Have you found any of those cards available with less memory?
Hadn't thoroughly checked though I thought there might be a 64MB version for at least one of 'em, e.g. ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 in the previous PB? You may be right that 128MB is implied. I was just wondering where Mel had seen/heard that number mentioned explicitly by Apple since I hadn't found it.
Apple was showing, and has done it very well, that their equipment, which is also used in turn-key systems from Avid, could compete on Avids low end.
Right now (2005) this statment is true. Back in 2000 this wasn't the case. At that time Avid's low end was far beyond FCP v.1.
I can agree on looking at this way. FCP created a new market for mid-level nonlinear DV desktop editor. Premeire wan't good enough, Avid was more than needed and cost too much. FCP filled the area between. Because of FCP Avid changed the working model of Xpress. Xpress used to be a lesser capable version of its high end machine. Now Xpress is more like FCP.
Quote:
Apple has essencially made Avids low cost systems obsolete. With real time boards, they have been creaping upwards steadily. With the FC Suite they have cut into Avids feature set, and in a number of areas surpassed it. Avid's Express software has been playing catchup . Avids hardware has been pushed out of many editing suites.
Its ture that Apple is gaining but Avid Xpress is used because of compatibility with high end pro Avid systems. If FCP ever becomes as compatible and easy to use with high end Avid's then it could make Xpress obsolete.
The reason FCP has surpassed Xpress in features is because Avid doesn't want Xpress to compete with its high end systems. Apple is free to add as many features to FCP as is technically feasible.
FCP has made inroads into standard def television. It's a great system if the final product is delivered on DV or uncompressed SD for broadcast television. Avid right now is best if the final product is delivered on HD or Film.
Quote:
I wouldn't classify Apple's solution as competing against Avids hi end systems, but as FC Studio and the hardware solutions that have come onto the market to work with it have gotten more sophisticated, Apple's has taken more and more of Avids workload.
I would say most of the people who use Final Cut Studio are people who could never afford a pro Avid work station. Or are working in Standard Def televison and don't need Avid's advanced work flow.
Quote:
The Quad is going to reduce that difference even more. Many more effects will be realtime with that. It's one of the reasons I'm looking foward to getting it.
I agree. The Quad, PCIe, advanced graphics cards, and graphic accelorators such as Black Magic's Decklink. All bring more power at a lower cost to the average desk top. Which will allow FCP to rival Avid's features.
Soon television production company's will require all shows to be recorded on HD. Because of HD broadcast and because of long term archiving. Which will significantly raise computer workload and storage needs. The Quad is a great advance which will allow FCP to meet this future workflow.
Quote:
The thing here that is exciting about FC Studio is that about one third of all pro video editors are now using it. That includes the pro's who can't, because they work on PC's. I got that from a survey done, I think, by DV Magazine.
I'm sure these are mostly people who work in standard def television.
Quote:
If this keeps moving upwards, and with the features Apple has been adding, it seems as though it will, then Avid will be squeezed into the hi end productivity corner. with so many studios using FC Studio, Avid will have to keep supporting the Mac. There is now too much custom software on the high end that is being ported over from Unix.
To a degree this is happening. For FCP to dominate the lower end editing market, it needs to be seamlessly compatible with the higher end Avid's.
Where have they said that? Not here, as I mentioned earlier.
For one thing, I was told that explicitly at the show by two Apple reps. They said that it wouldn't even work without it. Someone here wanted me to ask.
Another member was also at the show, and was told the same thing.
Most of the boards on Apple's site I recognize, and they all have at least 128MB RAM. The others I don't know enough about. The mobility chips will be in portables, so you will have to do some work and see if they are (were) in machines that had 128MB RAM or not.
Right now (2005) this statment is true. Back in 2000 this wasn't the case. At that time Avid's low end was far beyond FCP v.1.
I can agree on looking at this way. FCP created a new market for mid-level nonlinear DV desktop editor. Premeire wan't good enough, Avid was more than needed and cost too much. FCP filled the area between. Because of FCP Avid changed the working model of Xpress. Xpress used to be a lesser capable version of its high end machine. Now Xpress is more like FCP.
Its ture that Apple is gaining but Avid Xpress is used because of compatibility with high end pro Avid systems. If FCP ever becomes as compatible and easy to use with high end Avid's then it could make Xpress obsolete.
The reason FCP has surpassed Xpress in features is because Avid doesn't want Xpress to compete with its high end systems. Apple is free to add as many features to FCP as is technically feasible.
FCP has made inroads into standard def television. It's a great system if the final product is delivered on DV or uncompressed SD for broadcast television. Avid right now is best if the final product is delivered on HD or Film.
I would say most of the people who use Final Cut Studio are people who could never afford a pro Avid work station. Or are working in Standard Def televison and don't need Avid's advanced work flow.
