Aperture 2 - speed?

Anyone have any opinions as to the relative speed of v2 vs v1.5?
1.5 runs "OK" on my system but I was wondering if the whole package is a bit faster or is it just wishful thinking?

Try playing around for a longer time with a single image. Make multiple adjustments and then try to edge sharpen, probably moving the sharping slider around a lot like experimenting with the settings. That's when it becomes terrible slow for me. Delays of serveral seconds and spinnings beachballs.
The funny thing is that even removing all other adjustments the sharpen sliders remain unusable. It's not per se the edge sharpen that's too slow, if I use it first its smooth and realtime. For me it seems more like some strange interaction between using some adjustment tools and heavy use of the edge sharpen sliders. Maybe its stuck in making a new preview.
Simply closing and re-opening Aperture doesn't solve the problem all of the time. Interestingly enough creating new previews and miniatures from the menu bar solves the problem all of the time.
I have to add, that this is just my personal experience on my MBP C2D 2.16 with 3GB RAM and D70 RAW files, your mileage may vary.
Bye,
Carsten

Similar Messages

  • Aperture speed? I C old posts, R there new ones for 3.2.2??

    I am thinking about picking up Aperture, but I see all sorts of posts that say
    it bogs down with very large libraries of images.
    I would like to know if there really is a significant difference running Aperture on Lion & SnowLeopard.
    Are there setting to turn off -- that I would WANT to turn off that help with speed?
    Is the new 3.2.2 an improvement in speed?
    Is there a threshold library size that is affected?
    I found an old archived list of 32 things you can do, which was useful, but the post was several years old and
    suggests all sorts of options which really are pretty extreme & do not make any sense for most users.
    Archiving raw as jpeg - sorry, that seems silly.
         Why would I archive my images in a downsized format?
    Turn off firewall - again, a silly option for most people.
    Well, that was an old post.
    Am I overlooking a FAC about this? My searches did not corroborate the premise that this is still an issue.

    Sorry, limited Web access so short answers.
    CroMagnum wrote:
    Hello,
    Thanks, for the reply.
    I guess then I need to know the minimum system requirements of the app.
    I want a decent tool to catalog & tag, the image editing is secondary, but of course its presumably faster than Photoshopping & ostensibly not destructive, or leaving multiple copies of similar files all over the place, as I do now. Adobe Bridge doesn't cut it for long as a stand-in.
    I don't know about number of images at the moment - a lot.
    Old legacy images are jpeg. In recent years its be both Raw & jpeg copies simultaneously.
    3GB ram 4 yr old iMac 2GHz. Its long in the tooth. Hard drive space is are external USB 2 or
    possibly firewire, but right now my predominant exterrnal drives are USB.
    How is Aperture for removables? (DVD storage).
    For an application comparative, the system requirements are what they are.
    I'm not buying an app AND a new machine in the short term.
    Is there a big speed difference between disk space on the main drive & a USB external?
    3 GB is too little.  Aperture + OS eats 4 GB min.  More is you want to multitask.
    USB 2.0 throughput acceptable for Referenced Masters only, and even then below recommended.  Firewire 800 works well.  For a Library, FW 400 at a minimum -- but also below recommended.
    DVDs a waste of time and money today.
    Number of images is not a concern for most users.  Aperture does a fabulous job with resource allocation after you give it enough.  I have tested Aperture 3 up to 400,000 Images over FW 400.  It works.  (Loading "Photos" view takes half a minute -- that should be expected.  For access to Projects and other small subsets, no problems.  I don't know how many Images would cripple Aperture.  If you don't have more than half a million, I wouldn't worry about number of Images.
    While you get started, turn of Faces and Sharing Previews.  After your Library is wholly processed and stable, these can be enabled.

  • Aperture speed.....boring :-(

    Just "converted" to mac, had an old 800mhz pc which just was too slow when handling photos, so i definately wanted something faster.
    I bought an Imac 20", Intel, 2,16ghz duo, X1600, 2gb ram, running osx10.4.8 and Aperture 1.5.2.
    By the way i am using a Konica Minolta Dynax 5D cam, raw files approx 8mb.
    Loading photos, speed ok.
    Viewing/browsing photos ok - not brilliant, just ok (compared to my pc laptop Centrino 1,6 and Picasa, Aperture/mac is equal or slow)
    Editing photo (not full screen), sliders dont respons imediately, many times you are trying to manipulate sliders once more, then photo is updated, ie not imediately.
    Editing photos full screen, its a pain, just too slow. Specially if you try to align a photo in full screen mode (even in normal screen), the photo update is so slow its almost useless......
    My question: Can Aperture actually run on this mac ??
    Or is it just not a positive combination soft/hard ?
    I updated the Imac from 1 to 2 gb, didnt see any real noticeable increase in speed.....
    If anybody needs to see the speed, i can make a small movie of the screen.....

