[GENERAL_SMILEY]

(Obviously I had to slightly modify the Installation Check file to allow it to install correctly - but it works.)

In System Profile it says GeForce4 MX - and I did buy it pretty soon after it came out (weeks?)- so I assumed it was Rev A.

Occasionally when switching screens I get a bit of coloured junk flash up - I think that could be the unsupported card functions.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by GENERAL_SMILEY

(Obviously I had to slightly modify the Installation Check file to allow it to install correctly - but it works.)

Could you provide some details?

In System Profile it says GeForce4 MX - and I did buy it pretty soon after it came out (weeks?)- so I assumed it was Rev A.

Well, I think the 4 440 Go is just the mobile version of the 4 MX, so they probably use the same driver.

The GeForce4 MX is based off the GeForce2 MX. Perhaps that means I could try running aperture on my Cube?

[Demonhood]

cross-posted with the Art& Design forum

Aperture Review - Dec. 4, 2005

Hardware used: Dual 2.3Ghz G5. 2GB RAM. Radeon 9650. 20" Widescreen LCD.

In the box
1 Install DVD.
1 Apple Pro Training DVD.
223 page manual.
Keyboard quick reference sheet.
Serial number and other bits of paper.

Starting out
The application itself is fairly small (40MB). The rest of the installation DVD is taken up with support material like the manuals and sample images. They're the same Tibetan images you might have seen on Apple's Aperture site. They're pre-grouped, rated, tagged, and even thrown into a light table and web gallery.

The manual appears to be well organized, but I'd recommend watching the DVD tutorial if you're more of a visual learner. It'll probably take longer than skimming through the manual, but it gives you a great overview of what this program can do. You also get to have fun listening to the voiceover actor's peculiar accent. I swear he'd mispronounce something and just keep going, not wanting to do another take.

Importing
The app loads quickly, as it should, since it has no pictures in it. We should fix that. You can import directly from your camera, from a folder on your hard drive, or from your iPhoto library. Since I had around 10,000 pix in my iPhoto, I started there. This was certainly the slowest part of the entire process. Importing my library took approximately 3.5 hours to complete. It maintained the folder structure from iPhoto, the keywords for each photo, and, of course, all the other metadata. The only problem I ran into was that iPhoto allows you (even though I knew it was probably a bad idea) to use slashes in the folder names within iPhoto. Aperture treated everything after the slash as a sub-folder. Not a big deal, but something they should have accounted for.
Importing from my Canon Rebel XT (CR2 files) was quick and without incident. Aperture even asks whether to delete the images off of the card before it ejects it (much like iPhoto, but out of order). You can pick and choose what images to import along with assigning them keywords.



You can import photos directly into an existing project, or, if you choose the library, Aperture will create a new project for this batch of pictures. The program isn't locked out while importing, so you're free to view the rest of your collection while it chugs away.

General Use
Aperture has several different ways to view your photos. The default one shows your library on the left, your thumbnails on the bottom, and your selected picture in the upper right. It looks remarkably similar to this:



You can see that the loupe tool can also be used on thumbnails as well as the larger images in your main display. It's a lot more useful than I had anticipated it being.

Something to keep in mind is that Projects are the main container for pictures, not albums. This is a change from iPhoto. Projects can contain albums, folders, galleries, light tables, etc. In iPhoto you could put a dozen albums into one folder, click on that folder, and view the contents of every album. This is not the case in Aperture. If you wish to attain a similar result, you must make a master project and then create sub-albums for each event.

One of the features I found myself using quite often was the ability to throw multiple images into the main viewer. You can fit dozens, but 2-6 is a lot more realistic for comparison purposes.



A master comparison image (on the left) is chosen, and then you can change the right one to be whatever secondary image you like. This is particularly useful for a series of similar shots when you're choosing your select. This, of course, can be used in conjunction with the new stacks feature. Stacks are groups of images that can be expanded/collapsed in the thumbnail viewer to save space and organize like images. They're generally grouped by time (snapping off 10 images of the same scene within 10 seconds, for example) or grouped manually if you prefer. Stacks are also how Aperture groups actual changes to the image. Remember: Aperture NEVER alters your original image. It only applies filters on top of that. So if you export your image to an external application (like photoshop), it will create an additional version of your master. Changes to exposure, white balance, etc. are not shown as new versions. A small adjustments icon will appear in the lower right hand corner of the image to show that it has an adjustment layer applied to it.