I agree. The Quad, PCIe, advanced graphics cards, and graphic accelorators such as Black Magic's Decklink. All bring more power at a lower cost to the average desk top. Which will allow FCP to rival Avid's features.
Soon television production company's will require all shows to be recorded on HD. Because of HD broadcast and because of long term archiving. Which will significantly raise computer workload and storage needs. The Quad is a great advance which will allow FCP to meet this future workflow.
I'm sure these are mostly people who work in standard def television.
To a degree this is happening. For FCP to dominate the lower end editing market, it needs to be seamlessly compatible with the higher end Avid's.
A task which I'm sure Apple is working on.
Apple's hi-def solution is very popular as well.
As far as the lower end of Hi-Def, Apple's support is what has validated the concept. Panasonic's recorders success has depended upon it, as is Sony's with their new low cost systems. Canon has told me at the Photo Expo that they are also relying to a certain extent upon Apple's support. This new Camcorder has, as an addition, uncompressed digital HD and SD through an SDI output. Also will work with Apple's solution.
Apple has been supplying a Hi Def solution for years.
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
I didn't accually think of it this way, and you are probably right that Core Image does differ quite a lot from adobes implementation to make them uncompatible.
On the other hand, when Apple does make these great frameworks available to use for any programmer, other software companies that are mac-only or that have their largest market share on macs, will probably use Core Image (as it saves them from implementing their own, and they get access to first-grade quality apis).
Any photoshop competitor is a LONG ways off (and might never see the day), but with simpler applications like iMaginator that uses Core Image, one can clearly see the advantages of having this being the same accross all applications. It then becomes more of a "which application implements its functionality in the most intuitive, accessible and easy to use way", instead of "which application has this or that effect, and which one is better".
As a programmer I can clearly see the major advantages of having open frameworks like this available to any developer for their application!
I didn't accually think of it this way, and you are probably right that Core Image does differ quite a lot from adobes implementation to make them uncompatible.
On the other hand, when Apple does make these great frameworks available to use for any programmer, other software companies that are mac-only or that have their largest market share on macs, will probably use Core Image (as it saves them from implementing their own, and they get access to first-grade quality apis).
Any photoshop competitor is a LONG ways off (and might never see the day), but with simpler applications like iMaginator that uses Core Image, one can clearly see the advantages of having this being the same accross all applications. It then becomes more of a "which application implements its functionality in the most intuitive, accessible and easy to use way", instead of "which application has this or that effect, and which one is better".
As a programmer I can clearly see the major advantages of having open frameworks like this available to any developer for their application!
Slightly off topic, but hey
We don't know just how good these filters are as compared to PS's and others. They may be the same, they may be better, and they may be worse.
They can be different. I also made that point.
If it's a Mac only app, that would be fine.
But I and others who have been working with PS for a long time are used to the results we get, so are the clients. Something different, even if "better" might not be acceptable.
However, it's possible that Adobe might be able to build their own filters using the Core services.
That would answer a lot of questions and solve a lot of problems.
Fail to release simultaneously. Fail to support speed enhancements.
Adobe have been slack in some areas of their support for Apple.
That's why Apple have created Final Cut and iPhoto. Either Adobe didn't plan offer or offered lacklustre alternatives. If Avid or M$ or Adobe fail of threaten to fail support for a need Apple deems important?
We get Final Cut. iPhoto. Safari.
Steve Jobs said he hoped or where trying to persuade Adobe to put Core Image support into Photoshop.
Politics sez they won't do it.
Ergo: Apple release Apperture to show that it can be done. And it shows Photoshop up for the dinosaur that it is.
It maybe a/the standard.
But all empires end, Melgross.
10 years is a long time in the computer business.
Aperture shows what can be done in relatively little time. These aren't the early days of computing. Apple isn't the Apple of GX.
This Apple gets things done. Makes things happen. And because they do such a good job and tie it so well into the tech of the OS, their Pro and Consumer choices are compelling.
Adobe and PC / Photoshop vs Apple Mac with Aperture/Photoshop replacement? I know which I'd go for...
Quark was entrenched because it didn't have compelling competition. That's changing with Indesign.
I can see Aperture making inroads into many a Photographers workflow...and it is only version 1.
As for Apple not picking up Metacreations stable of apps.
I often wondered that myself.
But as resources were probably deemed more important for other things...then I guess what we've seen over the years answers your question. Getting the OS right. Getting some software bundled with Macs. Gettting the hardware right. Getting some Pro apps. Metacreations had some nice but half finished pieces of heavily pirated software...and gimmicky half finished at that. Poser, Painter have come along way since then...
Where M$ threaten to give lacklustre support eg IE Apple gives us Safari. Word/Powerpoint may be the 'standard'...but I think they suck royaly compared to Pages/keynote/iWorks.