    I´m new to mac. The Imac is new from christmas.
    Installed softwares:
    Pre-installed softwares, but MS office demo is uninstalled
    Aperture (first demo installed, afterwards unninstalled the full version 1.5.2 installed)
    Flip4mac
    NeoOffice
    Iphoto Buddy
    Skype
    Opera
    Because of bad Aperture performance, i installed 2*1 gb ram.
    Still no real gain in speed.
    Whenever i check in activity, if find something like this:
    Memory usage
    Locked 130 mb (red)
    Aktive 250 mb (yellow)
    Passiv/non-active 1,01 gb (Blue)
    in use 1,38 gb
    Free 635 mb (grøn)
    Str på VH 5,72 GB
    ...and the CPU never goes above 70 % of usage.....
    Whats the idea of more memory if its not used ?
    Whats the bottleneck ?
    Why is approx 1gb ram passive/not used ?
    Even with Aperture as sole software started, its still bad in speed !
    And if you cannot have other softwares started in the same time as aperture, why bother to buy Apple software because of integrity to other Apple softs ?

  • Aperture 3.02 vs iPhoto 8.12 Speed Difference

    Running on a 1 week old 17" i5 MacBook Pro. Aperture is slower than a dog. iPhoto does the same things 4-5 times faster. Library has less then 5,000 photos in it. Am I doing something wrong?

    Probably doing something like automatically generating Previews. Try setting Preview generation to manual. Also search the forum for "Aperture Speed" and check out rwboyer's website.
    How is AP set up (what drives, connectivity, etc.)? Any overfilled drives or USB in the mix will slow things down.
    HTH
    -Allen

  • Is there any downside to using a reference type library if I use Time Capsule and will do file management only from within Aperture?

    Have done a lot of reading to get prepared to convert to Aperture 3 and have this question regarding setting up my library type.
    I'm not a professional -just a heavy user hobbyist.
    It appears that the major factors in using reference style is to backup the images with Time Capsule and always do moves or deletes from within the Aperture application.
    If my architecture matters here's what I have that may be involved in photo management and editing:
    iMac (latest 27" high power version with lots of memory)
    Internal 2TB HD where the library is stored
    External (FireWire) 2TB HD where the images are stored
    External (FireWire) 6TB HD backup drive
    In the future an iPad for remote work on images (when/if available) and a Mac laptop (for same remote use)
    I see major downside issues to letting the library manage my files - such as inaccessibility (or awkward accessibility) to the images for other programs, and performance issues when the library gets large (thousands of images or 100+ gb in size)
    The chief complaints I've seen regarding using a reference mode is the broken link issues created if file management is done outside of Aperture (adds, deletes, moves of files) and the inability to use the Vault function for backup.
    One feature that I imagine I'd like to have is maximum integration with Final Cut Pro X and that's one area I haven't seen much on and would be interested to hear about if that integration is affected with the choice of managed vs referenced library types. (I like to produce film clips that are combinations of pics and video and want to be set up so that is done in the easiest fashion when working in FCP X)
    I'm sure I've not seen all sides of this issue and would like to see some discussion around this question.
    Thanks to everyone contributing!
    Craig

