Aperture 1.1 performance

I'm probably going to move to Mac, but I'd like to know from Aperture users if they are overall satisfied or if Aperture 1.1 still has issues (I heard so much controversial opinions that I don't know what to think of it).
In particular I'm going to manage NikonD2X's RAW images on the newest and best configurated MacBookPro 17".
Thanx !

For anyone that cares.....
I've just done the same tests with a 5D ISO 200 image and came away with the same conclusion. I use to be a big supporter of C1, but when CS2 came out I switched because of the improved workflow and RAW processing. I compared the 2 outputs and thought CS2 was better. Now a year later Aperture is here and IMHO (you should do your own tests) Aperture is the best of the 3 I tested. Granted there are other processors like Silkypix and DXOO or whatever, but for me, workflow, quality and hardware (I've got a lot thrown at Aperture) considerations, Aperture is my current favorite. There are issues which need to be worked around (like the file renaming or lack there of) as well as catologing offline images (iView), or building tiered websites (Galerie) but it can be done, although I wish I could just stay in Aperture.
so....
My current workflow is the following.
Bring RAW files into Bridge where I edit, keyword, rename (sequential numbers where no two images ever have the same number), then export to DNG.
Import into Aperture into a sequentially numbered project, create folders for each client then subfolders by date so I can quickly find client images, keyword images (yea, this is a pain as I alreday have keywords embeded in the dng files, but Aperture does not read that info), then finally have iView catalog the new Aperture project. I then color correct the images and create a web site. If needed as part of a larger web site I would instead output lo-res JPGs for use in Galerie to build a web site that can have an upper level link.
It is pretty obvous that if Aperture did a couple of things differently, I could eliminate quite a bit of the work.
I could only imagine how Aperture would be if combined a bit of CS2, iView and Galerie into Aperture.
You insert a card, Aperture starts, you import the images and Aperture converts them to dng while importing. You then edit then, rename the images (the actual file, not just a version), copyright etc. and keyword them which writes the keywords back into the dng file, and finally coule creat a web site with customized templates and the ability to create linked sites like Galerie. If it worked like iView the searching would be VERY fast as well as the ability to work offline, and Aperture would simply tell you which drive was needed online. This is the kind of workflow I need. One final note, NO MODAL DIALOGUE boxes. Imagine creating a website of 400 images with a modal dialogue box, no thanks. In this day and age of multiprocessors you should be able to continue to work while the program is churning away in the background.
Ah, now that I have that off my chest that feels much better

Similar Messages

  • Aperture 3 library performance tip after upgrading

    This tip may be helpful for anyone experiencing slow project/album loading and beachballing even with no background processes running in aperture 3.
    I was having some major issues with performance in aperture 3 with all library/project/album and book loading operations. It was very odd because Adjustment performance is very good.
    All my imported aperture 2 books would beach ball for about 50 seconds to load, and then each page would take 10 seconds to load after clicking on it. In comparison my aperture 2 library was near instantaneous.
    After exporting the project as a separate library, rebuilding the library, repairing permissions, nothing was working.
    As a last ditch effort before opening up Shark - I decided to open up the library in the finder, and manually delete all of the original previews. I then opened up the library in aperture and manually updated all the previews by highlighting all the thumbnails and right clicking -> update previews.
    Once this process completed I quit aperture and restarted to see if I was still getting any slowdowns and the problem is now gone! Library loading and project switching operations are speedy as ever now, and the book navigation is faster than aperture 2 now.
    Hope this helps anyone with performance issues.

    Speak up if anyone has problems migrating because of previews or is successful in migrating without previews. I suspect this is my problem. I get to:
    Upgrading Library 7% complete (updating master metadata - 5,068 remaining)
    After restoring from a file vault with Aperture 2, I get to the same spot, with or without previews. Although this is a slightly different issue, I tried deleting previews within Aperture and reimporting. I got to the same exact spot as before. The computer becomes nearly unresponsive, and I have to force quit Aperture after hours of sitting at 5,068 remaining.

