Maximizing Aperture Performance

I'm on the trial right now, but definitely plan on buying the software. I'm an amateur shooter, and I like the RAW processing and overall flow of the software.
I have an Intel iMac with the x1600 graphics card and 1.5 GB of ram. As I've added more files to the library (and I'm still under 1,000) I'm seeing it start to slow down a bit. Nothing that scares me, but I'd like ideas on how to best maximize performance. I have the library on my internal HDD. Should I use multiple libraries and really restrict their size? Keep the libraries off line? Use referenced images, kept on my external firewire drive? Anything else? I've turned previews off. Should I get that extra half GB of ram (max is 2 GB)?
I really like the software, and want it to remain a pleasue to work with. And I'm definitely not in the market for a new computer.
Thanks.

The hard drive on the computer is well above 50%
full.
How full? There are no firm rules, but above 70% can
be crippling, above 85% destructive.
The hard drive is 65% full. Sounds like I need to clean it up.
Will Aperture performance suffer if I move the
library to my firewire drive, or should I offload
other files to the external drive?
Please describe all the mass storage. E.g. FW 400 or
FW 800? What size(s) and how full? etc.
The external drive is FW 800. 500 GB, pretty much empty right now.
What about using referenced files or multiple
libraries? If I'm working with perhaps 10,000 or
20,000 pictures (down the road) should I worry
about
breaking them up into multiple libraries?
There are many pros/cons (see previous threads) and
version 2.0 may provide new guidance/choices.
Personally IMO Referenced images seem to be a
necessity for laptop users. Desktop users have the
option of huge RAID libraries.
I don't have the RAID option, but I do have the FW drive. Should I go that route (libraries on the FW drive), but not referenced images?
Half a GB of additional ram is worth it, huh?
IMO yes, but it comes down to your individual
financial decision. I have always recommended against
iMacs for Aperture due to RAM limitations.
I guess for me the issue is not one of selecting an iMac for Aperture, but rather the approach to maximize the performance now that I've chosen Aperture for my iMac.
Thanks.
-Allen Wicks

Similar Messages

Aperture performs adjustments in a different order depending on file type

Aperture performs Adjustments in a different order depending on file type.
Here's an example:
Starting with two copies of an image, one in RAW format (Canon CRW from a D60), the other in TIFF (opened the .crw file in Preview and exported an 8bit tiff file).
{The test image is a photo of my copy of Aperture on the floor of my studio (which, for reference, is a few points of Cyan off of a neutral grey).}
The original Image.
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/adrien/testRAW_originalImage.jpg
Adjustments
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/adrien/adjustments.jpg
The RAW file adjusted
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/adrien/testRAW_adjusted.jpg
The TIFF files adjusted
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/adrien/testTIFF_adjusted.jpg
Import both of these files (testRAW.crw & testTIFF.tiff) into Aperture.
Make adjustments to the RAW and TIFF images:
- Exposure: Saturation -> 0 (lowest possible value).
- White Balance: Temp -> 3500K (from 5000K).
It doesn't matter what order you perform these operations in.
The RAW file is now a neutral greyscale image. With the Saturation set to 0, the White Balance makes no major difference in the image, it stays grey.
The TIFF file, however, is now a blue tinted greyscale image - much like a sepia-tone effect. Moving the White Balance slider changes the color of the image.
It appears that Aperture is performing the Saturation and WB operations in a different order: for the RAW file it first performs the WB, then the saturation; while in the TIFF file it performs the saturation first, then the WB.
The result is the same for a JPEG image.
The RAW behavior is the 'expected' behavior in photography - White Balance should happen 'before' the Saturation setting.
I've filed the bug with Apple (number 4394125 at bugreport.apple.com). hopefully they'll fix this.
Cross posted from this discussion at the MacAch on ArsTechnica forums:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/893007866731 /r/832001796731#832001796731

Well, there are different ways of achieving this.
Solution 1:
You can create a new output type which will be triggered and call a same driver program and the new smart form. I am sure you can customize as to what Purchasing document type will trigger which output type. Get in touch with someone in the function team to get this configured.
Solution 2:
No Customizing, let the configuration be the same, but in the driver program change the value of "TNAPR-FONAM" immediately after the form entry_neu to the new form name based on the Purchasing document type.