    Goody, Goody, you hit a few of my favorite subjects! Herewith some comments, with the usual caveats - true to the best of my knowledge and experience, others may have different results, YMMV, and I could be wrong.
    I run Aperture on two machines:
    -- 2007 Mac Pro with 2x2.66 GHz Xeon, 21 GB of RAM, a 5770 GPU, and multiple HD. I have about 11,000 images, taking up 150 GB. (Many are 100 MB TIFF, scanned slides)
    -- 2006 Mac Book Pro with 1 2.0 GHz Core Duo, 2 GB of RAM and a 240 GB SSD.
    Two very different machines.
    -- Aperture Libraries are all the same - Managed or Referenced. If Managed, then the Master image files are inside the Package, if Referenced, they are outside, and you can have any combination you want. Managed is easier, but Referenced is not hard if you are the least bit careful.
    -- While the sheer size of an Aperture Library is not a big issue, the location on disk of the different components can have a tremendous impact on performance.
    -- Solid State Drives (SSD) read and write faster than regular Hard Disks (HD) and, what is more important, empty HD read and write much faster than full HD.
    -- Aperture speed requires a combination of RAM, CPU, graphics processing unit (GPU) speed, and disk speed. The more RAM you have, the less paging you will see. With enough RAM, the next bottle neck is CPU (speed and cores) and GPU speed. But even then you will still have to fetch an image (longer if you pull the full resolution Master, read and rewrite the Version file, and update the Preview and Thumbs.
    So what works?
    -- RAM, RAM, and more RAM. 4 GB will work, but you will page a bit. 8 GB is much faster. On my old MacPro the sweet spot was about 16 GB of RAM.
    -- Keep your Library on your fastest (usually internal) drive. Keep that disk as unloaded as possible. How do you keep it unloaded? Either buy BIG, 1 TB+ or move your Masters off onto another disk. The good news here is that as Master files are written only once and never rewritten, speed of this disk, as opposed to the disk that holds the Library, is not important. There is a one second pause as the Master is read into memory and, if you have enough RAM, that is it - the Master will never be paged out. If, on the other hand, you do not have enough RAM, and you do a lot of adjusting at full resolution, then the speed of the disk that holds your Masters will become very important due to paging.
    -- I found that I picked up a tiny bit of speed by keeping the Masters on a dedicated disk. Thus, in your configuration, if you can dedicate that 2 TB FW HD to your Masters, you should see very nice performance.
    Final notes on backups and archives:
    -- One conventional wisdom is that you should make an archive copy of every image file before or as you load them into your system. (Aperture in this case.) This archive is then never touched or deleted.
    -- An alternative approach is that you do not keep such an archive, but only the images that you have in your Aperture Library. And when you delete from the Library, you no longer keep a copy anywhere.
    I do the following:
    -- Card to Aperture. Card is then kept at least 24 hours until all of my backups have run. (I use three - Time Machine, Clone, and off site.)
    -- I do not keep archive copies. If I decide to delete a file, my only recourse is to recover it from Time Machine during the six month cycle of my Time Machine backups. Thereafter, it is lost.
    There are merits to both approaches.
    Hope this is clear, correct, and responsive to your needs.
    DiploStrat

  • Can I slim down the size of the Aperture Library by moving the Preview files elsewhere?

    Hi all,
    I have an Aperture library of almost 20,000 photos, dating back to around 2007. Almost all the master images are stored on an external drive (backed up of course), with only my recent and 'in progress' masters being stored in the library itself. Previously I have had my library split up into one library for each year, with the older years libraries being stored on the external drive where the masters are, in order to keep the size of my 'current' library down. So my current library, stored on my internal SSD, contained only photos from this year and last year, and only a few of the masters for these images. Confusing? Sorry!
    Now, I recently decided to consolidate the libraries into one huge library, because it was annoying to have to switch between libraries to find older photos when I wanted them. I did this, leaving all but the recent masters on the external drives (referenced). I thought that the size of the main library would remain reasonably sized, since there were no extra masters being moved into it. However, the library has grown massively - up to over 70GB, which is huge when you consider it's on a 128GB SSD which is also my startup drive.
    I'm pretty certain the reason for the huge size increase is that the Previews for all the older images are stored in the Library file, rather than anywhere else. This makes sense - they are previews, they're supposed to be able to be viewed with the external drives disconnected. So my question is this. Am I able to change the location of the preview files to be on my OTHER internal hard drive (non-SSD, much larger), so that they're still available without the external drives, but are not cluttering up my startup drive. And, if not, what should I do!?
    Thanks a lot

