperture demo seems to suggest that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbj8Sa-s5pQ
So the only issue is how painful is it to manipulate images?
I have become sceptical that all the graphic manipulation is performed on the CPU. I think quite a bit is done on the CPU. Certainly cropping and probably some filtering and scaling.
But I have no direct evidence. All I have to go off is that people ACTUALLY USING APERTURE on Macbook, describe its performance as good or acceptable. The 950 should be about 4 times slower than a proper GPU at coreImage tasks. But anectodal evidence does not bear this out.
Do you have any actual evidence?
C.
The cropping, filtering, and scaling are all done on the GPU.
I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that the RAW conversion is also accelerated.
You can find the Core Image code right inside of Aperture:
The cropping and scaling filters, as well as the RAW conversions, are hidden deep inside the computer (btw, if anyone knows how to access any of those, I'd really like to know
Definately the fast hard drive helps, but the mini's hard drive isn't abysmal. I have a 5400 drive in my MacBook Pro and it's fine. Loading up images doesn't take that long.
The cropping, filtering, and scaling are all done on the GPU.
I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that the RAW conversion is also accelerated.
You can find the Core Image code right inside of Aperture:
The cropping and scaling filters, as well as the RAW conversions, are hidden deep inside the computer (btw, if anyone knows how to access any of those, I'd really like to know
Definately the fast hard drive helps, but the mini's hard drive isn't abysmal. I have a 5400 drive in my MacBook Pro and it's fine. Loading up images doesn't take that long.
Ok. Only one further remark.
What's in your Naked directory?
:-)
C.
2.) Aperture makes extensive use of Core Image so it very much benefits from a decent GPU. It will therefore run slower with Intel's integrated graphics, but it will work.
3.) Dedicated graphics across the MacBook line is never going to happen. In the top of the line MacBook, it's just about possible, but I still doubt it.
4.) Dedicated graphics is not the only advantage of the MacBook Pro over the MacBook. There's also the larger, higher-resolution display, superior aluminium casework, Express Card slot, much higher capability:weight ratio, and a backlit keyboard.
5.) Aperture sucks the life out of G4 machines because of the awful FSB speeds in said machines. Intel and G5 performance is much higher.
Ok. Only one further remark.
What's in your Naked directory?
:-)
C.
Haha, that's the name of the program I'm working on.
It's not pr0n