I suspect that the problem with the current 12" is the cheaper GPU.workphoto.net said:
After the PB's get updated (to Intel?) next year, I doubt this 12" PB restriction will exist ...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Early Notes on Apple's Aperture
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
After the PB's get updated (to Intel?) next year, I doubt this 12" PB restriction will exist ...
Sdashiki said:
You have to remember that any application has to grow with time and version number. That said this is a stepping stone for Apple to enter this market with they own application. All this means is that Apple is looking at the digital picture market and will invest more if this application takes off. FCP has the same beginning and Motion is still in transition to where FCP was and where is has come.
This application will gain layers in future updates/upgrades, you can count on it. Apple is not foolish to just release a PS counterpart at version 1.0, they will wait till the application has gained a follow-ship, awards, and experienced user groups. As with FCP.
If I were Adobe I would look into PS and consider to making it load and run faster, at present it take long to load on a G5 2.0 GHz with 512 ram, from application start-up to loading images and quitting. Even filter are painful, along with other actions. Adobe needs to either makes its code effective or trim the features with enhanced ones.
You can use multiply combinations in PS to get the same if not a varied results to an image, that is the strength of PS.
I give this application till version 2.5-4.5 to reach the level of PS.
Great news for all Mac users
I do a lot of photography in my spare time, and I'll be buying Aperture. It certainly blows away Adobe bridge and C1.
I think Aperture is also going to have a great impact on all Mac software. Apple's published a fantastic app that shows just what's possible with the core image libraries. They've raised the bar for ALL Mac apps - this is the GUI to beat!
(And to the earlier poster who complained earlier about it being to gray - that's the whole point! It's supposed to be a neutral colour so it doesn't distract from the pictures!)
I do a lot of photography in my spare time, and I'll be buying Aperture. It certainly blows away Adobe bridge and C1.
I think Aperture is also going to have a great impact on all Mac software. Apple's published a fantastic app that shows just what's possible with the core image libraries. They've raised the bar for ALL Mac apps - this is the GUI to beat!
(And to the earlier poster who complained earlier about it being to gray - that's the whole point! It's supposed to be a neutral colour so it doesn't distract from the pictures!)
maya said:I give this application till version 2.5-4.5 to reach the level of PS.
I think Apple would be incredibly stupid to go after Photoshop and not just because it would piss off Adobe.
There are two basic types of Photoshop users: photographers and designers/graphics artists. Most of what makes Photoshop so bloated are features targetted toward designers/graphics artists. Even if Apple sunk tons of money going after this market, they would most likely show little for it. Adobe is going to own that market with their Creative Suite. No graphics artist is going to use Apeture 4.0 with Illustrator 15 and InDesign 15. They're going to load their Adobe Creative Suite 6 off their Blu-Ray DVD and build their workflow around the Adobe tools.
But photographers don't need most of Photoshop. If Apple targets only pro photographers they would spend less total R&D and go after a market that is vulnerable. Bridge and Adobe Camera RAW don't cut it for pros, Capture One has a clunky interface and complicated workflow and no one seems all that satisfied with the current asset management tools available to photographers. The pro photographer market seems ripe for the picking and locking them into Apeture means locking them onto Apple hardware.
In my mind, the two biggest questions are how Adobe and Phase One respond. Hopefully Adobe will continue to invest in Bridge and Adobe Camera RAW for the Mac. Since they're building their workflow around Bridge, I expect they will. But if I'm Phase One, do I spend the resources to develop and test Capture One PRO on Mac OS X/Intel? Or do I save those resources and pour them into Vista/x86-64?
See at first word of Apple doing a Photo app most would think they are going after PS. THEY ARE NOT.
Apple is a big fan of the closed system approach. By controlling all aspects of the "system" you are free to innovate. Mac approach... iPod/iTunes/Store approach. Apple is not going to mess with Adobe's closed system ie Creative Suite.
As a designer I am hoping Adobe is paying attention to what Aperture is doing for the management of digital files and versioning.