  • Aperture 1.1 performance during longer work time

    Hi,
    I have Aperture 1.1 running on a G5 2.3GHz dual core with a 7800GT and 8GB RAM and on my MacBook Pro 2.16GHz with 2GB RAM.
    Aperture runs fine and the performance is good on both machines, after staring a work session.
    But after a few minutes and several pictures Aperture slows down and sometimes the spinning ball shows up.
    I don't know why this performance change during work happens.
    Any indea?
    I also noticed, that the 1.1 version has a higher CPU usage than the versions before, but I don't know if it still uses the GPU as much as before.
    JO

    Same here, Aperture 1.1 does seem to be more of a CPU hog now than it was before -- incl. a nasty new behavior where it cripples other programs from running or rendering to screen while it is running and "active", even when it is in the background. I also see what others have reported where after 15-30 minutes the Aperture (1.1) perf gets progressively more dismal until the program becomes unusably slow, and/or freezes at the SBBOD.
    I'm not that convinced memory is the root cause of the perf. problems, as it doesn't appear to be notably worse than 1.0.1 in its usage, nor does its usage radically change during the perf. problems versus prior to them.
    Given both behaviors, I wonder if Aperture is internally competing against its own threads (as well as those of others, though others appear to have lower-priority access) for some critical system lock that each thread is holding too long, or something along that line of pathology. Just speculating, but it seem a closer fit with what's happening inside and outside Aperture while running (impacting other programs' perf as well), versus just rampant memory leakage.
    In any event, after about 15-30 mins, Aperture's perf frequently degrades to where it stops being usable (along with the rest of the system while it is running). Other programs running simultaneously with Aperture will start hitting serious perf issues well before Aperture freezes (indeed often before Aperture shows any signs of problems). 1.1 solved many of the big RAW problems, but seems to have introduced some nastily fatal flaws of its own.
    Power Macintosh G5 (dual 1.8G)   Mac OS X (10.4.6)   3GB Ram, ATI 9800Pro

  • Running Aperture and Slow Performance on MacBook Pro

    I am running a MacBook pro w 4 GM interal memory, lost of HD space, and OS 10.8.4.  Often when working with Aperture system performance seems very sluggish to the point of becoming unuseable.  Export of 20 images to mail can take 10 min.  It just becomes so slow as if strangled for memory.  I find I shut down other apps but don't think this should be necessary with current OS technology.  Any suggestions?  Thanks

    Have you checked what it going on, when Aperture becomes sluggish?
    I'd recommend to launch some diagnostic tools, if you have not already done so:
    Aperture's own "Activity Viewer": From the main menu bar: Window > Show Activity
    This will tell you, how Aperture is spending its time : rendering, previews, scanning for faces or places, raw processing. Inparticulur, check, if Aperture is hanging while processing one particular image or video over and over again.
    The Console window: Launch it from the Utilities folder in the Applications folder. Look, if you see error messages or warnings in this window, when Aperture starts to hang.
    The Activity Monitor: Launch it from the Utilities folder in the Applications folder. This window will tell you, which processes are using the cpu, the RAM, and doing page outs to the disk. You can see, if other processing are competing with Aperture and slowing it down, orif Aperture is starved for memory.
    How large are images? Do you have very large raw files or scans, or are your photos moderately sized?
    Is your library on the internal drive or an external drive?
    Do you see this slowness only with your main Aperture library, or also, if you create a new, small library with a few test images?
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Aperture freezes when performing a "Consistency Check"

    Hi everyone,
    today I have updated my Aperture 1.x library to a brand new Aperture 2.1 one.
    Unfortunately the conversion process freezed (it looked like it was finished because the little conversion window had disappeared) and, after waiting a very long time, i forced-quit Aperture.
    Everything seems to be fine (all the pictures are there...) but I still don't feel very safe.
    So I decided to rebuild the library and perform a consistency check: the former went fine while the latter freezes Aperture (I have waited 1+ hour).
    Is that a bug or am I doing something wrong?
    Thank you.