Aperture, surprisingly, becomes another Apple app to sport tabs.



Useful if you're working on multiple projects and have a tendency to forget which ones. Or, I suppose, you're just tired of clicking through them all each time you load up the program.

Slightly more useful is the ability to split your thumbnails between two different projects.



At least, I think it's useful.

There are too many viewing modes for me to go over here, so I'll just show you the full screen mode as well.



It maximizes the space you have for viewing your photos, while moving all the other tools either to the top mini-dropdown or to hovering palettes. Perfect for when you really want to focus on a few shots.

Final thoughts
My video card is the weak link in my hardware. Applying changes and displaying the images could have been snappier, although it was still generally an improvement over iPhoto. This is also the first application to make me feel like my 20" LCD was inadequate. It could also use a few more speed tweaks here and there, as loading my entire library takes far longer than it did in iPhoto.
Overall though, I'm quite happy with it. It's the most well thought out Apple application I've seen in awhile. Lots of nice little touches that'll keep you going "Oh cool, they thought of that too?!" for a few weeks at least (such as Aperture bringing you back to the exact location you were at when you quit the application).

Let me know if you have any questions about the program or requests for screenshots. I'll see what I can do.

[powerbook867]

I did make it to the apple store today and ran Aperture on a Quad w/ 3.5 gig ram and a 30 incher attached. It seems like a solid, well thought out app with alot of great features, although it was not as fast as I had anticipated. It was adequate imho, but for a quad machine, I was expecting a little more of the "snappy".

I'm sure in the coming point releases, it will become quicker. It does seem worth it to me for what it does, and I am contemplating buying it. I woould love to try if on my Powermac 1.6, but no matter how much googling I do, I can't seem to find information on making it work on my box. If anyone is feeling like being a nice person and would like to PM where to find the hack, it would be greatly appreciated....

[Eug Wanker]

Ars review: Aperture sucks

Ouch.

[CaptainHaddock]

Thanks, Demonhood. That was an excellent review. You have some really nice photos, too!

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Ars review: Aperture sucks

Ouch.

What a complete idiot.

The reviewer was clearly a pixel peeper computer nerd, not a photography enthusiast. He completely ignored the organizational and workflow features, which are basically 98% of what Aperture is.

He also obviously didn't watch any of the tutorials, because he lists as absent features that have been shown repeatedly in the quick tours AND the tutorial DVD (e.g. "applying changes to multiple images").

tooki

[Demonhood]

i'll have to check the noise issues he brings up. plenty of raw files to test with.
i haven't had any of the other issues he listed, as my DNG and CR2 (rebel XT) files have all imported properly.

even if there is a serious issue, that should be addressed shortly (one would hope). i've already sent 3 feedback emails to apple.
in the meantime, i'll continue using the organization aspect of the application.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tooki

The reviewer was clearly a pixel peeper computer nerd, not a photography enthusiast. He completely ignored the organizational and workflow features, which are basically 98% of what Aperture is.

He also obviously didn't watch any of the tutorials, because he lists as absent features that have been shown repeatedly in the quick tours AND the tutorial DVD (e.g. "applying changes to multiple images").

Well, the issues about noise and problems with RAW imports are posted all over the net. It's a real problem for some people.

BTW, the guy is a Photoshop jockey. Not a photographer type Photoshop jockey, but an art director type Photoshop jockey. (He writes the Photoshop guides for them.) It does seem some of the workflow stuff was lost on him though.

Anyways, while I think I may be able to get used to it, the organizational design of Aperture really does make me think twice about it. It eschews pre-organized file directories, which means the only way to access files is to launch aperture (or else muck around in the package). This is a major pain for me, since I often access my main Mac's images from my laptop wirelessly. This will not be an option if all my photos live inside Aperture. Very annoying. Also, you can't even drag and drop a file to the desktop from Aperture if you want to either.

Originally Posted by Demonhood

my DNG and CR2 (rebel XT) files have all imported properly.

Ironically, Rebel 350D files do not import at all (despite the fact they're the same thing). Oops.

