Help! 40K pics & a monolithic library file == 2x the disk space usage

Question

All,
I recently took the plunge (twice) and purchased my first Apple computer since a IIc. I bought an Intel based iMac (2GHz) and have moved all of my pics (about 40K) to an external 1TB drive array (mirrored 500GB).
I found iPhoto woefully inadequate to deal with this many photos and after talking to the folks at the Apple Store took the 2nd plunge and bought Aperture (off of eBay).
Now I come to find that Aperture wants to copy all the photos I have it index (ideally all of them) into a single library file. Is this correct? Is there any way to prevent it from doing this and just accessing them in the directory structure I have already painstakingly setup over the last 6 years (I realize I can sort of rebuild the structure in Aperture but don't want them stored in the lib file)?
I am asking for 2 main reasons:
1) I think a large monolithic fil is a bad design and more prone to problems if the drive starts to get corrupted, file is deleted, etc
2) I don't want use 2x the HD space as I need the individual files accessible to windows machines and other devices (set-top box) for viewing photos
iPhoto has this option as: Preferences -> Advanced -> (Uncheck) Copy files to iPhoto Library folder when adding to library
So - can Aperture do this, index and access the files in the existing dir structure, or am I going to need to resell Aperture on eBay?
Thanks!
-Steve
iMac   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   2GB RAM, external 1TB mirror

Answer 1

<...>
Now I come to find that Aperture wants to copy all
the photos I have it index (ideally all of them) into
a single library file. Is this correct? Is there
any way to prevent it from doing this and just
accessing them in the directory structure I have
already painstakingly setup over the last 6 years (I
realize I can sort of rebuild the structure in
Aperture but don't want them stored in the lib
file)?
It's not a "lib file". It's a set of directories - just think of it like moving your same directory structure inside Aperture itself. Do just as you are now, have folders in folders in folders and then at the lowest levels in directories that hold pictures make projects for each and load the images from that directory into the project.
Then if you explore the Aperture library using Finder (right click on the aperture library and select "See Package Contents") you will see all of your directories there - the .approject files down inside these directories are also packages that you can look inside of, though it's a little different in there as your master files are inside import directories and each has it's own directory.
The most important thing is, your master files are always where Finder can reach them if you absolutely need to get them out.
I am asking for 2 main reasons:
1) I think a large monolithic fil is a bad design and
more prone to problems if the drive starts to get
corrupted, file is deleted, etc
It would be - but Aperture is actually safer than holding it inside a single library because:
a) The files are all just in normal directories, so they suffer no more risk of corruption than they would outside your library.
b) There is a database that holds all of your edits so if the files in (c) get corrupted you can recreate them.
c) There are sidecar files next to each master that describe all edits made to versions based on that master, so that if the database in (b) dies you can recreate it.
Aperture actually doubly-stores your edits! Of course on top of that you should at least use Vault or seek some other method of backup.
2) I don't want use 2x the HD space as I need the
individual files accessible to windows machines and
other devices (set-top box) for viewing photos
You can't use Aperture in that way. When using Aperture (or Lightroom) once you import an image there is only a "virtual image". It's not a real image until you export into some real format of your choice.
So for use with other programs, you need to choose a format and color space and DPI and export images.
There is actually one workaround to that whole process, someone made a program called ApertureToiLife which lets you use the large thumbnails (1024x680) as if they were in iPhoto.
You do not need 2x the space, because once imported you simply remove the masters - remember they are just sitting there inside the Aperture library directory. And Aperture will save space if you are using RAW files because it does not need to store a TIFF or PSD until you are actually ready to use the image, instead of having to create rendered files every time you edit.
So - can Aperture do this, index and access the files
in the existing dir structure, or am I going to need
to resell Aperture on eBay?
That really depends on if you can live with the exporting requirement, personally I find Aperture far more useful than iPhoto. Try out the comparison tools and look at some of the tutorials before you part with it. I have not found the exporting requirement to restrictive and it lets you choose any format you like at the point you need it, instead of having to decide formats before you've really even started editing.