    I apologize for disturbing.
    I did a fourth "Consistency Check" and it went fine.
    Thank you!

  • Aperture and PS performance difference on Mac Pro - new Macbook Pro 2.53

    I am considering selling and replacing two computers with one new MBP 2.53 ghz 15 inch with 4gb RAM. The new MBP would be replacing a nearly three-year-old Mac Pro dual 2.66 with with 9gb RAM, a Nvidia 8800 GT graphics card (512 vram); and a Macbook Pro 2.3 ghz of about the same age. The replacement is due to space issues mainly (we are renovating the house and accommodating our new baby!) but also because I tend to dispose of my macs at about three years to before the resale value drops too much. My main concern is about what performance reduction (or even enhancement?) I will see compared to the Mac Pro tower in general and, more specifically, performance when it comes to running Aperture, CS4 and Lightroom. It would be good to here from anybody (especially photographers) who has made a similar switch. Also I have read that the new MBP is supposed to take 6gb Ram (through "not supported by Apple") any info on this would be good, too.
    Note that I have cross posted this to the Aperture forum.
    Cheers
    D

    I cannot from personal experience describe what the performance change will be but my expectation is that properly set up with E/C34-eSATA external hard drives performance would probably equal or exceed the G5. The real unknown is the effect of 4 GB RAM instead of 9 GB RAM - - especially when we are on OS 10.6 Snow Leopard a few months from now.
    What I can comment on is buy the 17" MBP rather than the 15" MBP. My reasons:
    • More screen real estate, a very big deal when in the field and no external display is connected.
    • Much higher pixel count, a very big deal when in the field and no external display is connected.
    • Available matte display, a very big deal (to many pro photogs, including me) when in the field and no external display is connected. Note however that none of us have actually seen the new 17" MBP because it has not shipped yet.
    • Faster; the added size and easier heat dissipation of the 17" apparently allow Apple to make less engineering compromises.
    • Twice the available RAM, a very big deal moving forward as app vendors evolve apps to better utilize available cheap RAM, OS 10.6 and boxes with more RAM access. Under OS X Photoshop (and probably Aperture as well) can already take advantage of up to 32 GB installed RAM, maybe more.
    • Longer battery life is alleged, which matters not to me but some folks care.
    • After years of using 15" and smaller, starting with the Duo, I now use a 2.33 GHz 17" and far prefer the larger size.
    • All the above benefits and it only weighs 1.1 pound more than the 15" MBP.
    IMO graphics performance of the new 17" MBP with 8 GB RAM will easily exceed your G5. Unfortunately the cost of maximizing RAM in the new MBP is still exorbitant, but that price will fall.
    -Allen Wicks
    P.S. Adding RAM adds heat, which may be why Apple does not support more than 4 GB RAM in the 15" size.
    P.P.S. If you move to a laptop-only workflow use Referenced Masters, keep the Library on the internal drive and make sure the internal drive stays underfilled for speed of all apps.

  • Aperture Video Card Performance Ratings

    Does anybody know of a good summary that would include all of the cards that Aperture can use, and some measure of performance or speed, similar to Rob Galbraith’s CF card speed ratings?
    I’m having a hard time remembering which card does better (and how much) with Aperture. I know that I can't change the graphics card in my iMac, but I'd like to understand this topic for future reference, as I do plan to buy a new iMac or Mac Pro someday.
    I tried to search for this info on this site, but I wasn't able to find such a summary.

    Well, new Mac Pro's came early.
    The question is what kind of Aperture performance can we expect with the different video cards. The Nvidia 8800GT has a 3-5 week lead time. I don't want to wait unless it'll be worth it. I don't think I'd benefit from a faster card for the other apps I use (Adobe CS3 mainly), but I spend a lot of time in Aperture.
    Interestingly, there is a glitch in the Apple Store where draft copy was used to describe the video cards. It mentions that the ATI 3870 was planned:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4716686&posted=1#post4716686

  • Aperture 3 Exporting Performance

    I've noticed that exporting a jpeg version from a RAW with some adjustments takes much longer than exporting the same image without adjustments.
    This behavior could be quite normal but I have the impression that the difference is too large.
    Exporting a single NEF with some adjustments such as Noise Reduction, Edge Sharpen and others, takes about 24sec, while exporting the same NEF without adjustments is virtually immediate (JPEG - Original Size).
    Is anyone who has noticed the same behavior?