Where Adobe gives us lacklustre (in light of Core Image...Video...) apps eg Premiere and Photoshop...we get Final Cut and Aperture.
Stagnation vs Innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I'd love to see Apple pick up Painter and blend it with Aperture. That would add the painting tools... Corel are always hard up. Apple could pick it up for a snip.
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.
Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.
When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.
Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.
Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.
Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.
Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.
I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.
Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
...and Apple doesn't necessarily have to write all these apps from scratch. If they don't make it from scratch, they buy a good product in and give it the Apple touch.
Final Cut.
Or make one themselves.
Aperture.
Now is a very exciting time to be part of the Apple scene.
We don't know just how good these filters are as compared to PS's and others. They may be the same, they may be better, and they may be worse.
They can be different. I also made that point.
If it's a Mac only app, that would be fine.
But I and others who have been working with PS for a long time are used to the results we get, so are the clients. Something different, even if "better" might not be acceptable.
However, it's possible that Adobe might be able to build their own filters using the Core services.
That would answer a lot of questions and solve a lot of problems.
Good points. As I am not a professional photographer or photo-manipulator I am speaking as a photographic amateur (or, a photo-entusiast). As a student I simply do not have the budget and/or the need for what I'd like to call "professional tools". While it might not be acceptable for a professional who relies heavily on the known outcome of his tools, for the tools to change - even in cases where the results are better, change is usually accepted and welcomed by people in my situation.
Now, Aperture it self is not out of my price range, although its hardware requirements are.
I'll go slighly off topic here and talk about Aperture and iPhoto instead of Aperture and Photoshop.
I see Aperture as being a great application for professionals and semi-professionals. but as it only relies on RAW images, its feature set - no matter how great - are not useful to me at all. Partly because I do not have a dSLR, and partly because I would be likely to shoot in JPEG even if I did. My work-flow goes something like this: Half (or there abouts) of my photographs are taken on a "normal" SLR and go on slide film. The rest are taken wiht a "high-end" digital compact. Digital photographs gets imported straight into iPhoto, while the slides gets scanned as JPEG at home, and then imported into iPhoto.
What I'd like to see though, is some of Apertures features to find its way into iPhoto 6 (ot 5.5, or whatever the next version is). I don't expect to get a full-featured iPhoto, but some of these features should (in my view) scale very well down to iPhoto. I'm thinking especially on the "magnifying glass" and some of the color correction functionalities and effects. In my opinion (and this is usually because I like to keep my OS and applications up-to-date) the next iPhoto (I'm going to call this iPhoto 6) should rely heavily on Core Image and Core Data in much the same way as Aperture. There is really no reason for it to not do this. I would love to be able to enhance some of my photos without being forced to store it as a seperate copy. My iPhoto library contains over 10.000 photographs and weighs in at over 15 GB. About 4 GB of this is used to store duplicates, which in effect wastes 5% of my total hard-drive capacity (PowerBook with 80GB). I would love to be able to get these 4GB back (On another note, my iPod Photo Cache weights is at almost 7GB, and I really wish Apple found a better solution for this issue!).
iPhoto is less of a workflow-type application and more of a digital photo library with "enhanced features", so I do not think any of the workflow-functionalities are applicable, but I do think that most (if not all) color-management (except the different color profiles, etc) and filters are applicable. They are a part of Core Image, and should therefore be available in all of apples image-applications (yes, even preview).
The reason I don't think any of the work-flow features are applicable in iPhoto is based on the different shooting-frequencies between amateurs (and "pro" amateurs) and professionals (and semi-pros). Where I might shoot 6-7 photos if I find something exciting, a pro might shoot ten times that, which is where the need for great workflow features come into play (i know theres other useages).
I hope that Apple continues on this path to create freely available frameworks accross the OS that anyone can use. It does increase the quality of all applications that are built on the technology. Just look at the slideshow example in OS X now. The same functionality is available in the Finder, in Preview, iPhoto and even in Mail. This is the type of cross-application functionality that might help Apple gain marketshare, in my opinion.
...and Apple doesn't necessarily have to write all these apps from scratch. If they don't make it from scratch, they buy a good product in and give it the Apple touch.
Final Cut.
Or make one themselves.
Aperture.
Now is a very exciting time to be part of the Apple scene.
In 1997. How much software did Apple have?
2005. How much software do Apple have?
2007. How much software will Apple have?
...software revenues are increasing by stealth...
Lemon Bon Bon
Yes, this is also a very good point. Apple keeps creating these really great applications that fits into a market very nicely. They started with the free i-apps, but have since moved on to create great applications to attempt to promote the platform - and I think they are successful. At times like this where a major change is right around the corner (Intel), Apple keeps selling more computers and more software, it should really be the other way around.
