Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Aperture 4 Out Soon?

macuserx86 said:
I don't know, at this point it might be necessary. Aperture is probably the least efficient application I've ever used.

It takes a crazy amount of RAM to keep Aperture happy; even though Aperture isn't using it all, if I try to run only 6 or 8 GB of RAM, the whole program becomes sluggish.
Click to expand...

Another mac user that has something wrong.. i run aperture on my macbook pro 8GB ram and it runs perfectly.. in all manners.. even when i have a virtual machine still running.. do you have a load of plugins etc.?

In all fairness it got sluggish at 4GB ram but with 8GB i can run anything i like on my laptop and A3 is very responsive at all times...

I do agree that improvements should be made in speed though...
 
flosseR said:
Another mac user that has something wrong.. i run aperture on my macbook pro 8GB ram and it runs perfectly.. in all manners.. even when i have a virtual machine still running.. do you have a load of plugins etc.?

In all fairness it got sluggish at 4GB ram but with 8GB i can run anything i like on my laptop and A3 is very responsive at all times...

I do agree that improvements should be made in speed though...
Click to expand...

Agreed. I ran Aperture on my Rev A MacBook Air with 2GB of RAM and while it wasn't a speed king, it was still totally usable for editing a shoot's worth of photos.

I believe where more RAM comes into play is if you jump around in a large library a lot... I have 12GB of RAM in my Mac Pro and I can see it use up to 6-8GB easily if I jump around. Basically it will use what you've got which is the way it should be.

I've never felt Aperture to have a performance problem. By far it consumes the most time importing images from CF (which isn't surprising) and in publishing images to my Zenfolio account (also not surprising). Otherwise, stuff is pretty instant. Even stamping 50 photos with the same adjustments happens with lightening speed.

My personal preference for a v4 is not a total rewrite... because we just got most of the quirks and bugs worked out of this version. I'd rather they just add some features like NR, more/better brushes, and gradient adjustments to the existing app.
 
VirtualRain said:
I've never felt Aperture to have a performance problem. By far it consumes the most time importing images from CF (which isn't surprising) and in publishing images to my Zenfolio account (also not surprising). Otherwise, stuff is pretty instant. Even stamping 50 photos with the same adjustments happens with lightening speed.
Click to expand...

No problems here either, Aperture 2.0 is still chugging away fine on my 2009 Mac Mini.

VirtualRain said:
My personal preference for a v4 is not a total rewrite... because we just got most of the quirks and bugs worked out of this version. I'd rather they just add some features like NR, more/better brushes, and gradient adjustments to the existing app.
Click to expand...

+1 more/better brushes, gradient adjustments, NR - spot on with my wishlist. I don't see performance a problem at all.

Definitely not a total rewrite, Aperture is a modern application, a rewrite isn't required.

It's not like Aperture a pretty GUI tacked onto 20 years of legacy code like a surprising amount of big titles out there (minus the pretty GUI in many cases :eek:) , it uses modern frameworks that Apple has been actively working on (Core Image - GPU acceleration come to mind), it's a new product and can only get better iteration after iteration of it and OSX.

Improvements to these frameworks see benefit Aperture, reminds me of the (claimed) memory leak resulting in performance issues with early versions of Pixelmator.

As for the ridiculous memory consumption some users are reporting - perhaps you have full resolution previews on?

Anyway... I can't wait to see A4 :D
 
If Aperture 3 were purchased today, does Apple typically allow a 14-day window or some such where a no-cost upgrade to Aperture 4 would be allowed?
 
Eolian said:
If Aperture 3 were purchased today, does Apple typically allow a 14-day window or some such where a no-cost upgrade to Aperture 4 would be allowed?
Click to expand...

They might, but there is no solid release date for any new version yet - so I wouldn't count on anything.

There's a 30 day free trial, which could buy you some time if you don't have it already: http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm personally hoping Apple will make Aperture 4 a free upgrade for v3 Mac App Store buyers, but I may be dreaming.
 
initialsBB said:
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm personally hoping Apple will make Aperture 4 a free upgrade for v3 Mac App Store buyers, but I may be dreaming.
Click to expand...

You are ;) especially given the huge price cut when they moved aperture to MAS
 
VirtualRain said:
Agreed. I ran Aperture on my Rev A MacBook Air with 2GB of RAM and while it wasn't a speed king, it was still totally usable for editing a shoot's worth of photos.

I believe where more RAM comes into play is if you jump around in a large library a lot... I have 12GB of RAM in my Mac Pro and I can see it use up to 6-8GB easily if I jump around. Basically it will use what you've got which is the way it should be.