    I have not experienced this.  Is the Library on the MBP?
    Ernie

  • Aperture Performance vs iPhoto

    My wife and I have a fairly larger iPhoto library of around 280 gigs with multiple projects, books, etc.  It runs very slow on iPhoto 11, especially when making new books, switching from pic to pic, and opening.  It is a macbook pro 2.9Ghz Dual-Core i7 with 8 gigs of RAM.  Will Aperture have better performance with this size of library than iPhoto?
    Thanks!!

    Does event size play a part in
    performance?
    It does. At least, if you have smart albums in combnation with the events. I never allow my events to become larger than a few hundred photos. I have folders for each year, and inside events for each occasion or day. That makes scrolling and updating of smart albums faster, at least in my case.
    I have repaired the iPhoto library before and it does not help.
    Have you tried to rebuild it? if you try, make sure your backup is current, before you do that.
    Sometimes a single corrupted image or a video that cannot be processed will slow iPhoto down. Do you remember, when the problem started or which photos you imported at the time? Then I would check, if these photos are o.k.
    If the problem persists, ask in the iPhoto forum.

  • How can I restore a whole folder which (containing multiple albums) has disappeared - has disappeared from my iPhoto Library (using Aperture 3.5.1)?

    Last time I saw the folder, it  had somehow moved inside another large folder, so I remember trying to move it back to its correct place.  Now it has vanished completely - along with all the albums and as far as I can see the events and photos to boot. Searching for some of the album titles brings up none of them.  And they're not in the trash.However, if I open the Library in iPhoto, the search button does find some of the missing photos - where Apertues found none. Why should that be?  I'm trying to restore the iPhotoLibrary from an arbitrary date a month ago in my CrashPlan database - this will take over two days. I used Time Machine to restore the Library as it was one month ago, but no dice. Does anybody have any ideas??
    Many thanks in advance!
    Giorni
    OS X 10.9

    I assume, you already checked, if the search filters in the Browser and Viewer are cleared?
    Have you tried to repair or to rebuild the library?
    To use the Aperture Library First Aid tools:
    Press and hold the Option and Command keys as you start Aperture. The Aperture Library First Aid dialog will appear and offer the following three troubleshooting options:
    Repair Permissions. Some issues in Aperture may be caused by incorrect permissions for items in the library. To correct the permissions for your library, select the option to Repair Permissions then click the Repair button. You must authenticate with a user name and password for a user account with administrative access to perform this operation.
    Repair Database. Sometimes internal structures within the library may become damaged and cause unexpected behavior; you can use Repair Database to try to correct the issue. Select the option to Repair Database then click the Repair button.
    Rebuild Database. For more severe issues that can't be corrected with Repair Permissions or Repair Database, you can try Rebuild Database. It is strongly recommended that you have a complete backup of your Aperture library before performing this operation, either in the form of a recently updated vault, or a Time Machine backup. Select the option to Rebuild Database then click the Rebuild button in the Aperture Library First Aid dialog.

  • Will Graphics Card Help Aperture on Mac Pro?