    Glad it worked, but permit, if you will, some observations:
    -- Bloated Previews are a known Aperture bug, which came and went  within a few updates in Aperture 3. Getting them back to the proper size is simply a elegant step to take.
    -- A Preview set to your largest screen size and a quality of 6-8 should be all but indistinguishable from the Master at 72-100 dpi screen image. (Not print resolution.) I REALLY doubt you are going to loose any quality.
    -- While using a symlink to stick the Previews on a HD is clever, it may also defeat the whole purpose of using your SSD. Previews are read a lot and are, I suspect, used for all adjustments at less than full resolution. (N.B. I could be VERY wrong on this.) Thus, depending on the amount of RAM on your Mac, you could end up reading and rereading your Previews over a slower link and doing this a lot. You own use will quickly determine if this is an issue or not.
    I have blathered on, at length, about what I think matters for size and speed here: https://discussions.apple.com/message/17959625#17959625. Some of this may be of use.
    I went through a lot of these issues when I tried to fit everything on a 128 GB SSD, so I know some of the issues you are facing. As I noted before, you really only need a Library (minus most Masters) of about 30 GB and that is with large, high quality Previews.
    I actually took the SSD out and stuck it in an ancient MacBookPro (in preparation for a trip to Blighty this summer) and have not noticed a huge drop in Aperture speed. (I do miss the speed of applications launch, restart, however.) One thing that I did find that made a small, but nice difference, was keeping all of the Masters on a separate, dedicated drive. Once defragged, etc. that was very fast. Don't know if you could achieve the same results by partitioning a larger drive, but it might well be fun to find out.
    DiploStrat

  • Would this speed things up even more?

    I recently upgraded to the ATI video card on my Mac Pro, and as indicated by many others on this forum it REALLY helped. In fact, it's made a huge difference and now I think I'll purchase Aperture.
    Now, I've got the original stock graphics card left-over. Question: can that card be installed as a second video card, to exclusively power a second monitor? Sorry for the ignorance; prior to Aperture, nothing I did on my various Macs ever really taxed the GPU, so I was always contented with the stock card and therefore am behind the times on the subject.
    Right now, I've got a 24" Dell as my primary and a 23" Apple cinema display as my second. I like using the 23" Apple monitor to show images full-screen in Aperture, keeping my library/grid view on the primary 24" monitor.
    Would plugging in the second monitor into the second video card, and working in a one-monitor setup in Aperture speed things up? Then Aperture would only only have to power that one display, but I'd still have the second running decently enough for Finder folders, itunes, IM, etc.

    while not this exactly, i did try to install a 2nd video card in my G5 and run 3 monitors ...
    this works in everything except aperture ... i think i remember reading here somewhere that aperture CANNOT utilize multiple vid cards (???) ...
    so what you want is to use 2 cards to power 2 monitors but only have aperture run on one ??? interesting proposition ... i tried to just have aperture on one display - that is i disabled my second one to see if it made a dramatic difference - i must say i DID NOT notice any difference between the x800 running 1 or 2 screens under aperture ... this was with canon 5D RAW files ~ 12MP ... so, i have removed my 2nd vid card and run 2x23" on just the x800 and am PERFECTLY content with the performance ...
    i guess that the answer to your question will be only determined by trying it out ... as the definition of "decently enough" can only be made by you as the user ...

  • Aperture 1.5 handling of images.

    Dear members:
    This may be a basic questions but I haven't worked with Aperture since I purchased it when it first came out. I understand that version 1.5 is a huge improvement over 1.0 and that it has changed the way it works with images - one is no longer forced to import images into its proprietary library.
    My questions:
    1. Can images be kept in folders of my choice while I use Aperture to just "browse" these folders in the same way I currently do with Adobe's Bridge ?
    2. In this case Bridge creates a sidecar file for every RAW file I have and uses it to store all the metadata associated with the image. What method does Aperture use ? In case it keeps the metadata associated with images in its own internal library, how can one transfer an image and make sure that the metadata will accompany that image ? Does it keep a cache file in the folder as Bridge does or it keeps previews of the different images in its internal library ?
    3. What book would you suggest as being the best for Aperture 1.5 ? I have found a few on Amazon but don't have any references on which should be the best. I am looking for an in depth book that deals with basic as well as advanced issues, and is also well illustrated if possible.
    Thank you in advance,
    Joseph Chamberlain