Apple is a big fan of the closed system approach. By controlling all aspects of the "system" you are free to innovate. Mac approach... iPod/iTunes/Store approach. Apple is not going to mess with Adobe's closed system ie Creative Suite.
As a designer I am hoping Adobe is paying attention to what Aperture is doing for the management of digital files and versioning.
iPhoto 6
The one main thing I would LOVE to see included in iPhoto 6 is Aperture's ability to keep changes to an image in a database of instructions, rather than making a duplicate of the file. They specifically mention in some of their online movies that Aperture does not dupe files when you make a change to one, UNLIKE iPhoto, which has a nasty habit of littering your whole HD with copies of files every time you make a change. Early on this may not have been too big of an issue, but as standard consumer and pro-sumer cameras take higher and higher megapixel images, this is going to be a problem down the line. There are whole products out there to address this issue, like iPhoto Diet, which goes through your library and deletes duplicate images, etc.
I'd also like to see iPhoto finally stop creating it's own convoluted hierarchy of folder structures for storing images. I don't get the impression Aperture forces you into using it's own structure for storing images. They can reside anywhere, in any structure you like. I kind of doubt Apple will include that feature, but one can hope.
Vonnie said:I wonder what features will trickle back to iPhoto 6. I guess we will see in january
The one main thing I would LOVE to see included in iPhoto 6 is Aperture's ability to keep changes to an image in a database of instructions, rather than making a duplicate of the file. They specifically mention in some of their online movies that Aperture does not dupe files when you make a change to one, UNLIKE iPhoto, which has a nasty habit of littering your whole HD with copies of files every time you make a change. Early on this may not have been too big of an issue, but as standard consumer and pro-sumer cameras take higher and higher megapixel images, this is going to be a problem down the line. There are whole products out there to address this issue, like iPhoto Diet, which goes through your library and deletes duplicate images, etc.
I'd also like to see iPhoto finally stop creating it's own convoluted hierarchy of folder structures for storing images. I don't get the impression Aperture forces you into using it's own structure for storing images. They can reside anywhere, in any structure you like. I kind of doubt Apple will include that feature, but one can hope.
I can't figure out if my brand new PM 2x2Ghz G5's ATI Radeon 9600 is acceptable. The reason: It isn't listed exactly on the Minimum or Reccomended Systems - the ATI Radeon Mobility 9600 is listed.
Is there a difference? FWIW I have a stock 3 week old 2x2.0 (with full 4GB ram). And, no, I am not in any way upset by the new updates, I love my system!
Is there a difference? FWIW I have a stock 3 week old 2x2.0 (with full 4GB ram). And, no, I am not in any way upset by the new updates, I love my system!
areyouwishing said:
I hope Adobe sees Aperture as a complement rather than a competitor, and work on integrating flawless work-flow between the two, rather than making it more difficult, copying features, etc.
Looks like the two play nice right now, which I love.
It's definitely in the lineup of my future purchases.
Aperture looks amazing
This is just what I've wanted - it solves just about all my current workflow problems. I've pre-ordered! Can't wait to get stuck in...
This is just what I've wanted - it solves just about all my current workflow problems. I've pre-ordered! Can't wait to get stuck in...
What the heck do you mean Motion can't do layers? Wow. Have you even looked at a demo of the program? Have you touched it at all? Geez it's chock full of layer goodness. It is in no way a compliment to AE. You wouldn't use AE in conjunction with Motion and vice versa. You'd use one or the other. If you need 2D and particles, Motion is the thang. If you want 3D space and scripting then AE has it. Motion will too soon I'm sure.
From what I've seen of Aperture it's not really a compliment either. Definitely a competitor for pro photographers. PS just doesn't cut it for them anyhow. Most use some other app which is more akin to Aperture for their massive changes and tweaks. Photoshop is only used if you need to add creative filters, text, or do tweaking of select areas via the wand or select tool. But on all the crossover adjustments like levels and color correction, Aperture is it.
sure
From what I've seen of Aperture it's not really a compliment either. Definitely a competitor for pro photographers. PS just doesn't cut it for them anyhow. Most use some other app which is more akin to Aperture for their massive changes and tweaks. Photoshop is only used if you need to add creative filters, text, or do tweaking of select areas via the wand or select tool. But on all the crossover adjustments like levels and color correction, Aperture is it.
sure
Sdashiki said:
Well put. Finally some logic round here. Apple ties up the pro photographer market. These guys are key to adobe. They'll still buy photoshop, and they're going to buy mac versions if they're tied to Aperture. Adobe will have to continue CS for Mac for that reason.
