Yes a jpeg or any other pic format other than raw (TIFF used to exist) is a dematrixing process. Excepting the foveon, any sensor use the Bayer's matrix technology.
Because basically the sensor have 4 kinds of pixels : two green, one red, one blue. This 4 square pattern is repeted all the way in the sensor. The DSP of the camera, has to interpolate the result of all adjacents photosites in order to know the color of the central photosite. But DSP are doing much more than color interpolation, they are doing some accentuation, level corrections, noise reduction .... and jpeg compression. All these post processing enhance the quality pic, but supress the original information, and let's say detail.
The raw do not do this, it's only the collection of the signal coming from each photosite.
The dematrixing has to be done by the computer, and the dematrixing in itself is destructive.
Photoshop start by a dematrixing, in order to have a pic, and then you work in the pic.
Aperture work on the raw, and the dematrixing and the filters applied are displayed in real time in order to be able to watch them on the screen, but the truth is that aperture really work with the raw, and not by a transformation of the raw like photoshop.
So photoshop is
you take a raw, and obtain a photoshop file (with all the layers you want)
but aperture is
you take a raw and add all the layers you want. The raw is never converted in aperture at the difference of photoshop. It's only converted by core image in real time in order to display a pic. That's why this software is so power hungry.
I hope I have been clear
Yes. Also, Adobes' Digital Negative is a non dematrixed file. It doesn't lose any information either. This will be used in PS as a primary file structure in the future.
It's interesting to note that Hassleblad has standardized on Adobe's Digital Negative as its official file structure. The feeling in the industry is that more hi end camera manufacturers will follow Hassleblads lead. This might filter down to other manufacturers later. Right now, most camera manufacturers have endorsed Adobe's new format, and have agreed to supply Adobe with their file specs so that Adobe can more easily convert their RAW files to the DN file structure.
Aperture also supports Adobe's DN.
I'm very interested to see how this is going to move in the future. It will simplify dealing with the various camera file systems.
Digital negative sounds nice, because who know if we will be able to read a raw in two decades ?
A standart like digital negative is nice if it stay forever. We could take one of our old digital negative and work on it with photoshop 15 with new and fantastic algorithms of image processing.
For my own usage I think that I am going to work only with raw (and invest in big compact flash card : 4 GB).
BTW I will recieve aperture the 12/15 and will run it on my newcoming quad. As soon as I can, I will give you my first impressions
I think the biggest capabilities of aperature are the fact of the raw format abilities. im really excieted about the raw format thing to tell you the truth, being a photographer. check out this game i have been playing all day in the office, i use it to realive my stress. here check this http://www.entertainmentanytime.com/
Digital negative sounds nice, because who know if we will be able to read a raw in two decades ?
A standart like digital negative is nice if it stay forever. We could take one of our old digital negative and work on it with photoshop 15 with new and fantastic algorithms of image processing.
For my own usage I think that I am going to work only with raw (and invest in big compact flash card : 4 GB).
BTW I will recieve aperture the 12/15 and will run it on my newcoming quad. As soon as I can, I will give you my first impressions
The concept behind the digital negative, as told to me by my Adobe contact, is that it can expand to cover more sophistication over the coming years while still maintaining compatibility with the older versions, i.e., the older versions will be readable in the newer ones. Therefore they will never become obsolete. Unfortunately, several RAW formats have already become obsolete, and are unreadable. If all manufacturers adopt this format, there will be just one file type to read. Adobe has thrown this file - the DN, out for public use, with no license fees.
I'm also going to order the Quad, and Aperture after the announcements at the Jan Macworld. That is, unless Apple shows that they will be accelerating their turnover. If a new Mactel PM will be out by the end of 2006, I might not buy the quad now. I no longer need it for business, so I'm not sure if I want to buy two models the same year.
Here is a post from Macintouch about Aperture from someone else who attended the show. Remember, he is talking about RAW image size files, they are larger when opened in the program, eg. the 10MB RAw file from the Quads are about 20MB open, as I had mentioned earlier.
"Oct. 21, 2005
Aperture Announcement
Jeffrey Osterman
I went to PhotoPlus Expo today at the Javits Center in New York and had a chance to play around with Aperture while I was there. I wanted to pass along a few initial reactions (recognizing, of course, that the version on display was pre-release):
* As an initial release, the amount of thought that went into Aperture is remarkable. Time and time again, the program showed fine finishing touches that I rarely see in 1.0 versions of software. It's a lovely program and I think it will be a pleasure to work with.