    Hi Joseph,
    Yes the video card is at the low end of Aperture's needs .... esp. with bigger RAW images. I believe the X800 was the upgrade for the PCI-X bus. A couple of generations back now but rumors say that they are being made available again.
    Aperture speed is not associated with library size (although there have been a few considered thoughts that maybe very large library sizes do have an impact). The limit is 10,000 images per project (i.e. event, occasion) and after around 8,000 images in one project I did see slow-downs, and absolutely glacial from 9,500 to 10,000. That was under v1.0, and v1.5.x doesn't suffer as much. So, the speed you get with 25 images is the speed you'll get, assuming your projects are under 9,500 images big. My biggest library is 150Gb and is full of 250Mb scanned TIF's along with 8Mpix RAW's. The TIF's need a very high end 256Mb video card for reasonable performance.
    My personal view of DNG is close to unprintable. Far from an industry standard, it was Adobe telling the world, but the world did not listen. The way Aperture implemented DNG is essentially irrelevant as it is merely the RAW encapsulated in a DNG wrapper. That means if the RAW decoder goes away, you lost your image. The key point of DNG was for universality (such as JPG), but that means getting the camera manufacturers to output in that format. However, if they did this, the benefit of RAW manipulation becomes an issue.
    As to Adobe integration. I used to use CS2 daily and was my 100% tool of choice. Now I use it 2-5% of the time. Round tripping from Aperture is seamless and well implemented. The additional keyword metadata doesn't flow, but the standard EXIF does. I've not tried exporting the metadata so I cannot add more to the question.
    Hope this helps,
    G.

  • Sincerity, will make Aperture better

    I like to help apple do it better.. in order to do that apple dos't have to be mean to clients specially when I am in the middle of something important and they deleted my discussion, probably my writting english is not at is best, sorry I don't have the best writting in english, we can discuss this in spanish any time, in the mean time I like to finish what I started and I like to know if Aperture is really the program I wish it will be?
    So I helped Apple and paste my discussion below, this was what apple deleted:
    In order to process about 1000 pictures a day (this is my work flow) I need from programs speed and quality.. I don't need 3 or four programs to do the work of one.. I really like Aperture until it gets to your finish work I am not saying nothing against Aperture, actually I want to help do it better so we Pro-Photographers have an amazing tool to finish our pictures in a fast way before we deliver to our client.
    And I know is not Photoshop. Photoshop makes filters and layers you can play around with your images and make a lot o design on them. aperture is not what Photoshop was created for.. But in my believes.. Is the best option to push the speed on our workflows as photographers?
    When I work with Photoshop I can't process 1000 pictures a day is impossible, the lift and stamp tool in aperture is what I call a GREAT Feature on aperture, It gives us Pros speed on our work to speeds we though we will never have in our lifetimes...
    The problem is after we get the necessary speed on our work and we can deliver those pictures the drawback is we can't deliver to our clients the full potential of the pictures.. Not the way clients see it... probably Photographers way.. But believe me when clients are involved is impossible to make them think 75dpi is better than 300dpi and if my client asks for 1200dpi I have to deliver those pictures on 1200 dpi.
    Its simple the speed I get under Aperture (Amazing one) I lost it on the processing of my pictures to 1200 dpi?
    You really think a pro photographer will finish their work under aperture if this is the whole point of working under aperture (speed), the solution is and I still see it that way.. Is work under CS2 color correct the images that way, and do it like in the past, there is no way aperture gives us that speed it was telling us in the web site of apple, at least not in pro photographers settings yes for amateurs and yes for web designers, and yes for post production, but for pro photography mmmm ?? I didn't think so
    I see it like a dead end, everything is clear and fine and the minute you play under aperture everything is so fantastic until you get to the point of doing your masters from your versions, the ones you have thought you wanted printed on the magazine of your client in my case National Geographic Latin America.
    So what happens I can’t give my client that picture of 72 dpi, I have to go back and make it under Photoshop CS2 color correct it and post produce it at 999dpi this is the maximum Photoshop gives from a single raw image.
    Then you will ask how in the world I get 1200 dpi from a single raw image, well I say Canon and Nikon from the software they make of their cameras give us the tools so I download the pictures from my disc (CF) to my HD on my computer and open them to my canon or Nikon programs they ask me what I want to do with the pictures and I tell it what I need is a picture of 300 to 2000 dpi then after that process is finish I open them under CS2 and I color correct them, (now I am working under 2 programs) (really time consuming).
    I believe Apple can do it better don’t you think?
    I am a fan of apple work, I have always been and I hope aperture gives really the tools they sold us under their web page.
    Thanks and sorry for the people that though I was offending them it was not my intention I just like to make the points clear

    Adolfo, please read this:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=326563&tstart=0

  • Aperture 3.2.3 performance improvement

    Hello,
    Yesterday I installed the Aperture update 3.2.3.
    I noticed a performance improvement.
    I'm curious what your experiences are with this update.