[- - e r i k - -]

I'm disappointed in edititing tools speed (2Ghz 20" iMac) and the fact that it did NOT import:
• Smart Folders from iPhoto
• Keywords into the "Keyword Library"

Is there an easy way of arranging the smart folders and keywords the way I want them (read iPhoto) without having to _manually_ create each and every folder and keyword from scratch? I know there is an export/import function, but it exports tabulated text files. The odd thing is: In the exported file, the iPhoto keywords appear tabulated in without a heading. They don't show up in the library. Is this a bug?

[- - e r i k - -]

Aha. I think I may have located the bug. It has either to do with high-ascii characters or that I used colons in some of my keywords.

[- - e r i k - -]

It was the Ø I used in one of my keywords. Not a showstopper, but it wasted an hour of my time trying to figure it out. Stupid Apple

[powerbook867]

a whole lot of feedback on the Rob Galbraith forum...

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showf...ge=0&fpart=all

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Ars review: Aperture sucks

Ouch.

While I'm not going to blindly defend Apple products that don't meet expectations, its clear this guy wants Photoshop + Adobe Bridge (or perhaps Photoshop Elements & its image browser) more than he wants Aperture. He clearly doesn't realize Aperture is targeted differently. In fact, the training DVD included (which, BTW, has both standard-def and high-def video versions) shows how Aperture hooks in to Photoshop to make advanced edits, then returns the image back into the Aperture database.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by tooki

What a complete idiot.

The reviewer was clearly a pixel peeper computer nerd, not a photography enthusiast. He completely ignored the organizational and workflow features, which are basically 98% of what Aperture is.

He also obviously didn't watch any of the tutorials, because he lists as absent features that have been shown repeatedly in the quick tours AND the tutorial DVD (e.g. "applying changes to multiple images").

tooki

Ars is going downhill fast. I used to read articles there because they used to be written by people that knew their ****. But, recently, they seem to let anyone review anything without any understanding of the underlying software.

Dave Girard (aka BEIGE on Ars forums) is a Photoshop guru but does that give him the expertise needed to review a WORKFLOW app? Unlikely...especially if you read his review.

You'll notice he puts too much emphasis on RAW conversion booboos and CoreImage sharpen filter problems. BOTH of these are system-level features that have been constantly updated in 10.4 updates. He then gives a score to the app not based on the apps workflow but based on the picture quality problems leading everyone to believe that "you'll have to wait for 1.5 or 2.0 for Apple to get it's **** together."

In reality, you'll have to wait for 10.4.4...10.4.5...10.4.6.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

While I'm not going to blindly defend Apple products that don't meet expectations, its clear this guy wants Photoshop + Adobe Bridge (or perhaps Photoshop Elements & its image browser) more than he wants Aperture. He clearly doesn't realize Aperture is targeted differently. In fact, the training DVD included (which, BTW, has both standard-def and high-def video versions) shows how Aperture hooks in to Photoshop to make advanced edits, then returns the image back into the Aperture database.

This is precisely the problem...BEIGE is a huge Adobe guy. To add insult to injury, Adobe apps are self-contained and use none of the OS's underlying features...so he's accustomed to the idea that if there's a problem in version 4.3, you'll have to wait for a new version of the app.

This is untrue of Aperture when the main beef is RAW and CoreImage.

I'm just sad that a lot of people that still hold Ars in high regards read the article and say "oh ****...Apple messed up...well I'll wait until 2.0" because BEIGE tells them to.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

This is precisely the problem...BEIGE is a huge Adobe guy. To add insult to injury, Adobe apps are self-contained and use none of the OS's underlying features...so he's accustomed to the idea that if there's a problem in version 4.3, you'll have to wait for a new version of the app.

This is untrue of Aperture when the main beef is RAW and CoreImage.

I'm just sad that a lot of people that still hold Ars in high regards read the article and say "oh ****...Apple messed up...well I'll wait until 2.0" because BEIGE tells them to.

I think the review was harsh, but fair. Aperture is aiming for the sky and has great features but if the foundation is poor so will everything else be. It is the Mac OS X syndrome. v 10.0 - great advanced features with the most incomplete UI of the 21st century. And then some. Apple usually does this. Inhouse apps are made with really cool features and crap base. Then they fix the base, eventually. How many versions of iPhoto were there before that app became tolerable fast? The exceptions are Apple apps that they bought from others, such as Final Cut, iTunes and Logic.