* Performance seems quite good, although I note that most of the images Apple is using to demo are 3-4 megapixel RAW files; when using larger RAW files (10 megapixel or thereabouts) on the quad G5s, while previews were fast, it took some time (on the order of 10 seconds or so) for the images to snap into full resolution and for the loupe to become available.
* The program consumes a great degree of processing power, meaning that it's likely to make computers kick off a lot of heat. One of the steps in the demo involved "lifting" adjustments made to one picture and "stamping" them onto 5 others at once. When I did that, while the computer was working, I felt a wave of hot air come up from under the table. I assume that the Intel-based Macs will help in this regard, but for now I'd hope to use Aperture in a well-ventilated room.
* While I think it may be a complete substitute for Adobe Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw, and Aperture does some things you'd use adjustment layers for in Photoshop, the retouching features in Aperture (particularly the spot and patch tools) struck me as pretty far behind those in Photoshop. The spot and patch tools don't seem to have the logic that the corresponding tools in Photoshop (healing brush and patch) have -- i.e., the ability to make sure the edges blend and being able to copy texture from one portion of an image while matching it to the color of the destination portion of the image. I assume this is because the tools in Aperture work "live" and it would be hard (to say the least) for them to continually recalculate on the fly. On the flip side, because they're live, you can at any time later choose a different source spot for the patch tool or change the area/radius/softness associated with the spot tool. It also appears that Aperture doesn't have any of the more compute-intensive features that Photoshop has, particularly Shadow/Highlight, Lens Blur and Smart Sharpen. Thus, while Apple talks about using Photoshop for more extreme creative processing, my sense is that many if not most images I'd want to print would likely pass through Photoshop.
* While creating multiple variants of a single RAW file solely in Aperture doesn't consume masses of file space, since only the adjustments to the RAW file are saved, I assume that opening a file in Photoshop, making changes and then saving as a PSD (which is linked in Aperture to the original file) will substantially expand the amount of disk space used.
* iPhoto input is one-way only (i.e., no export back to iPhoto) and results in a copy of the iPhoto library being made in the Aperture data store. Similarly, importing an existing folder tree of photos results in duplicates of all being kept by Aperture.
All that said, I came away with an extremely favorable impression and I'm certainly going to buy a copy as soon as it becomes available."
iPhoto input is one-way only (i.e., no export back to iPhoto) and results in a copy of the iPhoto library being made in the Aperture data store. Similarly, importing an existing folder tree of photos results in duplicates of all being kept by Aperture.
All that said, I came away with an extremely favorable impression and I'm certainly going to buy a copy as soon as it becomes available."
Great review - I was wondering about iPhoto and what would happen to your iPod if you sync the photos! I suppose Aperture users will have to use folders rather than a program.
Has anyone had a change in estimated shipping times for Aperture? Last I heard, people were saying that it was supposed to ship by the 15th of December.
I would like to have a copy before Christmas but Im not going to hold my breath.
Has anyone had a change in estimated shipping times for Aperture? Last I heard, people were saying that it was supposed to ship by the 15th of December.
I would like to have a copy before Christmas but Im not going to hold my breath.
I went to Apple's education web pages. It said 2 weeks several days ago.
By the way, if you are a college student, have a child who is, or a high school student or are on the executive board of the PA or PTA, etc., you can get it for $249. That's what I'm paying.
Try the compatability checker. It gives odd results.
If the checker is correct, many machines won't work (no install). On the other hand some people who have machines that shouldn't work, such as iBooks, are being told that it will install.
I have just checked a Digital Audio, with Powerlogix dual 1.8GHz 7447a's, 1.5GB RAM, 9800Pro card, and lots of HD space.
No install, so it says.
An AGP Graphics with 1GHz Sonnet card, 1.25GB RAM 9600 card (128MB),and lots of HD also won't get an install.
At least my dual 2GB G5 with 2GB RAM, ATI 800, and lots of HD will allow an install.
This is really going to piss off a lot of people here.
I went to Apple's education web pages. It said 2 weeks several days ago.
By the way, if you are a college student, have a child who is, or a high school student or are on the executive board of the PA or PTA, etc., you can get it for $249. That's what I'm paying.
you can get if for even less if you but using your institution's network. Or is this only in the UK? Standard student price is £220 and it's £130 if you're in higher education.
you can get if for even less if you but using your institution's network. Or is this only in the UK? Standard student price is £220 and it's £130 if you're in higher education.