    I had thought of starting my own post but to ask just how many issues people were experiencing - rather than what if any improved performances people have seen.
    Since updating to 3.2.3, I've been completely afraid to use it!  Right out of the gate, it completely hung up my Mac and I had to force restart while using it, which then of course required to repiar permissions, and I eventually had to do the more evasive, repair aperture library.  I could be having some other kind of issues, but it's funny - I only start having problems after any kind of Aperture update!
    Things on Aperture are now VERY slow.  I just imported a large project of over 2000 photos that might be affecting my library and Aperture speed, but it shouldn't affect it this much.  And now, anything, and I mean ANYTHING that has to do ANY kind of processing - takes forever.  And I'm talking about the simpliest of edits will give me the spinning beach ball.
    Here's one thing that JUST freaked me out, and why I came to the forums now.  I double clicked on a photo I had been working on so that I could get back to the full browser view, showing all the pics I had in a project, and all of Apeture went all weird, and broken up.  I can only describe it as looking like Aperture's interface broke up into a puzzle on my display.  I'm afaid to try duplicating what happened.
    Suffice to say... I've already skimmed the support forums, but enough to know there's something seriously wrong with the recent 3.2.3 update. 3.2.1 was just as horrible, so I was happy, running along fine on 3.2.2, but now 3.2.3 is horrible - crashes, hangs, and takes forever brushing any kind of effects into shots.
    I saw that Michael L. was going to try to revert back to 3.2.2  I'm also using a 2009 iMac 27" Core i7 with 10.6.8 with 16gigs RAM.  I refuse to upgrade to buggy Lion.  I would like to know what process you did to revert back if you did?  Just time machine or how?  And how has Aperture been running if / since you reverted back?

  • Lion and aperture

    Aperture is next to useless since I downloaded Lion.  I read other users are having the same problem.  It is so slow it is impossible to work with.  Just loading a photo takes foever, forget about adjustments.  Lost 3 days work.  Hope Apple fixes soon

    I just now had to Force Quit Aperture after the spinning color wheel appeared on my screen for more than 10 minutes. Here is what I did before that happened:
    1. Started Aperture to do an import from my DSLR camera
    2. Imported 19 photos
    3. Deleted 5 photos
    4. Applied Adjustments to 5 photos, including Presets -> Quick Fixes -> Auto Enhance plus some Shadows, Vibrancy, and Straighten adjustments.
    Up to that point performance was sluggish, though acceptable -- barely -- IMO. What I mean by "sluggish" includes: I clicked on the value in the Shadows adjusment panel, it took about 1-2 seconds for the value to become highlighted, I typed "30" on my keyboard, about 1-2 seconds later the "3" appeared in the value typein, then about 1-2 seconds later the "0" appeared. I can't remember ever seeing that kind of performance in Aperture before I installed Lion.
    5. I then applied a Straighten adjustment to the 5th photo and the spinning color wheel appeared. As I said above it essentially never went away, at least for the 10 minutes I waited before I used Force Quit.
    While the color wheel was spinning I checked things with the Terminal Shell command line command "top" (text only application similar to Activity Monitor except with lots more options and features). Aperture was continuously switching between sleeping and running. It was also using about 2 GBytes of real memory and 5 GBytes of virtual memory (this after approximately 15 minutes of running time).
    After I forced Aperture to quit and restarted it, performance seemed fine, almost as good as pre-Lion, except until I tried another Straighten adjustment. Then things got really slow again. For example, I clicked on the Metadata tab which caused the spinning color wheel to appear for about 4-6 secs., then it stopped, but the Metatdata panel did not pop open, then the color wheel appeared again for 3-5 secs., then stopped again, and finally after maybe 10-15 secs. the Metadata panel popped open. But, that poor performance only lasted for several minutes. Then -- magically -- Aperture speeded back up again and seemed to return to normal.
    This kind of performance seems crazy -- and unacceptable -- to me!

  • Aperture just got 16 times faster on my MacPro!