Trying to list the applications that have been released by Apple since 1997 from the top of my head:
iTunes (and the whole iPod experience)
iPhoto
iDVD
iMovie
iChat
Safari
Final Cut Express
Final Cut Pro
DVD Studio Pro
Logic (is there express and pro here too ?)
Soundtrack
GarageBand
Pages
Keynote
Motion
Thats a serious amount of applications being pushed out (with a high quality) in 7-8 years (I'm not sure when iTunes first got released, but I remember owning Sound Jam before that). Apple is slowly targeting themselves as a total solution within a range of professions, while keeping it the "Apple way" with great ease of use and innovative solutions.
Adobe have been slack in some areas of their support for Apple.
That's why Apple have created Final Cut and iPhoto. Either Adobe didn't plan offer or offered lacklustre alternatives. If Avid or M$ or Adobe fail of threaten to fail support for a need Apple deems important?
We get Final Cut. iPhoto. Safari.
Steve Jobs said he hoped or where trying to persuade Adobe to put Core Image support into Photoshop.
Politics sez they won't do it.
Ergo: Apple release Apperture to show that it can be done. And it shows Photoshop up for the dinosaur that it is.
It maybe a/the standard.
But all empires end, Melgross.
10 years is a long time in the computer business.
Aperture shows what can be done in relatively little time. These aren't the early days of computing. Apple isn't the Apple of GX.
This Apple gets things done. Makes things happen. And because they do such a good job and tie it so well into the tech of the OS, their Pro and Consumer choices are compelling.
Adobe and PC / Photoshop vs Apple Mac with Aperture/Photoshop replacement? I know which I'd go for...
Quark was entrenched because it didn't have compelling competition. That's changing with Indesign.
I can see Aperture making inroads into many a Photographers workflow...and it is only version 1.
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't know about all of that, and I don't recall Jobs saying he wanted Adobe to use Core Image.
Apple has shown no interest in doing anything with it to make it competitive.
How do you know that? The naming scheme kinda implies a yearly upgrade.
Office is older, but you aren't saying that MS hasn't shown any interest in doing anything with it.
BUT!! iWork is not supposed to compete with Office - MS Works perhaps, but not Office.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Even though Quark has been universally vilified over many years. And even though from the very beginning, inDesign has been heralded as the better program, the much better program with each new release. With that, Adobe is praised for good customer relations. And even though Quark has been slow getting new and useful releases out of the door. And even with their totally reviled lack of customer support, and the lack of respect many companies and individual users have felt radiating from Quark, most of the publishing industry is STILL standardized on Quark Express.
Not in this part of the world.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Even if we believe, as Mac users, that Aperture is the most wonderful program of its type ever conceived, and even if we think that after several upgrades, the program can, in someway, compete with PS, it will still have a LONG way to go before most others think that.
It's not supposed to compete with Photoshop FCOL!!!
The OS resources going into making Raw a first-class citizen are enormous. As the OS evolves, our Raw support automatically evolves, too. When you get software updates, any given update can contain aw updates. So one morning Aperture suddenly supports new formats.
I see Aperture as being a great application for professionals and semi-professionals. but as it only relies on RAW images, its feature set - no matter how great - are not useful to me at all. Partly because I do not have a dSLR, and partly because I would be likely to shoot in JPEG even if I did. My work-flow goes something like this: Half (or there abouts) of my photographs are taken on a "normal" SLR and go on slide film. The rest are taken wiht a "high-end" digital compact. Digital photographs gets imported straight into iPhoto, while the slides gets scanned as JPEG at home, and then imported into iPhoto.
Remember that iPhoto is the most popular part of iLife. Also Aperture will support most image files it just won't be as useful on JPGs. Personally i have a camera with RAW capability but iPhoto doesn't support it and RAW images take up too much space. My 100GB PowerBook hard drive is almost full and I like to have all my photos on it. I hope Apple can't get multiple hard drive support into Aperture though for my older pics - maybe a solution where it scales them down for the computer and stores them at high-res elsewhere?
I hope Apple can't get multiple hard drive support into Aperture though for my older pics - maybe a solution where it scales them down for the computer and stores them at high-res elsewhere?
The latest full-length Inside Mac podcast from last Saturday had an interview with one of the people associated with Aperture at Apple. One of the things mentioned was the ability to have vaults, which he referenced as external Firewire or USB drives, that Aperture can use for photo manipulation and storage.
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
Have you found any of those cards available with less memory?
Hadn't thoroughly checked though I thought there might be a 64MB version for at least one of 'em, e.g. ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 in the previous PB? You may be right that 128MB is implied. I was just wondering where Mel had seen/heard that number mentioned explicitly by Apple since I hadn't found it.