I've never felt Aperture to have a performance problem. By far it consumes the most time importing images from CF (which isn't surprising) and in publishing images to my Zenfolio account (also not surprising). Otherwise, stuff is pretty instant. Even stamping 50 photos with the same adjustments happens with lightening speed.

My personal preference for a v4 is not a total rewrite... because we just got most of the quirks and bugs worked out of this version. I'd rather they just add some features like NR, more/better brushes, and gradient adjustments to the existing app.
Click to expand...

Usable ≠ efficient. I ran A1 on a 12" PowerBook back in the day and it was usable, but that doesn't mean it was pleasant or even feasible; despite the fact that Lightroom, Photoshop and Bridge ran relatively well on that same 12" PB.

Overall, Aperture needs more resources than it should. Brushing multiple adjustments can become extremely sluggish since Aperture eats VRAM like no body's business. It also fails to give back the RAM and VRAM it has taken in a timely manner leading to overly high usage even when the program is idle.
Plus, the lack of efficient caching means that loading up a heavily edited RAW photo can take a few seconds even when there are no physical hardware bottlenecks to performance.

I use the damn app every day and I love it...but I hate it. It's an odd relationship.
 
RAM isn't the Issue

macuserx86 said:
I don't know, at this point it might be necessary. Aperture is probably the least efficient application I've ever used.

It takes a crazy amount of RAM to keep Aperture happy; even though Aperture isn't using it all, if I try to run only 6 or 8 GB of RAM, the whole program becomes sluggish.

We need a re-design of the UI too. The current UI elements are cartoonish and not very space-efficient. The whole UI tends to waste space. Also, the integration with 10.7 is shaky at best; the full screen mode can get seriously broken if you try to have Aperture locked to a specific desktop space.

That said, I like Aperture and want to keep using it, but we need some changes. If Apple can trim the fat off and increase the responsiveness I'll be happy. The current editing options are good enough for most of my needs, but the performance especially when multiple adjustments with brushing start happening leaves something to be desired.
Click to expand...

Having 8GB isn't the issue, it's the storage on which you store your Aperture Library that's a bigger issue. I ran Aperture in 8GB and it's not a problem. What I did notice a problem with however is when I stored the library on either a Drobo (FireWire 800) or on an NFS share. Aperture seems quite I/O intensive (that's number of read/write operations, not the actual throughput in MB/s) and having the library on SSD makes a world of difference to it's performance. I know SSD is expensive, but if you need to get work done quickly then there is no substitute for it.
 
A bit overdue

2+ year release cycles for a major app is too long. I'd rather see the model of smaller incremental changes, that Apple now appear to be taking with OSX.

Personally I'd like to see grad filters and lens correction built into Aperture. I don't want to use a plugin that makes me edit the image outside of Aperture, or creates a new file - this how Adobe do it and it's crap. The interface alone is the one thing that makes me want to stay with Aperture and avoid pretty much all Adobe products.
 
shaunp said:
2+ year release cycles for a major app is too long. I'd rather see the model of smaller incremental changes, that Apple now appear to be taking with OSX.
Click to expand...
Photoshop and Lightroom are on similar cycles but the major difference there is adobe is a bit open when it comes to what's going to occur. With the silence its hard to know what if anything may occur with aperture.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, although I know apple marketing has aperture as a "pro" app, I've never seen it that way. I'm just a normal consumer so I'm sure you guys can speak more into this, but I've always viewed it as a prosumer software. Lightroom I view more as a professional just because it has PS "the gold professional standard" that it ties into. Maybe I'm wrong here, but at least from my view this is what I've always seen so when ppl say "I hope they don't lose the pro features and make it prosumer..." i'm sitting here thinking... it's always been about the prosumer w/ marketing tagging on the "pro".
 
maflynn said:
Apple doesn't announce or communicate about future products. They do seem to keep up with LightRoom to some degree.

The question is this; will they follow FCPx and remove pro features in lou of consumer features. They already added iPhoto features like faces.
Click to expand...

Apple didn't remove any pro features from FCPx. They just couldn't deliver them for the release. It's not like they had all of the code written which they removed later on.

Unlike FCP, Aperture already is an 64-bit cocoa app. So unless there are certain newer techs they went to embed into all areas, it doesn't need a full rewrite.
 
I would just like to see constant, incremental changes. A feature added as it is perfected here, an interface update there and so on. And of course adding support for cameras and lenses in a more timely manner.