Back to the review, the RAW import is handled by QuickTime. QT is made by Apple, like Aperture. It is all one contained package. Criticizing Apple for bad RAW import in Apperture is very fair, because they also make QT.

Aperture is a fine app, but it is slow and it is suffering from a lot of tedious bugs or anomalies. It is a version 1. Simple as that. At least it never pretended to be a Photoshop killer eh, like Adobe called InDesign a Quark killer and then delivered ID v.1 which, like Aperture was slow and annoying.

Mediocre import/export is bad news for this kind of app and this has to be fixed right away. That said, I think Apple has something very interesting on their hands with much potential. Version 2.0 perhaps?

cheers

W-Y

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I can't agree with that ARS review. I never liked their reviews much at all. They are really unbalanced as different people write them.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Mediocre import/export is bad news for this kind of app and this has to be fixed right away. That said, I think Apple has something very interesting on their hands with much potential. Version 2.0 perhaps?

No...and that's my points. BEIGE is driving people to think they need to wait for 2.0 for a fix to the RAW problems. I'm saying Aperture 1.0 will fix itself with OS updates (as well as add support for even more RAW formats.)

The review has certainly brainwashed a lot of people now...people will be waiting for the mystical 2.0 when the complaint that drove BEIGE's rating of Aperture down to 4 will be mostly fixed by 10.4.4.

Once 10.4.4 and 10.4.5 are out and have fixed most of the RAW conversion complaints...the Ars review will still be around saying Aperture 1.0's RAW implementations suck...this will not be the case.

Other silly points in his review is his complaint that during the import he couldn't sort his photog folders by date...and 'lo and behold a screenshot reveals that he's got them labeled dd-mm-yyyy or something to that effect. Has he learned nothing of the last 30 years of computing? There was no way he could ever sort these folders in chronological order in any OS (so far) with a folder label like that.

[callefoss]

any hints on how to get around and install the application with a GeForce FX5200?

[nycdunz]

that review sounded lame, childish, ignorant and very lame... i lost respect for ars technica...

[mikelauder]

I think Pacifist might be able to get round the hardware checks.

Get it here: http://www.charlessoft.com/

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by nycdunz

that review sounded lame, childish, ignorant and very lame... i lost respect for ars technica...

It sounded like a long-winded "Oh ****! the app crashes on launch on my computer...yuo get 1 star out of 5"-VersionTracker-type review.

BEIGE, starts off taking about his main expertise, image quality and manipulation, and ends his review talking about it...no mention of the workflow-part.

Sure...RAW conversion is important for a photog app. But he could have at least moved on and looked at other aspects of the app. The review is incomplete...and especially so when artifact and curve problems will be resolved.

[inkhead]

For the record the person who posted the review at ArsTechnica is completely unqualified to perform the said review. First of all most of his list of features exists in Aperture (yes I know because i've been using it for over a week), and second the one about not supporting DNG format.

I still can't stop laughing. There are no professional photographers using DNG. Actually their are 3, 2 of which are the inventors, and the other was the reviewer.

This application is "revolutionary" (yeah it's overused), it changes everything. I feel like i can finally access and get to all my photos. i fill like i have a darkroom again,and can focus and visualize the millions of photos I work with. Frankly Aperture kicks ass. If your a professional photographer (like the one's Apple worked with to build this tool), you'll get it.

A pose to you a simple question?

[b]Who do you think knows and cares more about the needs of professional photographers, is it A) Apple (who has been obsessed with creative professionals for years) or B) a new guy on Ars who recently bought and expensive camera?

[inkhead]

directly off of the Apple discussion forums. DNG support works for me too.

"I'm not real clear on your issue with Apple's support of the DNG format. Aperture reads in DNG files just fine. They are treated as RAW files -- "Digital Negatives." You work with them, and they are never modified (that's the point). If you wish to export your originals, go ahead, and the DNG file will be exported to your target location. If you wish to further edit your file in Photoshop or other editing program, Aperture will send a TIFF or a PSD file over -- note this is identical behavior to what it would do if you started with a CRW or CR2 or NEF file. So I'm unclear on what specifically you're asking for."

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by inkhead

There are no professional photographers using DNG. Actually their are 3, 2 of which are the inventors, and the other was the reviewer.