Apple was showing, and has done it very well, that their equipment, which is also used in turn-key systems from Avid, could compete on Avids low end.
Right now (2005) this statment is true. Back in 2000 this wasn't the case. At that time Avid's low end was far beyond FCP v.1.
I can agree on looking at this way. FCP created a new market for mid-level nonlinear DV desktop editor. Premeire wan't good enough, Avid was more than needed and cost too much. FCP filled the area between. Because of FCP Avid changed the working model of Xpress. Xpress used to be a lesser capable version of its high end machine. Now Xpress is more like FCP.
Apple has essencially made Avids low cost systems obsolete. With real time boards, they have been creaping upwards steadily. With the FC Suite they have cut into Avids feature set, and in a number of areas surpassed it. Avid's Express software has been playing catchup . Avids hardware has been pushed out of many editing suites.
Its ture that Apple is gaining but Avid Xpress is used because of compatibility with high end pro Avid systems. If FCP ever becomes as compatible and easy to use with high end Avid's then it could make Xpress obsolete.
The reason FCP has surpassed Xpress in features is because Avid doesn't want Xpress to compete with its high end systems. Apple is free to add as many features to FCP as is technically feasible.
FCP has made inroads into standard def television. It's a great system if the final product is delivered on DV or uncompressed SD for broadcast television. Avid right now is best if the final product is delivered on HD or Film.
I wouldn't classify Apple's solution as competing against Avids hi end systems, but as FC Studio and the hardware solutions that have come onto the market to work with it have gotten more sophisticated, Apple's has taken more and more of Avids workload.
I would say most of the people who use Final Cut Studio are people who could never afford a pro Avid work station. Or are working in Standard Def televison and don't need Avid's advanced work flow.
The Quad is going to reduce that difference even more. Many more effects will be realtime with that. It's one of the reasons I'm looking foward to getting it.
I agree. The Quad, PCIe, advanced graphics cards, and graphic accelorators such as Black Magic's Decklink. All bring more power at a lower cost to the average desk top. Which will allow FCP to rival Avid's features.
Soon television production company's will require all shows to be recorded on HD. Because of HD broadcast and because of long term archiving. Which will significantly raise computer workload and storage needs. The Quad is a great advance which will allow FCP to meet this future workflow.
The thing here that is exciting about FC Studio is that about one third of all pro video editors are now using it. That includes the pro's who can't, because they work on PC's. I got that from a survey done, I think, by DV Magazine.
I'm sure these are mostly people who work in standard def television.
If this keeps moving upwards, and with the features Apple has been adding, it seems as though it will, then Avid will be squeezed into the hi end productivity corner. with so many studios using FC Studio, Avid will have to keep supporting the Mac. There is now too much custom software on the high end that is being ported over from Unix.
To a degree this is happening. For FCP to dominate the lower end editing market, it needs to be seamlessly compatible with the higher end Avid's.
A task which I'm sure Apple is working on.
Originally posted by sjk
Where have they said that? Not here, as I mentioned earlier.
For one thing, I was told that explicitly at the show by two Apple reps. They said that it wouldn't even work without it. Someone here wanted me to ask.
Another member was also at the show, and was told the same thing.
Most of the boards on Apple's site I recognize, and they all have at least 128MB RAM. The others I don't know enough about. The mobility chips will be in portables, so you will have to do some work and see if they are (were) in machines that had 128MB RAM or not.
I can only report what I was told by Apple.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Right now (2005) this statment is true. Back in 2000 this wasn't the case. At that time Avid's low end was far beyond FCP v.1.
I can agree on looking at this way. FCP created a new market for mid-level nonlinear DV desktop editor. Premeire wan't good enough, Avid was more than needed and cost too much. FCP filled the area between. Because of FCP Avid changed the working model of Xpress. Xpress used to be a lesser capable version of its high end machine. Now Xpress is more like FCP.
Its ture that Apple is gaining but Avid Xpress is used because of compatibility with high end pro Avid systems. If FCP ever becomes as compatible and easy to use with high end Avid's then it could make Xpress obsolete.
The reason FCP has surpassed Xpress in features is because Avid doesn't want Xpress to compete with its high end systems. Apple is free to add as many features to FCP as is technically feasible.
FCP has made inroads into standard def television. It's a great system if the final product is delivered on DV or uncompressed SD for broadcast television. Avid right now is best if the final product is delivered on HD or Film.
I would say most of the people who use Final Cut Studio are people who could never afford a pro Avid work station. Or are working in Standard Def televison and don't need Avid's advanced work flow.
I agree. The Quad, PCIe, advanced graphics cards, and graphic accelorators such as Black Magic's Decklink. All bring more power at a lower cost to the average desk top. Which will allow FCP to rival Avid's features.