So that's about $230 here. Every bit helps. You do pay a lot more for the regular student pricing.
Go onto Apples' education pages here and get to the right page for you, they don't even ask for certification, after you pick the school. I'm not certain if they do anything afterwards. It's like MS with Student/Teacher Edition. Just buy it, even though you supposedly have to qualify, you really don't.
Yesterday I attended an Apple Aperture seminar and was well impressed with its speed. Loading up a CF card with 30 odd images from a Nikon D2x (16Mb NEF files) Aperture was bloody impressive. All editing is non-destructive, the RAW file is never touched. All adjustments/edits were in real time, the reason for its speed according to Apple reps is the use of Core Image. I currently use a Sigma SD9 which only produces RAW files, weddings and product shoots have been a real pain organising usually between 200 - 800 shots, Aperture is a godsend as far as I'm concerned. The SD9 is not supported, but have a D200 on order.
I think, if you shoot JPGs and only a few shots at a time, forget Aperture it's not for you. If you shoot RAW and shoot a lot of frames go for it, you will not be dissapointed.
As for system requirements, RAM seems to be this softwares biggest requirement. Remember most photographers will be using this software on their Powerbooks, so recent G4 machines must be more than adequate.
I look forward to using Aperture, I'm convinced it will solve my workflow problems.
I decided not to go to the Apple Seminar today because I had too much work to do but I didn't realise they would have hands-on areas. Did they have it on any PowerBooks by any chance?
I decided not to go to the Apple Seminar today because I had too much work to do but I didn't realise they would have hands-on areas. Did they have it on any PowerBooks by any chance?
Nope, no Powerbook running it. I spotted a busy photographer with a 17" PB and am sure he was running it (I may be wrong, it was all quite chaotic between seminars) maybe he was reviewing Aperture and had a pre release version? Either way I still think RAM is going to be the most important factor using it. I'm going to max my 20" iMac out in preparation. I use Sigma PhotoPro for the Sigma RAW files, it's way quicker than Photoshop with more control. Once I get my Nikon I guess it wont matter anymore.
Well I have 1GB RAM so that should be ok - i may upgrade if I have to. Although I'd rather get a 20" screen for my PowerBook.
Quote:
Originally posted by Crustibooga
Nope, no Powerbook running it. I spotted a busy photographer with a 17" PB and am sure he was running it (I may be wrong, it was all quite chaotic between seminars) maybe he was reviewing Aperture and had a pre release version? Either way I still think RAM is going to be the most important factor using it. I'm going to max my 20" iMac out in preparation. I use Sigma PhotoPro for the Sigma RAW files, it's way quicker than Photoshop with more control. Once I get my Nikon I guess it wont matter anymore.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes a jpeg or any other pic format other than raw (TIFF used to exist) is a dematrixing process. Excepting the foveon, any sensor use the Bayer's matrix technology.
Because basically the sensor have 4 kinds of pixels : two green, one red, one blue. This 4 square pattern is repeted all the way in the sensor. The DSP of the camera, has to interpolate the result of all adjacents photosites in order to know the color of the central photosite. But DSP are doing much more than color interpolation, they are doing some accentuation, level corrections, noise reduction .... and jpeg compression. All these post processing enhance the quality pic, but supress the original information, and let's say detail.
The raw do not do this, it's only the collection of the signal coming from each photosite.
The dematrixing has to be done by the computer, and the dematrixing in itself is destructive.
Photoshop start by a dematrixing, in order to have a pic, and then you work in the pic.
Aperture work on the raw, and the dematrixing and the filters applied are displayed in real time in order to be able to watch them on the screen, but the truth is that aperture really work with the raw, and not by a transformation of the raw like photoshop.
So photoshop is
you take a raw, and obtain a photoshop file (with all the layers you want)
but aperture is
you take a raw and add all the layers you want. The raw is never converted in aperture at the difference of photoshop. It's only converted by core image in real time in order to display a pic. That's why this software is so power hungry.
I hope I have been clear
Yes. Also, Adobes' Digital Negative is a non dematrixed file. It doesn't lose any information either. This will be used in PS as a primary file structure in the future.
It's interesting to note that Hassleblad has standardized on Adobe's Digital Negative as its official file structure. The feeling in the industry is that more hi end camera manufacturers will follow Hassleblads lead. This might filter down to other manufacturers later. Right now, most camera manufacturers have endorsed Adobe's new format, and have agreed to supply Adobe with their file specs so that Adobe can more easily convert their RAW files to the DN file structure.