I guess you haven't heard of Leica or Hasselblad then.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

No...and that's my points. BEIGE is driving people to think they need to wait for 2.0 for a fix to the RAW problems. I'm saying Aperture 1.0 will fix itself with OS updates (as well as add support for even more RAW formats.)

No, you are wrong. The RAW import will be improved with QuickTime updates. It has nothing to do with the system. Perhaps you don't understand what you are talking about hmmmmm

There is a laundry list of other (major and minor) issues with this first release of Aperture, but *that* is what will hopefully be fixed in v. 2.0. If you had taken the time to actually *read* my post, instead of knee-jerking like that, then you would have realized I was not talking about RAW import being fixed in v. 2.0 and in fact RAW import had nothing to do specifically with Aperture.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

The review has certainly brainwashed a lot of people now...

Has it really?

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

people will be waiting for the mystical 2.0 when the complaint that drove BEIGE's rating of Aperture down to 4 will be mostly fixed by 10.4.4.

More likely QT 7.1 or something. Has nothing to do with the OS.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Once 10.4.4 and 10.4.5 are out and have fixed most of the RAW conversion complaints...

Even *if* it were system related - which it is not - why would it take *two* system updates to fix this? (and then only *most* of the conversion complaints??)

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

the Ars review will still be around saying Aperture 1.0's RAW implementations suck...this will not be the case.

Perhaps, but Apple can simply pull an Adobe and get v 2.0 out. Regardless, the man has a point about the RAW import.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Other silly points in his review is his complaint that during the import he couldn't sort his photog folders by date...

And one can't in column-view. One of column-view's many handicaps.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

and 'lo and behold a screenshot reveals that he's got them labeled dd-mm-yyyy or something to that effect.

It harldly matters what you call the folders now does it? Just use list view and press sort by date.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Has he learned nothing of the last 30 years of computing?

Perhaps that one can sort one's folders by date created - no matter what one calls them - in list view?

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

There was no way he could ever sort these folders in chronological order in any OS (so far) with a folder label like that.

Come back when you have calmed down and actually know what you are talking about.



cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I can't agree with that ARS review. I never liked their reviews much at all. They are really unbalanced as different people write them.

You are not the only one, nor are you the only one who doesn't explain why. Let's just say that your review of the review is not that great either. It lacks.. substance.

Obviously reviews are "unbalanced" because they are written by different people. I'm sure you can find a review out there about Aperture that you could agree with.

As I've said, I don't agree with the part of the review where the reviewer places blame for RAW import on Aperture, when it is a QT issue but then both are made by Apple. So it is half fair.

This is a 1.0 release and in character of such releases it is feature-low and bug-infested. We're not in the 80s anymore Dorothy.

cheers

W-Y

[inkhead]

I work in the hollywood studio system for a living. I've heard of both of these companies actually. We have a mini-museum on the lot for studio tours. We have both of these company's cameras in them.

I know of NO movie studio, and no fashion photographer, or any other kind in Los Angeles shooting with these brand of cameras.

We once had a A list director specifically, ask about using these brands and we gave him a long list of reasons why not to.

Nobody in the relm of photography that goes into magazines, film, print that you see on a daily baises in America use these cameras. They did not keep pace with innovations in digital. If you check any review in any Photo magazine the general reviews are "relics from another era"

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I guess you haven't heard of Leica or Hasselblad then.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, you are wrong. The RAW import will be improved with QuickTime updates. It has nothing to do with the system. Perhaps you don't understand what you are talking about hmmmmm

Ooooor, perhaps *you* don't. The RAW updates come via OS X point releases. If you don't believe me, go check the logs on your update to 10.4.3. And check the logs on your 10.4.4 update when it is released.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Ooooor, perhaps *you* don't. The RAW updates come via OS X point releases. If you don't believe me, go check the logs on your update to 10.4.3. And check the logs on your 10.4.4 update when it is released.

Mhmmm, 10.4.3 added OS level RAW support, including the display of OS-generated thumbnails in the Column view of Finder windows as well as being able to convert them in iPhoto 5.0.4 and Preview 3.0.3. You seem to have misunderstood what exactly was added to what in 10.4.3.

QuickTime handles all of the above, as well you know.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by inkhead

I know of NO movie studio, and no fashion photographer, or any other kind in Los Angeles shooting with these brand of cameras.

No one uses Hasselblad or Leica??