    I've been using Aperture for many years on a variety of Mac hardware. I have 5 or 6 image libraries, ranging in size from 50gb to 250gb. I have no referenced images, do not use "faces" or other CPU-intensive features, and often perform tasks which reportedly improve Aperture performance (deleting caches, repairing/rebuilding libraries, defragging hard drives. deleting prefs). While these tricks often result in a snappy experience on relaunch, Aperture returns to its sluggish ways after a few minutes of work.
    My workflow is very simple -- I plug in my camera, download photos to the HD, and then edit them, which consists of adjustments such as exposure, white balance, sharpening, rotating, cropping. I don't do much retouching, red eye, or other fancy editing. Occasionally I use the "external" edit feature to retouch in Photoshop. I shot for many years with a Canon Rebel, 14MP I believe, and recently got a Nikon D800. I am finding the performance going through D800 raw files (not even editing, just flipping through them) unacceptable. For example, if I go to hybrid list/preview view, and press the "down" key 10 or 15 times, by the 5th image, there is a very noticeable lag, and often the display beachballs for 10 seconds or more before it gets to the bottom of the list. Basic tasks such as cropping or rotating often lock the display for long periods of time.
    For many years, I blamed Aperture's awful performance on my hardware. I worked on a series of Mac laptops. Although I usually had the latest hardware, they were no desktop. Recently, I bought a Mac Pro with a 3.2GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor, 16GB of ram, an OWC SSD (for the system -- the libraries are on a 7200RPM drive), and a ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics card. I was dismayed to find out that Aperture is STILL unbearably slow. If I can't simply flip through some photos on a top of the line Mac Pro, what is this program good for?
    My question now is, would I see a significant performance gain if I were to upgrade yet again to a faster graphics card, such as the Radeon 7950? I've been reading up on these cards, and it seems like native support is coming in 10.8.3. While I hesitate to pour more money into my quest for a useable Aperture system, I wonder if this would finally show some significant performance gains. I've read conflicting reports from other users who've upgraded the graphics card. Is the advantage mainly for 3D or gaming applications or would this help Aperture too?
    Thanks in advance for any replies!

    In the past Aperture has been very GPU-dependent. The very best G5 tower would bog on Aperture unless the stock GPU card had been upgraded. I expect current Aperture also to benefit from a stronger GPU but I do not have absolute info on that. And your existing 5770 is not a lame card.
    I know 16 GB RAM seems like a lot, but with D800 files and an Aperture/Photoshop workflow you may still be paging out to disk. My Aperture/Photoshop workflow paged out at 8 GB RAM with files 1/3 the size of the D800 files.
    You should evaluate whether or not you have adequate RAM:
    Look at the Page Outs number under System Memory on the Activity Monitor app before starting a typical Aperture/Photoshop work session and write the number down. Recheck the Page Outs count after working for a few hours and write the number down again. If the page outs change (manual calculation of ending page outs number minus starting page outs number) is not zero your workflow is RAM-starved.
    Ignore the pie charts and other info in Activity Monitor because they are often misleading regarding RAM usage. For RAM analysis, count page outs.
    If your test shows that page outs increase at all during operation you should add RAM. RAM is dirt cheap and use of additional RAM a very desirable characteristic for an Aperture/Photoshop workflow. If it was me I would double to 32 GB RAM and set PS (PS Preferences/Performance/Memory) to use 16 GB of RAM.
    Hard drives slow as they fill so make sure none of your hard drives are overfilled. I suggest 70% full as an arbitrary maximum but even less full is preferable for speed. If your Library drive exceeds 60% full I suggest setting a RAID 0 array on two or more identical drives to get extra capacity and speed. Of course pay careful attention to frequent Library backup.
    Some apps like browsers are notorious for "leaking" memory so when doing serious images work keep non-essential applications closed. A SSD drive for boot helps because when apps open in just 3 seconds there is no reason to keep extraneous apps open.
    HTH
    -Allen
    P.S. I strongly recommend that original images be fully backed up before importing into Aperture or any other images management application.
    P.P.S. Makhe sure you have a properly set PS Scratch Disk assigned on a fast underfilled drive, and empty the scratch disk routinely.

  • Best performance library set up?

    I was wondering if anyone can inform on what gives the best possible performance in how Aperture library is set up.
    I prefer not having the library bloated on the main drive(OS) so is Aperture going to perform best if the - Library manages the RAW files and running on an external drive?
    OR
    - Library on main drive but "referencing" files?
    OR
    - Library on main drive and managing my RAW files?
    If anyone has any informative insight on this I'd appreciate it
    Thanks!

