Aperture. WOW.
I got Aperture today.
It is the best software I have ever used, hands down, period. The UI if visually appealing, efficient, and effective. The editting tools are powerful and Aperture makes managment very easy. I've used Final Cut Programs, Photoshop, iLife, all kinds of software, but none as well designed as Aperture. With only 1GB of RAM Aperture is quite speed on my Mac Pro. 2GB probably would help though.
It is the best software I have ever used, hands down, period. The UI if visually appealing, efficient, and effective. The editting tools are powerful and Aperture makes managment very easy. I've used Final Cut Programs, Photoshop, iLife, all kinds of software, but none as well designed as Aperture. With only 1GB of RAM Aperture is quite speed on my Mac Pro. 2GB probably would help though.
Comments
Did you own the previous version?
Nope. (Funny...when I entered "No.", it said "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters."
The preview feature is very nice because it helps the images load MUCH faster. Other than that, it still has a ways to go.
Other than that, it still has a ways to go.
Not as far as I'm concerned. What more do you want?
The one thing that would be great is if Apple used the same WebObjects technology they use for their store to offer pros to create galleries with cart, check-out, and fullfilment options.
Nowhere near Final Cut Pro polish on this one YET.
i know the website SAYS that aperture will run on a macbook, but will it REALLY be useable. its probably more than i need anyways, i just want to know
I "use" aperture on a 1.5 ghz powerbook with 64 mb vram and 1.5 gb memory with my camera's raw images. What are you intending to use it for?
I find it hard to believe that Aperture is "speedy" with just 1GB of RAM.
That's just silly.
Aperture isn't working with *that* much data.
Version 1.5 works incredibly fast with 1GB of RAM, almost instant.
The fact that versions 1.0/1.1 were slow wasn't because of the amount of data they handled, but how they handled it. It just wasn't optimized, period.
I find it hard to believe that Aperture is "speedy" with just 1GB of RAM.
On a quad-core Mac Pro?
On a quad-core Mac Pro?
i run aperture on my quad-core mac pro currently with 1GB of RAM. Version 1.5 is a big performance boost compared to 1.1. There is much less disk swapping and it runs just fine with about anything i can throw at it. That being said, i have 4GB of RAM on order that should be along soon
That's just silly.
Aperture isn't working with *that* much data.
Version 1.5 works incredibly fast with 1GB of RAM, almost instant.
The fact that versions 1.0/1.1 were slow wasn't because of the amount of data they handled, but how they handled it. It just wasn't optimized, period.
OUCH ... now thats "little" misleading .... "almost instant" though is pure BS. If someone who hasnt tried Aperture 1.5 yet , i'd suggest to go down to local Apple store and try it out for yourself and see just how " almost instant" it is on top of the line Mac Pro with 4gb ram. Even there it lags with most adjustments and loupe.
I thought my G5 2.7ghz with 4gb ram and 6800U was the reason for slow performace so i visited local Apple store , and performace was just little better but delay between me sliding a slider and image showing the adjustment was still laggy.
On a quad-core Mac Pro?
Aperture isn't Ghz-bound, it's RAM-bound and hungry. 1GB of RAM with Aperture is not enough. It's the bare minimum according to Apple.
gregmightdothat:
Aperture isn't working with *that* much data.
I have 15,000 RAW images in my library. How do you know with how much data it works?
Version 1.5 works incredibly fast with 1GB of RAM, almost instant.
Yeah, and I have a bridge I can sell you.
The fact that versions 1.0/1.1 were slow wasn't because of the amount of data they handled, but how they handled it.
What does this mean?
It just wasn't optimized, period.
And still isn't. With the same amount of images, same amount of RAM, and misc., computer hardware, LightRoom routinely beats it. Aperture has the better UI, of course, but 1GB of RAM? That's barely enough to run the OS comfortably, let alone Aperture, a program that requires 700MB of RAM just to start-up.
I have 15,000 RAW images in my library. How do you know with how much data it works?
Is navigating rapidly through every single picture of those 15,000 pictures something you consider typical use?
In Aperture you're typically either working on an album, depending on your style, of maybe 30 - 500 pictures. That works out to be about 1 gig in the *extreme* case when loading in 1 megapixel JPEG previews (2 MB each), but since you're obviously not viewing them all at full size at the same time, the actually memory footprint needed is a lot less.
When manipulating images, it's done in real time so you're looking at maybe 20 MB for the current picture you're working with.
After quickly louping through about 50 images in the library (admittedly not all RAWs), Aperture's up to.... 141 MB. That's about half of what Safari is at right now.
It just doesn't eat RAM. It handles these things really efficiently.
Also, the number of images in your library is irrelevant, since you're only seeing a fraction of them at a time. It uses a SQLite database, that's designed to handle millions of database entries
without a sweat.
Yeah, and I have a bridge I can sell you.
I don't see how my own personal experience, with Aperture being incredibly fast, somehow makes me gullible.
What, do you think some Aperture fairy came out of my computer while Aperture in fact chugged along and sedated me so I wouldn't remember it?
Aperture is fast. I'm not going on what someone else said. It just is.
What does this mean?
The previous slowness revolved around poor SQL handling, so things like metadata took absolutely RIDICULOUS amounts of time.
This has been completely fixed, even batch metadata changes take a fraction of a second.
The rendering has also been speed up when you're dealing with multiple spot/patch instances, which was a dog before.