    Hi everyone,
    I had been rather disappointed about the Aperture speed until 15 minutes ago. A friend pointed me in the direction of this app:
    /System/Library/CoreServices/Expansion Slot Utility.app
    That came up with this grim information:
    http://homepage.mac.com/refsvik/X1900_before.png
    Upon changing the card from slot 2 to 1, this happened:
    http://homepage.mac.com/refsvik/X1900_after.png
    ...and suddenly Aperture screams!
    A heap of thanks to Matt for letting me know, and please make sure you check your settings and slot-placement of your GPU-card.
    Best,
    Kjell Are

    A friend pointed me in
    the direction of this app:
    /System/Library/CoreServices/Expansion Slot
    Utility.app
    Thanks for this information, but I can't get this utility to run. I gave myself the required permissions, but no luck. How did you get it to run?
    Mac Pro 3GHz, OS X 10.4.8, Aperture 1.5.1, Lightroom 4.1,     HP LaserJet 1300, Canon S900, Canon 9900F, Canon EOS-1D MkIIN

  • EXIF Data not showing up

    I have a new iMac and I am trying to consolidate close to 40,000 photos into iPhoto. Initially everything was fine, but while importing a larger batch, the program locked up overnight. I had to force quit iPhoto. Of course this screwed up the library file, and after searching on these forums and others, I was able to recover everything by repairing thumbnails, repairing the database, etc.
    However, now the exif data is no longer showing up in the info. pane (see below). I can only see the image size, file size, file type, and date - all of which appear to be correct. However, I no longer see the camera type, aperture, speed, ISO, etc. I have tried repairing everything again, to no avail. I have checked the exif data through the Finder and Preview. Some of it appears to be there (camera type), but not other things like aperture, speed, etc. I have imported new files after all of this mess and all the data shows up, no problem.
    Any suggestions on what is happening/happened? I thought I would check here before trying to rebuild the library, or having to delete the Library and reimporting everything.

    Download iPhoto Library Manager and use its rebuild function. (In early versions of Library Manager it's the File -> Rebuild command. In later versions it's under the Library menu.)
    This will create an entirely new library. It will then copy (or try to) your photos and all the associated metadata and versions to this new Library, and arrange it as close as it can to what you had in the damaged Library. It does this based on information it finds in the iPhoto sharing mechanism - but that means that things not shared won't be there, so no slideshows, books or calendars, for instance - but it should get all your events, albums and keywords, faces and places back.
    Because this process creates an entirely new library and leaves your old one untouched, it is non-destructive, and if you're not happy with the results you can simply return to your old one.

  • Unsupported image format message- Nikon 800D

    I just purchased Aperture 3 (3.2.4) and keep getting an "unsupported image format" message when trying to download RAW images.  The thumbnail images do come up- from a new 32GB Sandisk Compact Flash card.  I'm using a new Lexar Professional USB 3.0 reader.  The fact that the thumbnails come up make me think the problem is not with the reader.
    I've tried "reprocess masters" but that doesn't change anything.   I've tried just downloading a single image, and that still gets me the "unsupported" message.
    I'm using 10.7.3 on my iMac.
    Apple indicates that RAW files are supported from the Nikon 800D.  I was able to get metadata information and it did reference Nikon D800 with info on the lens used, aperture, speed etc.   But no image- just that nasty message.
    Has anyone else had this happen and figure out why/how to get a proper RAW download?
    Thanks-   Ted

    OS X Lion: Supported digital camera RAW formats http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4757
    You might try to upgrade to MacOS X 10.7.4. The raw support for the Nikon 800D is now part of MacOS X 10.7.4.
    Regards
    Léonie
    P.S: if this does not help, try to register your camera with the launch services db, as described here:
    Re: Getting very green tint on importing GF 1 RAW files.

  • 5D Mark III firmware suggestions

    Hello,
    Could Canon team give us their positions on these suggestions please ?
    1) The Auto ISO is far from being convenient.
    - Could we specify the min shutter speed instead of being limited to a restricted number of predefined values ?
    - When shutter speed is set to "auto", could we set a priority as regards the one-over-the-focal-length rule thanks to a slider ? This is exactly what is so WELL done for some autofocus settings, so why not extend it to the "auto" value ?
    2) When we switch the lens to manual focus, could you make the focus grid and red blinking vanish ?
    3) Could you display the focal length on the rear LCD when reviewing a picture ? Presently, only aperture/speed/ISO are displayed when you click on "Info". 
    4) This last one might sound like a gadget... Would it possible when pressing the M-Fn button (or other) to set the focus to the hyperfocal ? Nowadays, there are no more indications for this on the lens barrel. And it is so useful for street photography and landscape. The camera knows the focal length and the current aperture. There are tables that give the relation between aperture, focal length and hyperfocal (as simple as a rule of thumb). So this should work, no ?
    Maybe I am alone here to think that this would be welcome additions (#1 top priority) and will never be heard by Canon's dev team... But I would really appreciate having their answers written down here. Thanks for your consideration on this matter.
    Cheers,
    Yoms