Aperture performance on MBP 17" 2.16GHz Core Duo

Hi everyone,
I've been happily using Aperture for a couple of years and apart from a few niggles I love it.
I'm using a Macbook Pro 17" 2.16GHz (Core Duo) with 2GB RAM (the maximum) and an after-market 320GB 4200rpm internal hard drive. Running OS X 10.5.8 and Aperture 2.1.4. My hard drive is quite full, about 25GB free space. My Aperture library is about 60GB.
However I recently upgraded from a 6MP dslr to a 15Mp dslr and at approximately the same time Aperture performance began to take a nosedive. Now opening an image will sometimes beachball for 10 seconds (at other times they open normally in about 2 seconds). Cloning has become a nightmare of sluggishness, just clicking the retouch tool will beachball for 10 or more seconds and every edit will take a few seconds to appear.
Apart from buying a new Mac, what are my best options to improve performance? Its got so bad I'm starting to think about switching to Lightroom! (I read somewhere that Aperture is limited by the video card RAM, and my card only has 256MB I think. Apparently Lightroom doesn't do this?)
Thanks!
Edit: Don't know if it has any relevance, but I have never used Aperture's Vault feature. I don't even really understand it to be honest . I backup my photos online to Mozy.
Message was edited by: Timothy Houghton

The file sizes on the 15 MP files are 2.5x larger than on the 6 MP camera. So by nature it's going to be slower.
What's causing it? Probably a mix of all 3. That machine is 2.5 years old now; things have gotten faster and with larger RAW file sizes it will be taxed.
You could always see if you could get to an Apple Store and load up a card with a few of your images and see how it goes. Challenge being, new machines are running 10.6 and there have been reports here that Aperture on 10.6 is slower than it is on 10.5 (seems better with 10.6.2 than 10.6.1 but still not sure if it's 100% as fast) so there are a lot of variables going on there.

Aperture performance on a PowerBook G4?

Wondering what type of performance I could expect from Aperture if I installed it on my PowerBook G4. The system is 1.5GHz with 1 GB. Graphics card is a ATI Mobility Radeon 9700. I'm running OS X 10.4.7.
I've seen posts (a recent one on iBook) where folks are having trouble the software.
What should I expect?

Wondering what type of performance I could expect
from Aperture if I installed it on my PowerBook G4.
The system is 1.5GHz with 1 GB. Graphics card is a
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700. I'm running OS X 10.4.7.
I've seen posts (a recent one on iBook) where folks
are having trouble the software.
What should I expect?
iBook commentary does not apply to Powerbooks, especially more modern higher end ones like yours. There is a reason iBooks were so cheap.
My PB G4 is a small bit stronger than yours (1.67 GHz, 128 MB VRAM) and I have always described it as "adequate" to run Aperture. However, I never said it ran Aperture "well." For sure you would need to increase your RAM to at least 1.5 GB, preferably 2 GB.
I recently ordered a MBP, and improving Aperture performance was the sole reason for doing so.
HTH
-Allen Wicks

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.

Aperture performance issues.

Dear members:
After some disappointments with the latest version of Bridge (CS3) I decided to start working with Aperture as I found it offered some interesting tools for viewing and selecting images.
First I worked on some test images and everything went well. However, last night I did my first import of "real world" images and experienced severe performance issues.
I imported one folder containing 163 photos to two different locations - the folder and the images were the same but imported into two separate locations in Aperture as I was trying to create the ideal file structure for me.
These are the questions and/or problems I have.
1. This IS NOT a major problem. As much as I tried to import photos into an album or folder I couldn't do it. I don't like the project concept and prefer to have my images placed into folders or albums. My iPhoto library was imported by Aperture using this structure. The iPhoto library is a folder with albums as subdivisions as they were set up in iPhoto originally. However, this doesn't seem to be working as I import photos from other locations.
Q: How can I import photos into folders or albums and completely avoid the projects concept and icons ?
2. This IS major problem. Performance was very poor. I imported the folders last night and waited for approximately 30 min until I decided to turn my computer off. Aperture gave me a message stating that it was still generating previews and asking me if I wanted to quit. I pressed the OK button and turned the computer off. This morning I launced Aperture again and it went back to the spinning wheel on both projects. It must have taken approximately 45 min until the spinning wheels were no longer turning.
This is a problem for me as I have a library with approximately 15,000 - 20,000 images. The ones I imported last night were CR2 generated by a Canon 1Ds MK II (17 MB each). I can only imagine how long it would have taken had I chosen to import the 120+ MB TIFF images I also have in my library from slide scans.
My Aperture preferences have been set for Preview Quality = 12 and Limit Preview Size = Don't Limit. I have it set this way as I don't with to have reduced size previews so that (1) they can display with the highest possible quality as I mostly use the full screen mode for viewing and selecting images, and (2) in case I upgrade to a larger monitor in the near future (I have a 23" cinema display but am planning to upgrade to a 30") the previews will still work with that monitor.
Is this performace typical of Aperture ? I understand my camera is a professional camera that generates large images but isn't Aperture supposed to be a professional application aimed at professional photographers ? And what about those who work with 39 MB images from a Hasselblad or with scanned 120+ MB slide images ?
Is there something obvious I have forgotten to look at or set up in Aperture ?
Thank you in advance,
Joseph Chamberlain