It's kinda like a pre-emptive strike. I'm not sure Adobe has any WMDs, but Jobs had to go after them a little anyway just in case.
It's kinda like a pre-emptive strike. I'm not sure Adobe has any WMDs, but Jobs had to go after them a little anyway just in case.
ktlx said:
notheremuch said:I can't figure out if my brand new PM 2x2Ghz G5's ATI Radeon 9600 is acceptable. The reason: It isn't listed exactly on the Minimum or Reccomended Systems - the ATI Radeon Mobility 9600 is listed.
Is there a difference? FWIW I have a stock 3 week old 2x2.0 (with full 4GB ram). And, no, I am not in any way upset by the new updates, I love my system!
I have also been wondering about this one.
My dual 2.0 is only a week old, I got it at a £370 discount from the refurb store
aperture still no good for me!
Aperture still is no good for me - it doesn't support Canon D30 RAW. While that camera is still a few years old, it has all the advantages of the EOS line of cameras (great lenses), and still does nice raw photos - but Apple still won't support it's RAW format. This doesn't make sense to me, since Apple does support the Canon D60 RAW, and the only major difference is 2x as many pixels. The D30 and D60 are quite similar.
Aperture still is no good for me - it doesn't support Canon D30 RAW. While that camera is still a few years old, it has all the advantages of the EOS line of cameras (great lenses), and still does nice raw photos - but Apple still won't support it's RAW format. This doesn't make sense to me, since Apple does support the Canon D60 RAW, and the only major difference is 2x as many pixels. The D30 and D60 are quite similar.
I feel incredibly psyched about this program - I spent 2 hours looking through the materials on the web, and I just keep thinking this is the program that I've been waiting for. I too see virtually no overlap between PS and this program - but this program will be so so so valuable on it's own. A typical shoot for me might generate 350 images, and sifting through those for the keepers is extraordinarily painful right now. I often wind up converting and post-processing many images that I later decide not to use. So this program alone will probably save me 2 post-processing hours per shoot.
Anyway - the recommended system requirements scare me a bit. I use my 1.25Ghz PB exclusively both in-studio and at home. It's the only machine I own. I've been desparate for a PB update for a long time, but there's still nothing really compelling. I'll probably wind up upgrading to the 1.67 PB, but geez, I wonder if this program is really gonna work well on that kind of machine.
PS CS performance is barely acceptable on my current machine, but I can live with it. I think the 1.67 would probably be ok for that. But if Aperture is gonna be a dog, maybe it's time for me to switch to a PM, and wait till the first Intel PB's come around. We'll see in a few weeks, I guess.
EE
Anyway - the recommended system requirements scare me a bit. I use my 1.25Ghz PB exclusively both in-studio and at home. It's the only machine I own. I've been desparate for a PB update for a long time, but there's still nothing really compelling. I'll probably wind up upgrading to the 1.67 PB, but geez, I wonder if this program is really gonna work well on that kind of machine.
PS CS performance is barely acceptable on my current machine, but I can live with it. I think the 1.67 would probably be ok for that. But if Aperture is gonna be a dog, maybe it's time for me to switch to a PM, and wait till the first Intel PB's come around. We'll see in a few weeks, I guess.
EE
Hi Ryan -
The D30 was a revolutionary camera for it's time, but maybe it's time to upgrade. Shooting RAW on the D30 was a terrible experience for me. My recollection is that buffering was super-slow, and I often could only shoot a couple of frames before I had to wait (for sometimes 10 sec) for the buffer to flush.