    Hi Zirkel - I'd be happy to answer your question, but I need some clarification on what you mean by "what is the best way to keep this file updated" - Are you talking about the library?
    If so, then you don't want to do this by manually putting new files on the external HD and opening aperture, instead you want to open aperture 1st and use the import dialog, let aperture import them and copy them to your masters drive.
    If so, it's very easy when importing new files, you just change the settings in the import dialog -
    Change the "store files in" dropdown to choose a "master folder" where you want to put all your raws. Then use the "subfolder" dropdown to create a Folder hierarchy automatically for you.
    I should note that when I responded earlier, I wasn't thinking of "external HD" as a portable firewire drive - Depending on how convenient this is, I might just put a fast 500GB laptop drive in, and use the internal drive to store the RAW files (But I would still store them as referenced over managed, for the ease of maintenance in the future).

  • Aperture 2 quitting when doing photo edits

    I am using Aperture 2 on my Late 2009 27" iMac. OS X 10.9.5 Maverick.
    The application quits unexpectedly when making photo edits. (most noticeable if cropping the image). This problem seems to have only recently manifested. I hadn't been doing much editing until today with the new OS.
    Is there a compatibility issue with Aperture 2 and Maverick 10.9.5?.
    I'm at a loss as my Aperture library is big and I don't know how to move it to a new computer or newer version of Aperture easily.
    Is it time to buy a new iMac / Photo edit software?
    Thanks
    JS

    Both your Aperture version and iPhoto version are perfect for working with MacOS X 10.6.8, but nor for your current system. iPhoto 8.1.2 is also incompatible with Mavericks. You should be using iPhoto 9.5.1 for best performance.  with iPhoto 8.1.2 you'll have similar problems.
    Could I migrate all my Aperture library to iPhoto easily? It seems that iPhoto has slowed down a lot since I upgraded operating systems from snow leopard to Maverick, thus why I'm hesitant to use iPhoto for editing. I am using an old version of iPhoto however. (09 8.1.2)
    Aperture and iPhoto are now compatible and can open each others libraries,but not the older versions you are using. To be able to use both iPhoto and Aperture on the same library you would need to use at least Aperture 3.3 and Photo 3.3., see:  Aperture 3.3: Using a unified photo library with iPhoto and Aperture
    For best performance upgrade to Aperture 3.5.1, if you want to continue a professional application, to CaptureOne, or Lightroom. Upgrading to aperture 3 would be the most seamless transit.   If you want to migrate to a simpler application upgrade your iPhoto to 9.5.1, but you would have export your originals and edited versions separately from Aperture.  Upgrading to Aperture 3 would save the lossless workflow.

  • Aperture (1.1 & 1.0.1) adjustments are chunky and slow

    I know there are other threads on "performance is slow" and 1.1 success/failure opinions, but really wanted to just talk specifics here.
    I wanted to hold my powder a bit until I had a chance to work the tools a little, and didn't want to post based on just 1.0.1. Anyway, you can see my specs below, I am running on a brand new G5 dual (core)-2.3Ghz, 4.5GB RAM, Nvidia 7800GT video. The images I am working with are roughly 8-9MB CR2 RAW files from a Canon 20D.
    I can say definitively that overall Aperture performance is not good. Here's some examples:
    1) RAW image loading: when I click between images, it takes about 3 seconds to load each image.
    2) Rotation tool: unbelievably chunky. When I first put the rotation tool over an image and move the tool, it takes anywhere from 2-4 seconds before the image responds by rotating. After the image starts to rotate, moving the tool further results in intermittent smooth rotation and 1 second response time, making for a chunky, jumpy rotation.
    3) Exposure, Saturation, Brightness, and Contrast sliders: drag the slider, it takes anywhere from 1-3 seconds before the slider responds and catches up with the mouse. After the initial slider movement, if you still have the mouse pressed, additional slider movement is smooth.
    4) Crop tool bounding box: intermittent smooth drag/delayed response on changing the bounding box size.
    5) Loupe tool: mostly smooth, but occasionally just stops and hangs for several seconds, then jumps to where the mouse is.
    I've got brand new hardware, significant processing power, memory, and the on the top end of video card. I have dual SATA-250 drives underneath me, which aren't even half full, so I/O should be good.
    Given that 1.1 is the improved-performance update, and I'm fairly tapped on hardware, I don't know how to conclude anything other than Aperture doesn't perform all that well. Am I missing something?
    I would appreciate the experience others are having on their hardware -- please no "it performs well for me" responses. I appreciate your subjective opinion, but I don't really know what that means unless you can give feedback on the amount of time for tools to respond.
    Thanks,
    Brad