Waiting for big updates when one just needs a bug fix or something is not the way to go.
 
SayCheese said:
Hi all,

Also the naming it of Aperture X would follow with the naming of Final Cuts latest incarnation of Final Cut X.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think we'll se a new Aperture - or at least an announcement - on Wednesdays iPad event. Along with a new "Aperture for iPad" to illustrate the new HD screen and the processing power of the new iPad 3/HD.

Of course you can sync parts of your library via iCloud and continue to work on your mac if you started on your ipad and vice versa.

Would be nice, wouldn't it? :)
 
drewyboy said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, although I know apple marketing has aperture as a "pro" app, I've never seen it that way. I'm just a normal consumer so I'm sure you guys can speak more into this, but I've always viewed it as a prosumer software. Lightroom I view more as a professional just because it has PS "the gold professional standard" that it ties into. Maybe I'm wrong here, but at least from my view this is what I've always seen so when ppl say "I hope they don't lose the pro features and make it prosumer..." i'm sitting here thinking... it's always been about the prosumer w/ marketing tagging on the "pro".
Click to expand...

Chase Jarvis would disagree with you:

http://www.apple.com/ca/aperture/action/jarvis/
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/02/apple-aperture-3-0-awesomeness/
 
incorrect...

drewyboy said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, although I know apple marketing has aperture as a "pro" app, I've never seen it that way. I'm just a normal consumer so I'm sure you guys can speak more into this, but I've always viewed it as a prosumer software. Lightroom I view more as a professional just because it has PS "the gold professional standard" that it ties into. Maybe I'm wrong here, but at least from my view this is what I've always seen so when ppl say "I hope they don't lose the pro features and make it prosumer..." i'm sitting here thinking... it's always been about the prosumer w/ marketing tagging on the "pro".
Click to expand...

Hi, I am a professional and I use Aperture. Much like LR, Aperture lets you edit your images with any external editor you choose. Simply option/click on any image and you get a pop-up where you can choose PS, or any of your other third party editors (I also use Nikon's NIK suite).

PS: you can thank Apple for the price drop on LR. Adobe never would have done it on their own (their pricing only usually goes one way). However, A3 is currently $79 on the App Store, whereas LR4 is $149. Would I ever switch from Aperture to LR? No way, however I hope this means an update to A3 is coming down the pike soon...
 
Granted it hasn't been updated since December and still has Lion issues I would say this is guaranteed for Spring 2012.
 
Last edited:
I've just d/l the trial of LR4 and once again I find myself debating swapping from Ap3.

The 3 big things - for me - that Aperture lacks that LR has built-in are
  1. High quality NR
  2. Lens Correction
  3. Perspective Correction

Yes, I can (and do) use PS as an external editor to perform these tasks (or I could use plug-ins) but the big issue with that is that the 16-bit PSDs used are mahoosive - a 10Mpx raw generates a ~100MB PSD. Not a problem if I was running a Mac Pro with terabytes of disks, but I'm not, I'm running an old MBP with a 160GB HDD and a 320GB FW800 drive for the Masters.
 
Ruahrc said:
Chase Jarvis also probably gets paid by Apple to say that Aperture is awesome.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he does, just like Joe McNally gets paid by Nikon to say the same about their cameras.

Doesn't mean Joe doesn't actually use Nikon cameras.

The point is that Aperture is an application that is widely used by pros.
 
chrfr said:
Of course his blog post is now 2 years old, and Lightroom has now received significant upgrades in the same time that Aperture has gotten nothing more than bug fixes.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with you. I'm a LR user, and I think it's by far the better program (even when comparing LR3 with A3, not to mention LR4).

The *only* point of my reply was to refute the notion that Aperture is not a "pro" app. Chase Jarvis is an example of a pro who uses Aperture**.

Perhaps this would work better in the form of a syllogism?

1. Chase Jarvis is a professional photographer
2. Chase Jarvis uses Aperture
3. Therefore, some professional photographers use Aperture

Is that better?

** - Clearly there are others, too.
 
lionscavern said:
I think we'll se a new Aperture - or at least an announcement - on Wednesdays iPad event. Along with a new "Aperture for iPad" to illustrate the new HD screen and the processing power of the new iPad 3/HD ...
Click to expand...

I agree, I'll be surprised if there's not an Aperture / iPad tie-in to the announcements today.

Tethered right on the tripod would enable some nifty sharing / review / quick edit options in pro-shooting, as well as some powerful client presentation / interaction possibilities. Pushing an iPad HD + Aperture to photographers would seem a natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back