    We agree with all of these suggestions.
    And we will also add the following suggestion than CAN be implemented via Firmware Update.
    PLEASE CANON consider these requests, and forward them to the right department:
    1- Could we enable AF points blinking in red even when the sccene is light?
    Currently they only blink red when the scene is dark, even if you set the View Finder to always be illuminated.
    This is VERY useful because in lot of situations the black overlay AF points is not very easy to see in light scenes.
    2- If possible: also make them more visible (blinking red) in AI Servo, because they're currently hard to follow in lot of situations.
    3- Could we assign different functions to the RATE button? It's currently almost a waste of button for only a couple of functions.
    4- Please implement a "Hot / Sutck Pixels" REMAPPING function to let the user tell the camera to hide these deffective pixels in stills and video mode.
    This is ESSENTIAL in digital cameras (every sensor has deffective pixels, most of them "mapped" in factory to be hidden, but not all). Digital sensors may even show more hot/stuck pixels over time. It could work in similar way than the "Dust delete data"
    5- We expect an Option for CLEAN 4:2:2 HDMI output as promised by Canon, besides the current Full HD HDMI output option with shooting information, which is essential for using external monitors.
    6- PLEASE, could Canon implement PEAKING in Video mode? The 5D Mark III is a $3,000+ camera.
    There are currently cameras by other manufacturers with Peaking, 1080p60 for less than $1,000...
    The 5D Mark III had strong advertised aimed towards the video market, yet it doesn't have this basic feature for filmmaking & video.
    7- Please, could Canon improve the ALL-I mode?
    It delivers poor quality (considering the BIG memory space required) when there are low motion scenes, showing more macro blocking than IPB and a noticeable "fizzy" noise, even at Low ISO.
    8- Please, improve the Sharpness algorithm in Video mode, to get SHARPER images when setting it higher than zero.
    Currently it produces noticeable halos, making it almost unusable for professional work.
    The list could be longer, but all these improvements are VERY important and CAN be made via firmare update and would make the 5D Mark III more competitive and a higher value.
    Thank you very much Canon!
    We really hope you listent to your customers.
    HD Cam Team
    Group of photographers and filmmakers using Canon cameras for serious purposes.
    www.hdcamteam.com | www.twitter.com/HDCamTeam | www.facebook.com/HDCamTeam

  • Customizable EXIF Data import filter

    A lot of EXIF data recorded by the camera doesn't show up in Aperture. And some EXIF data shows up in Aperture with meaningless numbers instead of clear text.
    While it may be too much work for Apple to support the EXIF for every camera out there, the solution could be to integrate a customizable EXIF converter into Aperture. It is all about matching numbers to strings and Aperture could choose the right set automatically upon the camera model EXIF tag during import.
    Make the sets exportable, so people can share their work.
    Could look similar to the Spotlight search window, e.g. a popup to choose from the not already assigned EXIF tags, next to it a text-field to assign a meaningful label for the tag. Below either a checkbox to accept the value as is or expandable key/value pairs for the number coded EXIF data.
    A + Button to add more keywords (and repeating the whole procedure above).
    Come on Aperture team, it is that simple, I'm sure you could implement it in Aperture between dinner and afternoon tea.
    Greetings
    Peter

    I am talking  EXIF (data generated by my camera)
    Some miising info, Camera make, Model, Lens, ISO, Focal Lentgh, Aperture, Speed, White Balance. etc etc
    I veiw the miising info in Bridge CS6  its all there.
    Camera Make model....Canon EOS 1DX
    Aperture version 3.4.5
    The problem has been happening aloong time , but I see on some images I took in 2012/11 on my Nikon D700 the Exif is there.
    I have had some images off the CANON EOS 1DX so its not the camera.

Maybe you are looking for