I think the MAJOR leap in RAW shooting capability came with the 10D. If I recall, my 10D could buffer something like 7 RAW shots, and it would write even while framing the next shots. It was the first camera that really made RAW a usable mode for me.
You can get a 10d buy-it-now on Ebay for about $600 these days. I think the D30 is still selling for $250. It seems to me that if you're willing to spend $500 on a piece of workflow software, you'd be willing to spring for $350 for a camera upgrade!
EE
The D30 was a revolutionary camera for it's time, but maybe it's time to upgrade. Shooting RAW on the D30 was a terrible experience for me. My recollection is that buffering was super-slow, and I often could only shoot a couple of frames before I had to wait (for sometimes 10 sec) for the buffer to flush.
I think the MAJOR leap in RAW shooting capability came with the 10D. If I recall, my 10D could buffer something like 7 RAW shots, and it would write even while framing the next shots. It was the first camera that really made RAW a usable mode for me.
You can get a 10d buy-it-now on Ebay for about $600 these days. I think the D30 is still selling for $250. It seems to me that if you're willing to spend $500 on a piece of workflow software, you'd be willing to spring for $350 for a camera upgrade!
EE
dj_ryan said:
My thoughts exactly. Motion is great and handles layers fantastically. I've done effects in movies that would have been tedious to do in AE. It could benefit from a 3D space environment, but I digress. This is not about Motion.
From the sounds of it, Aperture should be quite a useful tool. I'll be getting a camera capable of shooting RAW footage come the holiday season. Being a little new to the photography realm, I wonder which program would suit a beginner best (CS/Bridge vs. Aperture). PS/Bridge will have the advantage of familiarity, but who knows, Aperture might be super intuitive and yield results faster. Non-destructive editing? THANK YOU APPLE! hehe. (Bridge already works non-destructively on RAW files doesn't it?)
Now the question becomes (after a huge leap), more RAM or Aperture? hmmm
From the sounds of it, Aperture should be quite a useful tool. I'll be getting a camera capable of shooting RAW footage come the holiday season. Being a little new to the photography realm, I wonder which program would suit a beginner best (CS/Bridge vs. Aperture). PS/Bridge will have the advantage of familiarity, but who knows, Aperture might be super intuitive and yield results faster. Non-destructive editing? THANK YOU APPLE! hehe. (Bridge already works non-destructively on RAW files doesn't it?)
Now the question becomes (after a huge leap), more RAM or Aperture? hmmm
bretm said:
Not RAW
Even if edits aren't non-destructive in iPhoto, I'll bet we see stacks, selective importing, and maybe a full-screen mode in iPhoto 6.
nagromme said:Soundtrack stuff trickled to GarageBand, so you never know
And it's certainly not a Photoshop competitor. Each does things the other doesn't do well, and they work together: you can edit your Aperture images in Photoshop directly.
I had my doubts (as an outsider) that Apple would really release a pro version of iPhoto. But they did and I see now why that's a great thing.
Even if edits aren't non-destructive in iPhoto, I'll bet we see stacks, selective importing, and maybe a full-screen mode in iPhoto 6.
I hear your frustration with current workflows. People who snap a few images just don't understand the complexity of large number - moving to +5 GB of images each day is really getting to become a headache for us on extended shooting trips.ericschmerick said:
I think the way they accomplish some of the fast redraws, etc, is via the GPU. This might be why the demands seem so high, esp. as Apple has been a bit behind the GPU curve for many years (the 12" PB is a good example, with a 32MB video card, if my memory serves me right)
My big question is how easily the DB files move back and forth between a laptop (for location shoots) and a workstation (for more intensive work back in the office / studio.
Fair enough about the upgrade - it would be nice to have something newer.
But on the flip side, I still have gigs of D30 RAW frames that are relatively nice.
But thanks to Calf who pointed out the aperture page that said D30 was a supported RAW camera. I think the problem is yesterday when I checked this there was no obvious listing of the camera supported, and I must have been looking at an iPhoto 5 supported camera page linked off of the Aperture apple store page. Curses apple and your loose website/store copy!
But on the flip side, I still have gigs of D30 RAW frames that are relatively nice.