Aperture also supports Adobe's DN.
I'm very interested to see how this is going to move in the future. It will simplify dealing with the various camera file systems.
A standart like digital negative is nice if it stay forever. We could take one of our old digital negative and work on it with photoshop 15 with new and fantastic algorithms of image processing.
For my own usage I think that I am going to work only with raw (and invest in big compact flash card : 4 GB).
BTW I will recieve aperture the 12/15 and will run it on my newcoming quad. As soon as I can, I will give you my first impressions
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Digital negative sounds nice, because who know if we will be able to read a raw in two decades ?
A standart like digital negative is nice if it stay forever. We could take one of our old digital negative and work on it with photoshop 15 with new and fantastic algorithms of image processing.
For my own usage I think that I am going to work only with raw (and invest in big compact flash card : 4 GB).
BTW I will recieve aperture the 12/15 and will run it on my newcoming quad. As soon as I can, I will give you my first impressions
The concept behind the digital negative, as told to me by my Adobe contact, is that it can expand to cover more sophistication over the coming years while still maintaining compatibility with the older versions, i.e., the older versions will be readable in the newer ones. Therefore they will never become obsolete. Unfortunately, several RAW formats have already become obsolete, and are unreadable. If all manufacturers adopt this format, there will be just one file type to read. Adobe has thrown this file - the DN, out for public use, with no license fees.
I'm also going to order the Quad, and Aperture after the announcements at the Jan Macworld. That is, unless Apple shows that they will be accelerating their turnover. If a new Mactel PM will be out by the end of 2006, I might not buy the quad now. I no longer need it for business, so I'm not sure if I want to buy two models the same year.
"Oct. 21, 2005
Aperture Announcement
Jeffrey Osterman
I went to PhotoPlus Expo today at the Javits Center in New York and had a chance to play around with Aperture while I was there. I wanted to pass along a few initial reactions (recognizing, of course, that the version on display was pre-release):
* As an initial release, the amount of thought that went into Aperture is remarkable. Time and time again, the program showed fine finishing touches that I rarely see in 1.0 versions of software. It's a lovely program and I think it will be a pleasure to work with.
* Performance seems quite good, although I note that most of the images Apple is using to demo are 3-4 megapixel RAW files; when using larger RAW files (10 megapixel or thereabouts) on the quad G5s, while previews were fast, it took some time (on the order of 10 seconds or so) for the images to snap into full resolution and for the loupe to become available.
* The program consumes a great degree of processing power, meaning that it's likely to make computers kick off a lot of heat. One of the steps in the demo involved "lifting" adjustments made to one picture and "stamping" them onto 5 others at once. When I did that, while the computer was working, I felt a wave of hot air come up from under the table. I assume that the Intel-based Macs will help in this regard, but for now I'd hope to use Aperture in a well-ventilated room.
* While I think it may be a complete substitute for Adobe Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw, and Aperture does some things you'd use adjustment layers for in Photoshop, the retouching features in Aperture (particularly the spot and patch tools) struck me as pretty far behind those in Photoshop. The spot and patch tools don't seem to have the logic that the corresponding tools in Photoshop (healing brush and patch) have -- i.e., the ability to make sure the edges blend and being able to copy texture from one portion of an image while matching it to the color of the destination portion of the image. I assume this is because the tools in Aperture work "live" and it would be hard (to say the least) for them to continually recalculate on the fly. On the flip side, because they're live, you can at any time later choose a different source spot for the patch tool or change the area/radius/softness associated with the spot tool. It also appears that Aperture doesn't have any of the more compute-intensive features that Photoshop has, particularly Shadow/Highlight, Lens Blur and Smart Sharpen. Thus, while Apple talks about using Photoshop for more extreme creative processing, my sense is that many if not most images I'd want to print would likely pass through Photoshop.
* While creating multiple variants of a single RAW file solely in Aperture doesn't consume masses of file space, since only the adjustments to the RAW file are saved, I assume that opening a file in Photoshop, making changes and then saving as a PSD (which is linked in Aperture to the original file) will substantially expand the amount of disk space used.
* iPhoto input is one-way only (i.e., no export back to iPhoto) and results in a copy of the iPhoto library being made in the Aperture data store. Similarly, importing an existing folder tree of photos results in duplicates of all being kept by Aperture.
All that said, I came away with an extremely favorable impression and I'm certainly going to buy a copy as soon as it becomes available."