Steve:
Thank you very much for your reply to my post and for your suggestions. Some comments about my experience appear below. I am grateful for your help and don't wish in any way to discuss what you recommend below. I just wish to share my view of this issue and also to try to find the best answers for my problem.
For 1, use File > Import > Folders Into A Project. That will retain your folder
structure using brown folders and albums.
See:
http://www.bagelturf.com/aparticles/library/fivesimple/index.html and
http://www.bagelturf.com/aparticles/library/brown/index.html and
http://www.bagelturf.com/aparticles/library/libinadv/index.html
A. You can't. Projects are the container for everything in Aperture. No
projects, no images. So just live with them and subnvert them any way you
like. I don't have "projects" so I just use months, vacations, events, or
whatever keeps my image collections a reasonable size.
As an user I would like to have control over my own filing structure. This works quite well in iPhoto and I don't understand why Aperture chose to adopt this less flexible file structure. Also I noticed that the imported iPhoto library appears in Aperture inside a folder with multiple albums. Since Aperture can do this for iPhoto I find it hard to understand why it can't do for other imported images.
2. Turn off previews and delete the ones you have. When you find you need > them, use them selectively:
http://www.bagelturf.com/aparticles/previews/pwho/index.html
As stated in my previous post I always (no exception) use the full screen mode for viewing my images which is similar to a slide show. So according to the web page you reference above I would fall under the category of users that need previews.
You don't need high res previews. Aperture already generates thumbnails
for you.
General speed tips:
* Get the best video card with the most RAM you can afford
I can't. My computer is fairly new as it was purchased a little more than 2 years ago. Although it is a fairly new computer Apple no longer offers parts for it. My video card is an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro with 64 MB of VRAM installed. I have contacted Apple about this issue and they tell me there is nothing they can do. I have also contacted both ATI Radeon and nVidia and both have discontinued the only two cards they would work in my system (X800 XT Mac Edition and GeForce 6800, respectively).
* Smaller screens are faster than larger screens
My screen is 23" which I would consider to be a medium size screen by today's standards. However, isn't the purpose of working with Aperture to be able to develop a professional workflow ? And don't most professionals like to use large screens to view their work ?
* Avoid H&S adjustments until all the others are done
* Make sure you have sufficient RAM (2G minimum, 3G on a Mac Pro)
My system has 2.5 GB RAM installed. It has been suggested to me that I should add another 1 or 2 GB RAM as it would improve performance significantly. I have no problem doing that and would welcome that solution if I knew for a fact it was going to address my issues. However, I have already invested too much on hardware and software while still finding myself struggling with the issues I have described. Do you think the additional RAM would solve the problem ?
* Don't use previews unless you need them
Based on what I have read on the pages you referenced it seems to me I am one of those users who needs previews.
* Keep projects small. Use blue folders to group projects
My current filing structure is simple - I four folders each with subfolders containing in average 200 to 1000 images each. Some have as little as 1 image and some have 1000. But the majority would fall in the 300 to 400 images range.
* Rebuild the database once in a while
* Quit other apps if memory is restrictive
It seems in this case that the RAM upgrade I mention above would be helpful. Would it allow me to run other applications while also running Aperture without any noticeable performance alteration ?
To a great extent you have to rethink your workflow once you use Aperture.
Many people do a lot of unnecessary things because they are coming from
an environment that forced them to. Start from scratch and ask yourself
why you do everything you do. Much of the effort you will find is wasted
because Aperture either does it for you or make it unnecessary.
I am trying to simply my workflow as much as I can but not at the expense of quality. Bridge CS2 did a very good job for me. In many ways it was the perfect application althout it didn't have many of the great features I find in Aperture for reviewing and selecting images. First it was simple - all you had to do was to create your own file structure and then point Bridge to the folders as it would create its own previews. Second it was fast - this process happened a lot faster compared to Aperture and Bridge CS3. Third it was high quality - the previews generated were high quality and could be seen with amazing resolution while in slide show viewing mode on my 23" screen. My upgrade to Bridge CS3 was disastrous as (1) it has many bugs Adobe hasn't taken the time to fix, (2) it is slow on average machines requiring the latest hardware to run efficiently which is unrealistic for most consumers and (3) the previews generated are soft and appear pixilated and in poor quality while in slide show view.
I am going back to Aperture after a very disappointing start as I was one of the very first to purchase the software as soon as it was introduced only to be frustrated with all of its bugs and design flaws. Aperture has one of the best interfaces I have seen on any imaging application and I would really like to use but after this new attempt to use and the barriers I have encountered I am not sure I can.
Joseph Chamberlain

Will iMac 27" Quad improve Aperture performance?