    1) RAW image loading: when I click between images, it takes about 3 seconds to load each image.
    How long does Photoshop take to load the same image? Come on now, it take 3 seconds or longer. Do you expect Aperture to preload your image? I don't get the 'instant' loading complaint when any program takes time to load a large file. 10D 6mp loading is one second. 5D 12mb files 3sec. Your expectations should be the same in Aperture or PS.
    2) Rotation tool: unbelievably chunky. When I first put the rotation tool over an image and move the tool, it takes anywhere from 2-4 seconds before the image responds by rotating. After the image starts to rotate, moving the tool further results in intermittent smooth rotation and 1 second response time, making for a chunky, jumpy rotation.
    This has depended on other programs open and what is going on in the background. We process only with Aperture open. Rendering takes power and time. That tool takes some skill because of a slight rendering time, but I can pretty much nail the rotation after using it for processing. Agree with the slight rendering/delay but it is not a huge concern. You can always go to the hud and rotate by numbers in increments.
    3) Exposure, Saturation, Brightness, and Contrast sliders: drag the slider, it takes anywhere from 1-3 seconds before the slider responds and catches up with the mouse. After the initial slider movement, if you still have the mouse pressed, additional slider movement is smooth.
    Again, click the arrow on the sliders. My sliders are real time, but I do prefer to use the arrow in the HUD and possible last adjust by slider. I know by number where I want the adjustment. That comes from experience. Aperture is wonderful for fine tuning. I suggest you go by numbers if the sliders are a bother.
    4) Crop tool bounding box: intermittent smooth drag/delayed response on changing the bounding box size.
    Smooth enough on our iMac?
    <<<Am I missing something? >>>>
    Patients for rendering times is what you are missing or so it seems?
    The best thing for you is to not use the sliders until the last adjustment and use the arrow adjustments or type in your values. We have grown so used to instant reaction when a button is pushed. The brain says, hey, I clicked and I want it now. It was a frustration in 1.0 for us so we started using the arrows and just got used to that method. 1.1 is much faster and near real time but we are still using our learned arrow adjustments.

  • Is it viable to use Aperture to upsize images?

    Hi All,
    I have recently needed to produce some larger JPEGS (for lab printing) so have used Aperture 2's export functionality to produce 10x8 JPEGS (300dpi). It seems that Aperture will happily upsize my images, some of which are small-ish selective crops.
    My question for anyone who has the relevant experience is how sophisticated is the algorithm that Aperture uses to perform this upsizing?
    Currently I don't have Photoshop (otherwise I would use bicubic option), neither do I have any specialist resizing software like Genuine Fractals. Does using Aperture to perform this upsizing produce comparable results? Would you say that upsizing in Aperture is a viable tool? Or is it more like a primitive last resort?
    Looking at my output, there appears to be some artifacts in some images but without reference to images produced by other programs, I cannot identify whether this is because of Aperture's algorithm or whether my original image is just too small.
    Any advice much appreciated.
    Brian

    It would be preferable to let the printer driver, or better yet a RIP if you have one, to upscale the file for the printer. Print labs hate it when they receive upscaled images, because it's rarely done right and their RIP will do it perfectly. If you need to, and don't have upsizing software, in Photoshop (or GIMP or Pixelmator), you can upscale and make subtle sharpening adjustments (best done in the Lab Color Space luminance channel) to avoid artifacts and halos.
    - Bert Pasquale
    LifeStoryImages.com

Maybe you are looking for