Originally posted by melgross
iPhoto input is one-way only (i.e., no export back to iPhoto) and results in a copy of the iPhoto library being made in the Aperture data store. Similarly, importing an existing folder tree of photos results in duplicates of all being kept by Aperture.
All that said, I came away with an extremely favorable impression and I'm certainly going to buy a copy as soon as it becomes available."
Great review - I was wondering about iPhoto and what would happen to your iPod if you sync the photos! I suppose Aperture users will have to use folders rather than a program.
It's seems that aperture will be power greedy and will have trouble to work on small configurations.
It's also seems, that I will still need photoshop. May be I should upgrade to photoshop PS2.
I would like to have a copy before Christmas but Im not going to hold my breath.
Originally posted by onlyafterdark
Has anyone had a change in estimated shipping times for Aperture? Last I heard, people were saying that it was supposed to ship by the 15th of December.
I would like to have a copy before Christmas but Im not going to hold my breath.
I went to Apple's education web pages. It said 2 weeks several days ago.
By the way, if you are a college student, have a child who is, or a high school student or are on the executive board of the PA or PTA, etc., you can get it for $249. That's what I'm paying.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Unluckily the typical raw files I work on are 8 MB (20 D) . It means that even my newcoming quad G5 will have hard time, and will be very busy.
It's seems that aperture will be power greedy and will have trouble to work on small configurations.
It's also seems, that I will still need photoshop. May be I should upgrade to photoshop PS2.
Oops, out of order reply.
If you use PS for more than just basic correction, then Aperture won't cut it. It's not designed for that.
This is a direct competitor to Phase One. The programs are very similar.
If the checker is correct, many machines won't work (no install). On the other hand some people who have machines that shouldn't work, such as iBooks, are being told that it will install.
I have just checked a Digital Audio, with Powerlogix dual 1.8GHz 7447a's, 1.5GB RAM, 9800Pro card, and lots of HD space.
No install, so it says.
An AGP Graphics with 1GHz Sonnet card, 1.25GB RAM 9600 card (128MB),and lots of HD also won't get an install.
At least my dual 2GB G5 with 2GB RAM, ATI 800, and lots of HD will allow an install.
This is really going to piss off a lot of people here.
edit: Nevermind, I found it. My new 2.1 iMac works for anyone who wants to know.
Originally posted by melgross
I went to Apple's education web pages. It said 2 weeks several days ago.
By the way, if you are a college student, have a child who is, or a high school student or are on the executive board of the PA or PTA, etc., you can get it for $249. That's what I'm paying.
you can get if for even less if you but using your institution's network. Or is this only in the UK? Standard student price is £220 and it's £130 if you're in higher education.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
you can get if for even less if you but using your institution's network. Or is this only in the UK? Standard student price is £220 and it's £130 if you're in higher education.
So that's about $230 here. Every bit helps. You do pay a lot more for the regular student pricing.
Parents that work with schools can't get pricing?
I think, if you shoot JPGs and only a few shots at a time, forget Aperture it's not for you. If you shoot RAW and shoot a lot of frames go for it, you will not be dissapointed.
As for system requirements, RAM seems to be this softwares biggest requirement. Remember most photographers will be using this software on their Powerbooks, so recent G4 machines must be more than adequate.
I look forward to using Aperture, I'm convinced it will solve my workflow problems.
I decided not to go to the Apple Seminar today because I had too much work to do but I didn't realise they would have hands-on areas. Did they have it on any PowerBooks by any chance?
Nope, no Powerbook running it. I spotted a busy photographer with a 17" PB and am sure he was running it (I may be wrong, it was all quite chaotic between seminars) maybe he was reviewing Aperture and had a pre release version? Either way I still think RAM is going to be the most important factor using it. I'm going to max my 20" iMac out in preparation. I use Sigma PhotoPro for the Sigma RAW files, it's way quicker than Photoshop with more control. Once I get my Nikon I guess it wont matter anymore.
Originally posted by Crustibooga
Nope, no Powerbook running it. I spotted a busy photographer with a 17" PB and am sure he was running it (I may be wrong, it was all quite chaotic between seminars) maybe he was reviewing Aperture and had a pre release version? Either way I still think RAM is going to be the most important factor using it. I'm going to max my 20" iMac out in preparation. I use Sigma PhotoPro for the Sigma RAW files, it's way quicker than Photoshop with more control. Once I get my Nikon I guess it wont matter anymore.