Those are only the best cameras in the world. NASA chose Hasselblad to use for the moonlandings (with a Zeiss lens)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...res/moon/1.htm

Those two are the best of the best.

cheers

W-Y

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by inkhead

I know of NO movie studio, and no fashion photographer, or any other kind in Los Angeles shooting with [Hasselblad or Leica]
We once had a A list director specifically, ask about using these brands and we gave him a long list of reasons why not to.

Wow. You're either seriously misinformed or just crazy. Directors are not photographers and I suspect your source has misled you. There are innumerable photographers out there using Hasselblads, with film or with digital backs. Leicas are far less common because, in general, they are too expensive for a working photographer to justify; Canons and Nikons rule among pros working with 35mm, in spite of the fact that Leitz lenses are widely regarded as some of the best in existence.

[ChrisF]

Can anyone using Aperture in this thread address the points the Ars reviewer mentioned about the inaccurate histograms as well as the noise and artifacts shown in dark areas in the converted images? The samples I see show images from Aperture which are inferior to those converted with Adobe's Camera Raw plugin; they sure don't inspire me to want to drop $500 for a spiffed-up version of iPhoto that can't do a good conversion.

[Demonhood]

i'll be posting a raw-->jpg conversion comparison between CS2 and Aperture in about an hour.

oh, and i converted, until recently, all of my CR2 files to DNG because photoshop cs1 didn't support the import of CR2 files. and i know of a few other people that did the same thing. but that doesn't matter, since DNG files work just fine for me in Aperture. guess i just got lucky.

[Demonhood]

i took a simple shot (ISO 200) that i snapped in Portland a few months ago, and used it for my test.

Adobe Photoshop CS2 DNG conversion on the left. Aperture to PSD (16-bit) conversion on the right. all auto-correction and filters have been turned off. click on any of the images for a larger version.

the overall picture:


the Aperture version seems slightly darker. upon further inspection, however, i would guess that it just has a higher default setting for Shadows/Highlights when converting the image.

a 200% view of the top of the tube:

CS2 on top. Aperture on bottom.

the Aperture image appears to be a bit softer. there is more noticeable noise in the brown area of the CS2 image.

100% close-up of the prism effect:


hmm, so i didn't line this one up correctly. oh well. the gradation from colors in the Aperture version seems more jagged than the CS2 image. but maybe that's my eyes playing with me.

100% close-up of the bottom left corner:


this was interesting. the CS2 image has almost pure black for that section of the tube and the shadow. the Aperture image retains some noisy detail, allowing you to see the bottom curve of the tube. if you want the area to be jet black, a simple use of the exposure adjustment (or curves in photoshop) will fix that right up.

maybe i'll try to find a sky picture next, as that is what ars used in their argument.

[_sergey_]

Hi!

It's still not clear how to run Aperture on Power Mac 1.8 with GeForce FX 5200. I managed to install it but the application itself refuses to run:

Warning
The installed graphics card does not meet the minimum requirements for Aperture.
(Quit)

What is the 'nocpu' hack? Google search returned nothing useful.

Thanks.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

100% close-up of the bottom left corner:


this was interesting. the CS2 image has almost pure black for that section of the tube and the shadow. the Aperture image retains some noisy detail, allowing you to see the bottom curve of the tube. if you want the area to be jet black, a simple use of the exposure adjustment (or curves in photoshop) will fix that right up.

LOL, on this particular monitor I can barely make out anything. And I keep expecting something to jump out at me to scare me like those fake compare-these-two-pix websites.

Originally Posted by _sergey_

It's still not clear how to run Aperture on Power Mac 1.8 with GeForce FX 5200. I managed to install it but the application itself refuses to run:

Warning
The installed graphics card does not meet the minimum requirements for Aperture.
(Quit)

What is the 'nocpu' hack? Google search returned nothing useful.

I have since learned it is a specific hacked small file that has to replace a file in the Aperture package. ie. Somebody took a small file from there and hacked it so the app no longer checks the CPU or the GPU when that file is placed back into the package. And people like GENERAL_SMILEY have already confirmed that it works fine on unsupported hardware even when BOTH the CPU and the GPU are not supported.