And still isn't. With the same amount of images, same amount of RAM, and misc., computer hardware, LightRoom routinely beats it. Aperture has the better UI, of course, but 1GB of RAM? That's barely enough to run the OS comfortably, let alone Aperture, a program that requires 700MB of RAM just to start-up.
This is where I call bullshit. Lightroom has lower system requirements, but on a computer with a GPU, Aperture floors it.
Lightroom also doesn't scale up period. I don't know if you put all your 15,000 photos in it, but every report I've read says that Lightroom just breaks when it has more than a few thousand photos. This may have been fixed in the last beta.
Changes take about half a second to show up, versus Aperture (which at least on my 15" screen) are instant. I'm assuming the change in 1.5 to show previews in the loupe makes this instant even on a 30".
The 700 MB to start up is also bullshit. Since I've typed this post, Aperture's down to 80 MB of RAM.
Aperture isn't Ghz-bound, it's RAM-bound and hungry. 1GB of RAM with Aperture is not enough. It's the bare minimum according to Apple.
Aperture is GPU bound (and hard disk bound). That's it at this point.
Aperture is fast. I'm not going on what someone else said. It just is.
Not for me. Even at 1.5, it's still rather slow, and my test library is only a few hundreds.
Is navigating rapidly through every single picture of those 15,000 pictures something you consider typical use?
Yes, because in order to edit that image, I first need to find it.
In Aperture you're typically either working on an album, depending on your style, of maybe 30 - 500 pictures. That works out to be about 1 gig in the *extreme* case when loading in 1 megapixel JPEG previews (2 MB each), but since you're obviously not viewing them all at full size at the same time, the actually memory footprint needed is a lot less.
For some reason, and I frankly cannot comprehend why, you seem to be thinking that Aperture's RAM usage depends on how many pictures I'm working on. No. Wrong. Aperture uses a lot of memory even while sitting in an idle position. It's the nature of the beast.
When manipulating images, it's done in real time so you're looking at maybe 20 MB for the current picture you're working with.
Really? Because I just installed Aperture on a new computer, with 1.25GB of RAM, loaded about 5-6 RAW files on it, and it's taking 280 of RAM just to display a picture.
After quickly louping through about 50 images in the library (admittedly not all RAWs), Aperture's up to.... 141 MB. That's about half of what Safari is at right now.
That's in your experience.
It just doesn't eat RAM. It handles these things really efficiently.
I just beg to differ. 1.5 is better than 1.0, but efficient is not what I would call it.
Also, the number of images in your library is irrelevant, since you're only seeing a fraction of them at a time. It uses a SQLite database, that's designed to handle millions of database entries
without a sweat.
This is all theoretical talk. Real-world experience is quite different.
Aperture is fast. I'm not going on what someone else said. It just is.
And I'm not going on it either. It just isn't.
Lightroom also doesn't scale up period. I don't know if you put all your 15,000 photos in it, but every report I've read says that Lightroom just breaks when it has more than a few thousand photos. This may have been fixed in the last beta.
I thought you weren't going by what others have said? Try Beta4. You'll definitely see which one's faster.
Changes take about half a second to show up, versus Aperture (which at least on my 15" screen) are instant. I'm assuming the change in 1.5 to show previews in the loupe makes this instant even on a 30".
Don't assume that. That's almost double the resolution.
The 700 MB to start up is also bullshit. Since I've typed this post, Aperture's down to 80 MB of RAM.
This picture tells it all:
Again, 1.5 is somewhat better than 1.1.2, but it's still a ways off of being fast and snappy.
You don't actually do that...do you, Gene?
Aperture needs a combination of things to work well...fast hard drive access, a decent amount of memory and the top-o'-the-line graphics card. Failing in any of these 3 areas will severely cripple Aperture. No other app can do what Aperture does...you can't expect 10-50 meg images to fly up onto the screen if you don't have fast HDD access, you can't expect to have a bunch of these 10-50 meg images on your screen if you don't have the RAM, and you can't expect to manipulate images rapidly if you don't have a fast video card.
You can't expect running Aperture off 256 MB of RAM, on an integrated gfx chipset, and a 4200RPM HD. No amounts of magic coding will make things snappy with such a set up. Look no further than Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for a glimpse of company that tried to sprinkle magic dust on their code to make Lightroom work on paleolithic set ups and fail!
Even though adjustments are not - instantaneous - I'd still say it just flies compared to any other imaging software I've used before. I've never seen a beachball for more than 2-3 seconds and most adjustments are done well within those limits.
So, according to some of you this is not optimized quite yet??
Well that's just superb, cause that means it might get:
EVEN FASTER! YAY
Let's put it this way, Gene, if Quake 4 isn't super fast on your machine...neither will Aperture. There's a limit to what a GPU-bound app can do. It's like trying to run a car off vodka...it might run but don't expect miracles.
And that's just fine. I don't expect it to be as snappy as, say, RAWShooter in Windows because they have different models of workflow. I just don't agree with the 'Aperture at 1GB of RAM is FAST!111' comment.
This picture tells it all
It does tell it all. 280 MB? Oh god, that's really making a dent in your RAM
You're using a quarter of the amount of RAM that you're positing as being "insufficient."
So, I'm going to stick with my previous assumptions about you: you argue with everything, even if you prove yourself wrong in the process.