Soon television production company's will require all shows to be recorded on HD. Because of HD broadcast and because of long term archiving. Which will significantly raise computer workload and storage needs. The Quad is a great advance which will allow FCP to meet this future workflow.
I'm sure these are mostly people who work in standard def television.
To a degree this is happening. For FCP to dominate the lower end editing market, it needs to be seamlessly compatible with the higher end Avid's.
A task which I'm sure Apple is working on.
Apple's hi-def solution is very popular as well.
As far as the lower end of Hi-Def, Apple's support is what has validated the concept. Panasonic's recorders success has depended upon it, as is Sony's with their new low cost systems. Canon has told me at the Photo Expo that they are also relying to a certain extent upon Apple's support. This new Camcorder has, as an addition, uncompressed digital HD and SD through an SDI output. Also will work with Apple's solution.
Apple has been supplying a Hi Def solution for years.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple has been supplying a Hi Def solution for years.
When did they start? I thought they didn't have HD support until version 4.
Originally posted by JeffDM
When did they start? I thought they didn't have HD support until version 4.
Hardware, not software.
Originally posted by webmail
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
I didn't accually think of it this way, and you are probably right that Core Image does differ quite a lot from adobes implementation to make them uncompatible.
On the other hand, when Apple does make these great frameworks available to use for any programmer, other software companies that are mac-only or that have their largest market share on macs, will probably use Core Image (as it saves them from implementing their own, and they get access to first-grade quality apis).
Any photoshop competitor is a LONG ways off (and might never see the day), but with simpler applications like iMaginator that uses Core Image, one can clearly see the advantages of having this being the same accross all applications. It then becomes more of a "which application implements its functionality in the most intuitive, accessible and easy to use way", instead of "which application has this or that effect, and which one is better".
As a programmer I can clearly see the major advantages of having open frameworks like this available to any developer for their application!
Slightly off topic, but hey
Originally posted by BoeManE
I didn't accually think of it this way, and you are probably right that Core Image does differ quite a lot from adobes implementation to make them uncompatible.
On the other hand, when Apple does make these great frameworks available to use for any programmer, other software companies that are mac-only or that have their largest market share on macs, will probably use Core Image (as it saves them from implementing their own, and they get access to first-grade quality apis).
Any photoshop competitor is a LONG ways off (and might never see the day), but with simpler applications like iMaginator that uses Core Image, one can clearly see the advantages of having this being the same accross all applications. It then becomes more of a "which application implements its functionality in the most intuitive, accessible and easy to use way", instead of "which application has this or that effect, and which one is better".
As a programmer I can clearly see the major advantages of having open frameworks like this available to any developer for their application!
Slightly off topic, but hey
We don't know just how good these filters are as compared to PS's and others. They may be the same, they may be better, and they may be worse.
They can be different. I also made that point.
If it's a Mac only app, that would be fine.
But I and others who have been working with PS for a long time are used to the results we get, so are the clients. Something different, even if "better" might not be acceptable.
However, it's possible that Adobe might be able to build their own filters using the Core services.
That would answer a lot of questions and solve a lot of problems.
Fail to release simultaneously. Fail to support speed enhancements.
Adobe have been slack in some areas of their support for Apple.
That's why Apple have created Final Cut and iPhoto. Either Adobe didn't plan offer or offered lacklustre alternatives. If Avid or M$ or Adobe fail of threaten to fail support for a need Apple deems important?
We get Final Cut. iPhoto. Safari.
Steve Jobs said he hoped or where trying to persuade Adobe to put Core Image support into Photoshop.
Politics sez they won't do it.
Ergo: Apple release Apperture to show that it can be done. And it shows Photoshop up for the dinosaur that it is.
It maybe a/the standard.
But all empires end, Melgross.
10 years is a long time in the computer business.
Aperture shows what can be done in relatively little time. These aren't the early days of computing. Apple isn't the Apple of GX.
This Apple gets things done. Makes things happen. And because they do such a good job and tie it so well into the tech of the OS, their Pro and Consumer choices are compelling.
Adobe and PC / Photoshop vs Apple Mac with Aperture/Photoshop replacement? I know which I'd go for...
Quark was entrenched because it didn't have compelling competition. That's changing with Indesign.
I can see Aperture making inroads into many a Photographers workflow...and it is only version 1.
Lemon Bon Bon
I often wondered that myself.
But as resources were probably deemed more important for other things...then I guess what we've seen over the years answers your question. Getting the OS right. Getting some software bundled with Macs. Gettting the hardware right. Getting some Pro apps. Metacreations had some nice but half finished pieces of heavily pirated software...and gimmicky half finished at that. Poser, Painter have come along way since then...
Where M$ threaten to give lacklustre support eg IE Apple gives us Safari. Word/Powerpoint may be the 'standard'...but I think they suck royaly compared to Pages/keynote/iWorks.