This description reminds me of Hurz and Pfurz for older versions of iDVD. iDVD worked fine with external Firewire DVD burners, but only if you added these files that exposed functionality already built into iDVD.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I have since learned it is a specific hacked small file that has to replace a file in the Aperture package. ie. Somebody took a small file from there and hacked it so the app no longer checks the CPU or the GPU when that file is placed back into the package. And people like GENERAL_SMILEY have already confirmed that it works fine on unsupported hardware even when BOTH the CPU and the GPU are not supported.

Yep. There are actually two small files that need to be hacked to run your copy of Aperture on unsupported hardware -- one disables the hardware check in the installation package, and the other (in the Aperture package itself) disables the hardware check when the program is run.

[- - e r i k - -]

The main problems with Aperture seems to be both import and export, slowness of editing tools and general bugs (thumbnails, iPhoto-import).

These are serious issues for everyone who uses those features. No one is putting down the excellent organisational tools that Aperture brings to the table. (Except for slowness of adding metadata to multiple files).

[- - e r i k - -]

OK, now I'm going to terp on the organisational skills as well. Not only did it not import my smart album-system from iPhoto, when doing the painstaking job of re-creating them I ran into some problems: It's WAY slower than iPhoto with less features.

Take this smart album (my Rest of Australia-album):
Keyword IS Australia
Keyword DOES NOT CONTAIN Byron Bay
Keyword DOES NOT CONTAIN Gold Coast
Keyword DOES NOT CONTAIN Sydney

First of all I could not just add another Keyword set, I had to add a IPTC Keyword is not for each of the three "do not include" words and I had to manually type them (no drop down list like in iPhoto or checkbox-list from the first Keyword-display. Heck, IS NOT didn't even work).

And then the painful blow: EVERY time I click it it spends 7 seconds to load the six images in the folder (Out of 1506). And it doesn't even list how many images in each smart album next to the name either.

How come the professional tool can't do basic things like iPhoto has for years? Smart albums in iPhoto are instant!

[- - e r i k - -]

I've now sent a bug-report and feedback report back to Apple. I'm sorely disappointed in Aperture, it's obviously not ready for primetime just yet.

[- - e r i k - -]

What the ****? Trying to ADD metadata to several images? Seems to work... except it doesn't. Did they do ANY QA before shipping this mess?

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

LOL, on this particular monitor I can barely make out anything. And I keep expecting something to jump out at me to scare me like those fake compare-these-two-pix websites.

it is a bit dark

here it is with the curves way out of wack:



and yeah, i've already sent a handful of bug reports and feature requests to apple. i suggest everyone do the same. hopefully we'll get 1.1 soon.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I am so in love with Apertures interface. Jesus please make the finder look like this in 10.5.

[Demonhood]

they must. it's far too slick for them not to.

[Weyland-Yutani]

As long as they rewrite the darn thing* I almost don't care what it looks like. Altough I really like the Aperture interface too. It is very professional looking and sort of reminds me of Platinum. Clean.

cheers

W-Y

*the Finder

[siMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I am so in love with Apertures interface. Jesus please make the finder look like this in 10.5.

Amen.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

they must. it's far too slick for them not to.

The whole need for the desktop metaphor is GONE/USLESS if they use this interface. This is a good thing. I HATE the current interface for the Finder and I am not talking about the brushed metal or icons.

Just the way importing images shows you with that cool u-turn arrow where the images are coming from to where they are going is a godsend.

[Angst]

Yep. There are actually two small files that need to be hacked to run your copy of Aperture on unsupported hardware -- one disables the hardware check in the installation package, and the other (in the Aperture package itself) disables the hardware check when the program is run.

I have had Aperture pre-ordered since it was announced and when I finally received it I found I couldn't install it on my G5 Dual 2Ghz/4Gb RAM (5200 card) or new 12" 1.5Ghz/1.25Gb RAM (5200 card). (I'm sure the Mac salesman said they were "top-of-the-line" but he must have been fooling me because Apple clearly don't agree)

So it is with much anticipation that I ask if anyone can point me to the exact file in the Aperture.pkg that needs editing and what the edit is, so I can run it on my crummy hardware.

I will then be able to rejoice in my poor purchase like so many others here. To swoon at the tantilisingly slow screen redraw and watch in awe as the pixels slowly filter down like raindrops - reminds me of my first IIcx.

So please if anyone can help, I'm just a poor victim of underrated Apple hardware.