Quantcast
Subscribe to magazine
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
Up to Discussions in Story Discussion
21 Replies Last post: Dec 24, 2006 1:38 AM by tom92103   Go to original post 1 2 Previous Next
Click to view jedi228's profile Member
jedi228
424 posts since
Oct 16, 2004
15. Oct 20, 2006 1:08 PM in response to: alansky
Re: Aperture 1.5
Quote:<hr />
WHY is Aperture so slow when Photoshop can perform seemingly much more complex tasks way faster?

<hr />

Jim is right. Aperture does things non-destructively. Actually Aperture is doing many complex tasks far faster than Photoshop. Photoshop does the complex task just once and then you save the file with those changes. Aperture is applying the complex changes on the fly (plus is retaining all RAW files that are larger than JPEG or PSD). This is a huge difference-with Aperture, the original document is kept intact (this is what non-destructive means) and Aperture is essentially saving a log of all the changes that were ever made to the document. Everytime Aperture displays a document, it starts with the original and layers on every change ever made. Knowing this, Aperture is amazingly fast.

I have a MacPro so I'm spoiled, but both the MacPro and Aperture are amazing.
Reply
Click to view jedi228's profile Member
jedi228
424 posts since
Oct 16, 2004
16. Oct 20, 2006 4:09 PM in response to: longofest
Destructive vs. non-Destructive
Quote:<hr />
Am I understanding the article wrong, or are we seeing some kind of ominous turn towards Apple really not spending any time at all optimizing their apps for PowerPC and spending all of their time optimizing for Intel

<hr />

I think one of the reasons many people perceive Aperture as having poor performance is because they don't understand the power of a non-destructive imaging engine. It's not about Intel vs. PPC. It's not about Photoshop vs. Aperture. It is about Destructive vs. non-Destructive. This is a new paradigm.

Non-destructive imaging is the more modern method and it does require more horsepower. It is not a case of Apple ignoring PPC customers or being sloppy. I am quite glad that Apple choose to use non-destructive imaging. They could have used the older method and it would have been much faster, but it would have been a lesser product.

Photoshop, for example, uses serial editing and is destructive. Every single time you apply an adjustment a tiny amount of information is being permanently lost. Here's the difference: apply a contrast change in Photoshop and a contrast change in Aperture -- not much difference huh. If you apply ten adjustments in Photoshop then the tiny losses start to add up. Aperture is lossless.

Non-destructive means more than "save-copy-of-original". Non-destructive means every step is lossless. Saving the original file doesn't fix losses--for example, if I make a 128 kbps mp3 file from a CD, I can save the original CD, but the music I am listening to still stounds crappy. It's better to use lossless methods from start to finish.

Where does the difference show up? In photography at lot of information is in the shadows. With Aperture I can pull information out of the shadows that would otherwise have been lost. You don't get a second chance to take a really great shot. With Aperture RAW I can use a lot of shots that I would have to discard with Photoshop JPEG.

Non-destructive imaging requires a more powerful machine. This isn't a short-coming of Aperture. For a professional photographer who is relying on that "one shot", non-destructive adjustments are vital. I am glad that Aperture is using a lossless method even though some users with older machines will get screwed. This is part of the price one pays to get lossless.

I think if Apple used the term "lossless" editing instead of "non-destructive" then more people would understand where their processor horsepower was going. It is a worthwhile use!
Reply
Click to view Nobody's profile New Member
Nobody
58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007
17. Oct 23, 2006 3:30 AM in response to: jedi228
Re: Destructive vs. non-Destructive
jedi228 we certainly got what you and others were saying about the non-destructive editing.

However slow is slow and if at the end of the day you haven't finished your work, you don't get paid. Not all jobs require the non-destructive editing but there is no escaping it in Aperture.

Still it is a work in progress and Apple is slowly adding in the features everyone is asking for, even if some of them should have been included in v1.0.
Reply
Click to view dreyfus's profile New Member
dreyfus
132 posts since
Jan 5, 2006
18. Oct 23, 2006 9:52 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Aperture 1.5

A few comments:

- The 1.0.1 release of Aperture got 3.5 mice. Version 1.5 with MUCH improved RAW processing quality (actually together with Capture One the best on the market by far) and many additional possibilities and improved color correction and sharpening tools gets 3.5 mice... sounds like an in-house rule that products that have an Adobe competitor have to stay under a certain threshold.
- Aperture runs well on systems meeting the recommended configurations - Apple has to be blamed for releasing the last PowerMac G5 series with PCI Express bus and literally zero available upgrade GPUs, just, this is not Aperture's fault. It runs without any problems on my Mac Pro with the X1900 XT and the 24" iMac with the 7600 GT, not only seamless, but faster than ACR, Bibble, Raw Developer, Capture NX and DPP - only Capture One is faster, but lacks any organization capabilities.
- We have used Aperture in a project with up to 16 photographers, the total output managed in Aperture was slightly above 230,000 RAWs between 8-16 MP. No other tool was able to manage the project (iView, PhotoMechanic and Cumulus failed). One week after switching to Aperture we could take Saturdays and Sundays off again. I would buy it, even if the price tag would be 1k, for professional use it is worth every penny.
Reply
Click to view Larjay's profile New Member
Larjay
3 posts since
Oct 11, 2006
19. Nov 14, 2006 7:47 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Aperture 1.5
I am finding the discussion regarding Aperture 1.5 interesting if confusing. I am currently using the free 30 day trial version and am amazed at what this program will do. For the power of this program I think the price is justified. Several shots that I thought were destined for the trash are now fine. The confusion is regarding the review ratings and comparisons between Aperture and PhotoShop. As has been mentioned in this forum, Aperture gets 3.5 mice while Photoshop gets 4.5. Do these programs do essentially the same job? I am prepared to buy Aperture but wish Adobe would offer the same 30 day free trial so one could make an objective comparison.
Reply
Click to view moose_n_squirrel's profile Old Hand
moose_n_squirrel
2,828 posts since
Sep 16, 2004
20. Nov 14, 2006 8:41 PM in response to: Larjay
Re: Aperture 1.5
Quote:<hr />
Do these programs do essentially the same job? I am prepared to buy Aperture but wish Adobe would offer the same 30 day free trial so one could make an objective comparison.

<hr />


No, they don't do the same job. Aperture can't do 1/10 of what Photoshop can do, but if you mostly do what Aperture does do, it is more efficient at that than Photoshop, enough that you might save/make more money with Aperture if that's where your time goes. The actual Adobe equivalent program to Aperture is Lightroom.

And you've got the 30 day policies backwards. Adobe has had 30-day trials available since seemingly forever, and you can get to any of them here. Lightroom is in beta that you can download here. Apple only recently had a 30-day. Until this month, everybody was yelling at Apple to provide a 30-day trial, and they finally relented.
Reply
Click to view tom92103's profile New Member
tom92103
11 posts since
Dec 23, 2006
21. Dec 24, 2006 1:38 AM in response to: jedi228
Re: Aperture 1.5
Apple has recently offered Aperture for a free trial. I tried it. I've used PhotoShop (owned legally, no less) for complex editing, but I really don't see how Aperture provides ANY value whatsoever. Please someone enlighten me on how it's superior to iPhoto. Combine the two, but please don't make it complex to use unless it offers complex results.
Reply
Go to original post 1 2 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

Macworld powered by Jive Software's Clearspace ® -1.10.1 (Version: {3}) - Submit product feedback
© Jive Software