Where Adobe gives us lacklustre (in light of Core Image...Video...) apps eg Premiere and Photoshop...we get Final Cut and Aperture.
Stagnation vs Innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I'd love to see Apple pick up Painter and blend it with Aperture. That would add the painting tools... Corel are always hard up. Apple could pick it up for a snip.
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.
Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.
When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.
Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.
Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.
Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.
Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.
I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.
Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
Innovation is etched over everything they do.
If Adobe and M$ want to produce mediocre products...
...then Apple has shown a ruthless ability to encroach.
More tanks on the lawn of Redmond...
...Photoshop enters the target cross-hare sights of Cupertino...'We can see you...'
Lemon Bon Bon
Final Cut.
Or make one themselves.
Aperture.
Now is a very exciting time to be part of the Apple scene.
In 1997. How much software did Apple have?
2005. How much software do Apple have?
2007. How much software will Apple have?
...software revenues are increasing by stealth...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by melgross
We don't know just how good these filters are as compared to PS's and others. They may be the same, they may be better, and they may be worse.
They can be different. I also made that point.
If it's a Mac only app, that would be fine.
But I and others who have been working with PS for a long time are used to the results we get, so are the clients. Something different, even if "better" might not be acceptable.
However, it's possible that Adobe might be able to build their own filters using the Core services.
That would answer a lot of questions and solve a lot of problems.
Good points. As I am not a professional photographer or photo-manipulator I am speaking as a photographic amateur (or, a photo-entusiast). As a student I simply do not have the budget and/or the need for what I'd like to call "professional tools". While it might not be acceptable for a professional who relies heavily on the known outcome of his tools, for the tools to change - even in cases where the results are better, change is usually accepted and welcomed by people in my situation.
Now, Aperture it self is not out of my price range, although its hardware requirements are.
I'll go slighly off topic here and talk about Aperture and iPhoto instead of Aperture and Photoshop.
I see Aperture as being a great application for professionals and semi-professionals. but as it only relies on RAW images, its feature set - no matter how great - are not useful to me at all. Partly because I do not have a dSLR, and partly because I would be likely to shoot in JPEG even if I did. My work-flow goes something like this: Half (or there abouts) of my photographs are taken on a "normal" SLR and go on slide film. The rest are taken wiht a "high-end" digital compact. Digital photographs gets imported straight into iPhoto, while the slides gets scanned as JPEG at home, and then imported into iPhoto.
What I'd like to see though, is some of Apertures features to find its way into iPhoto 6 (ot 5.5, or whatever the next version is). I don't expect to get a full-featured iPhoto, but some of these features should (in my view) scale very well down to iPhoto. I'm thinking especially on the "magnifying glass" and some of the color correction functionalities and effects. In my opinion (and this is usually because I like to keep my OS and applications up-to-date) the next iPhoto (I'm going to call this iPhoto 6) should rely heavily on Core Image and Core Data in much the same way as Aperture. There is really no reason for it to not do this. I would love to be able to enhance some of my photos without being forced to store it as a seperate copy. My iPhoto library contains over 10.000 photographs and weighs in at over 15 GB. About 4 GB of this is used to store duplicates, which in effect wastes 5% of my total hard-drive capacity (PowerBook with 80GB). I would love to be able to get these 4GB back
iPhoto is less of a workflow-type application and more of a digital photo library with "enhanced features", so I do not think any of the workflow-functionalities are applicable, but I do think that most (if not all) color-management (except the different color profiles, etc) and filters are applicable. They are a part of Core Image, and should therefore be available in all of apples image-applications (yes, even preview).
The reason I don't think any of the work-flow features are applicable in iPhoto is based on the different shooting-frequencies between amateurs (and "pro" amateurs) and professionals (and semi-pros). Where I might shoot 6-7 photos if I find something exciting, a pro might shoot ten times that, which is where the need for great workflow features come into play (i know theres other useages).
I hope that Apple continues on this path to create freely available frameworks accross the OS that anyone can use. It does increase the quality of all applications that are built on the technology. Just look at the slideshow example in OS X now. The same functionality is available in the Finder, in Preview, iPhoto and even in Mail. This is the type of cross-application functionality that might help Apple gain marketshare, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
...and Apple doesn't necessarily have to write all these apps from scratch. If they don't make it from scratch, they buy a good product in and give it the Apple touch.
Final Cut.
Or make one themselves.
Aperture.
Now is a very exciting time to be part of the Apple scene.
In 1997. How much software did Apple have?
2005. How much software do Apple have?
2007. How much software will Apple have?
...software revenues are increasing by stealth...