But thanks to Calf who pointed out the aperture page that said D30 was a supported RAW camera. I think the problem is yesterday when I checked this there was no obvious listing of the camera supported, and I must have been looking at an iPhoto 5 supported camera page linked off of the Aperture apple store page. Curses apple and your loose website/store copy!
ericschmerick said:
In Total Agreement
i've only looked through 2 of the guided tours parts of aperture, but stacks & selective importing would be really nice to have in iphoto. You'd figure they'd have to add something to iphoto6 to distinguish it from iphoto5 and make people want to pay full price for the upgrade. from what i've seen so far, looks like a really nice program. based on my experience running iphoto5 on a quicksilver 867, I can see why the hardware requirements are so steep. photo processing seems to be very cpu intensive.
922 said:
i've only looked through 2 of the guided tours parts of aperture, but stacks & selective importing would be really nice to have in iphoto. You'd figure they'd have to add something to iphoto6 to distinguish it from iphoto5 and make people want to pay full price for the upgrade. from what i've seen so far, looks like a really nice program. based on my experience running iphoto5 on a quicksilver 867, I can see why the hardware requirements are so steep. photo processing seems to be very cpu intensive.
turtlebud said:
I'd pay for an iPhoto6 upgrade if the only thing they added was more stability and never seeing the beachball when I shift from iPhoto to anything else and back.
I'm sure other people would do the same for a red-eye tool that worked (such as the one from iPhoto4) and the colour profile not shifting to red when you click save after an edit.
I'd even be tempted to switch to Aperture if it was a little cheaper just so I could delete iPhoto and it's hideous code from my hard disk. Roll on Aperture Express perhaps.
aegisdesign said:
I guess the question would be then, will we see Aperture Express, or will that actually be iPhoto 6 itself? Depending how much Apple tunes that app for iLife '06, I may consider Aperture myself, if nothing else for those nice high res photo books.
really like the look of this - its the sort of thing that makes me wish i was a pro photographer. since having the PB i've gotten as far as setting up a part time business supplying DVD slideshows to wedding photographers, but am also currently involved in a project at my day job that might find aperture useful. (although i may just be saying that because i'd like a play!)
basically we are a map publishing company who also produce some products with photos - so we're looking at setting up a photo library of all our stock photos. at the moment iPhoto doesn't seem quite powerful enough with its keyword/metadata handling, and we were thinking of some database driven web app using dreamweaver.
but aperture looks to have far more powerful metadata/keyword handling, and the WYSIWYG web galleries, with complete control over what metadata you also include look like that would be exactly what we were trying to achieve - especially with the smart galleries that could be set up as well.
i'm not sure if that makes sense - but the few of us that have just started looking at this are finding our way really, so if that makes sense to any of you guys with more experience of photo management could give any feedback on whether or not aperture sounds like a potential tool for this, as opposed to the database route that would be hugely appreciated.
i'm presuming the web galleries' code can be exported into dreanweaver to incorporate them into any existing intranet kind of site.
basically need to get a look at it and have a play really.
i only have a pc at work, so i guess i'm going to need a new PM too!
Iain
basically we are a map publishing company who also produce some products with photos - so we're looking at setting up a photo library of all our stock photos. at the moment iPhoto doesn't seem quite powerful enough with its keyword/metadata handling, and we were thinking of some database driven web app using dreamweaver.
but aperture looks to have far more powerful metadata/keyword handling, and the WYSIWYG web galleries, with complete control over what metadata you also include look like that would be exactly what we were trying to achieve - especially with the smart galleries that could be set up as well.
i'm not sure if that makes sense - but the few of us that have just started looking at this are finding our way really, so if that makes sense to any of you guys with more experience of photo management could give any feedback on whether or not aperture sounds like a potential tool for this, as opposed to the database route that would be hugely appreciated.
i'm presuming the web galleries' code can be exported into dreanweaver to incorporate them into any existing intranet kind of site.
basically need to get a look at it and have a play really.
i only have a pc at work, so i guess i'm going to need a new PM too!
Iain