Lemon Bon Bon
Yes, this is also a very good point. Apple keeps creating these really great applications that fits into a market very nicely. They started with the free i-apps, but have since moved on to create great applications to attempt to promote the platform - and I think they are successful. At times like this where a major change is right around the corner (Intel), Apple keeps selling more computers and more software, it should really be the other way around.
Trying to list the applications that have been released by Apple since 1997 from the top of my head:
iTunes (and the whole iPod experience)
iPhoto
iDVD
iMovie
iChat
Safari
Final Cut Express
Final Cut Pro
DVD Studio Pro
Logic (is there express and pro here too ?)
Soundtrack
GarageBand
Pages
Keynote
Motion
Thats a serious amount of applications being pushed out (with a high quality) in 7-8 years (I'm not sure when iTunes first got released, but I remember owning Sound Jam before that). Apple is slowly targeting themselves as a total solution within a range of professions, while keeping it the "Apple way" with great ease of use and innovative solutions.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Adobe have been slack in some areas of their support for Apple.
That's why Apple have created Final Cut and iPhoto. Either Adobe didn't plan offer or offered lacklustre alternatives. If Avid or M$ or Adobe fail of threaten to fail support for a need Apple deems important?
We get Final Cut. iPhoto. Safari.
Steve Jobs said he hoped or where trying to persuade Adobe to put Core Image support into Photoshop.
Politics sez they won't do it.
Ergo: Apple release Apperture to show that it can be done. And it shows Photoshop up for the dinosaur that it is.
It maybe a/the standard.
But all empires end, Melgross.
10 years is a long time in the computer business.
Aperture shows what can be done in relatively little time. These aren't the early days of computing. Apple isn't the Apple of GX.
This Apple gets things done. Makes things happen. And because they do such a good job and tie it so well into the tech of the OS, their Pro and Consumer choices are compelling.
Adobe and PC / Photoshop vs Apple Mac with Aperture/Photoshop replacement? I know which I'd go for...
Quark was entrenched because it didn't have compelling competition. That's changing with Indesign.
I can see Aperture making inroads into many a Photographers workflow...and it is only version 1.
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't know about all of that, and I don't recall Jobs saying he wanted Adobe to use Core Image.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple has shown no interest in doing anything with it to make it competitive.
How do you know that? The naming scheme kinda implies a yearly upgrade.
Office is older, but you aren't saying that MS hasn't shown any interest in doing anything with it.
BUT!! iWork is not supposed to compete with Office - MS Works perhaps, but not Office.
Originally posted by melgross
Even though Quark has been universally vilified over many years. And even though from the very beginning, inDesign has been heralded as the better program, the much better program with each new release. With that, Adobe is praised for good customer relations. And even though Quark has been slow getting new and useful releases out of the door. And even with their totally reviled lack of customer support, and the lack of respect many companies and individual users have felt radiating from Quark, most of the publishing industry is STILL standardized on Quark Express.
Not in this part of the world.
Originally posted by melgross
Even if we believe, as Mac users, that Aperture is the most wonderful program of its type ever conceived, and even if we think that after several upgrades, the program can, in someway, compete with PS, it will still have a LONG way to go before most others think that.
It's not supposed to compete with Photoshop FCOL!!!
The OS resources going into making Raw a first-class citizen are enormous. As the OS evolves, our Raw support automatically evolves, too. When you get software updates, any given update can contain aw updates. So one morning Aperture suddenly supports new formats.
CreativePro interviews Aperture's Product Manager
Interesting interview. Finally, some substantive information is released.
Originally posted by BoeManE
I see Aperture as being a great application for professionals and semi-professionals. but as it only relies on RAW images, its feature set - no matter how great - are not useful to me at all. Partly because I do not have a dSLR, and partly because I would be likely to shoot in JPEG even if I did. My work-flow goes something like this: Half (or there abouts) of my photographs are taken on a "normal" SLR and go on slide film. The rest are taken wiht a "high-end" digital compact. Digital photographs gets imported straight into iPhoto, while the slides gets scanned as JPEG at home, and then imported into iPhoto.
Remember that iPhoto is the most popular part of iLife. Also Aperture will support most image files it just won't be as useful on JPGs. Personally i have a camera with RAW capability but iPhoto doesn't support it and RAW images take up too much space. My 100GB PowerBook hard drive is almost full and I like to have all my photos on it. I hope Apple can't get multiple hard drive support into Aperture though for my older pics - maybe a solution where it scales them down for the computer and stores them at high-res elsewhere?
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I hope Apple can't get multiple hard drive support into Aperture though for my older pics - maybe a solution where it scales them down for the computer and stores them at high-res elsewhere?
The latest full-length Inside Mac podcast from last Saturday had an interview with one of the people associated with Aperture at Apple. One of the things mentioned was the ability to have vaults, which he referenced as external Firewire or USB drives, that Aperture can use for photo manipulation and storage.