Hello:
I currently own a 24” iMac 3.06 core 2 duo with 4gb memory. Aperture is still slow, sometimes very slow, in making multiple adjustments.
I was thinking of upgrading to one of the new 27” quad core machines (i7 8gb ram). Is there any hope that this machine will run aperture noticeably better or will I be wasting my $?
Thanks,
Jeff Stulin

the benchmarks show the i7 to be up to 3x faster (geekbench) then your imac....but ps cs4 is only 10-20% faster....all software that fully utilized the i7 chip will fly on that machine....
the problem with the imacs is the storage bottleneck.....fw800 becomes a problem when you are working with a cpu and gpu that wants to and can push data around like the i7....so in theory, final cut would be amazing on this...but there is no way to get uncompressed video in or out!
great to have a superfast cpu to work with but files take forever to open up because there is no adequate way to transfer the data.....
i just got a SSD for my mbp and aperture flies all of a sudden.....the (referenced) library (all files on a external sata raid via expresscard slot) opens up instantly, adjustments are smooth...this is the biggest performance jump i have ever seen in a computer, and all i did was change the HD and add the sata....ps is not really faster (although open/save and scratch are much faster)...going to fw 800 feels like working on usb all of a sudden.....
the internal HDs in the new imacs have some kind of heat sensor, so swapping drives can't be done and it is really hard anyway....unlike a mbp, there is only one internal drive anyway (the optical cannot be swapped) and obviously sata is totally out.....
in short, as much as i **** for the new imacs and especially the i7, it just isn't a workhorse replacement.....and when the mbp comes with the i5 or i7 and cs5 can take advantage of the chips they will be the much better option....
you have a nice large screen and a fast cpu now.....aperture will be faster on a i7, but there are many other aspects to consider all of which involve data transfer and none of the imacs can improve your situation in that regard......

Sapphire HD 7950 on a 2009 MacPro - Aperture Performance

Hi,
Read a few palces here and in other forums but no definite word on the increase performance of the Sapphire HD 7950 over the ATI Radeon HD 4870 on a MacPro 2009. I wonder if someone that made the upgrade would mind comenting. I made a few upgrade to my current tower (SSD drives, 32RAM and USB3 card) so I can wait a couple more years to get a new MacPro. I wonder if it is worth the graphic card upgrade. This machine is for Aperture mostly (iMovie, Pixelmator, iWork, Web etc) and I don't play any games.
Best regards
Raf

Thank you for your answer but I have read all these topics before and I didn't find the information about the resolution supported with this graphic card on OSX (with the display port)...
Yes this card is able to be Up to 3840 x 2160 resolution at 60Htz, but only on windows because apple driver can not support this resolution for this card (for now).
I just want to know if I can connect a monitor with a resolution of 3440 x 1440px at 60Htz on mini Dipslay Port 1.2 with the last version of OSX 10.9.4.
If I ask this question on apple support, it's because I didn't find answers on the web and Sapphire support told me to ask my question here...
I will be sad to buy this monitor if I can not use it on OSX...
Thank you very much and sorry to be insistent.
Alexis.

Will building the preview images kill Aperture performance?

So Aperture 1.5 will have the option to continually generate JPG preview images. This is how it gets the new "drag and drop iPhoto like ability" because when you do a drag out of Aperture to another app or desktop you are merely copying a file and not rendering a JPG file on the fly...
I cannot imagine what this will do to performance to have preview images being constantly generated in the background.. Everytime you make an adjustment to a version, the machine will be taxed with generating a JPG based on your preferences, almost like doing an export after each adjustment..
I am basing this on how much work it takes Aperture 1.1.2 to export images...

Preview-building won't get in your way, as it is designed to happen in the background, only when you are not directly interacting with the application. The moment your actions require CPU cycles, automatic preview-creation is temporarily paused and then restarts again when you're not working on images.
In addition, you have control over when and how previews are made. You can turn off automatic preview creation and then generate the previews on demand for only specific projects, or only for selected images. (For example, create previews only for your selects, not for the alternates or rejects in stacks).
If you need previews of certain images immediately, you can choose a command to generate the previews; this action becomes a high-priority request and is moved to the front of the queue so that the previews are made right away.
Joe Schorr
Sr. Product Manager, Aperture
Apple

Aperture Performance Bottleneck- the Straighten Tool ?

While waiting for the next generation of MacPro's, I'm constantly frustrated by the performance of Aperture. I've got a maxed out MBP with 7,200 RPM internal drive, referenced masters on an ultrafast eSATA RAID, latest updates of everything, fresh OS, rebuilt Aperture Libraries, full test for bad RAM, etc. My current working library is around 25,000 images, and I try to keep projects to less than 1,000 each.
But some images take forever (up to a minute!) to load, and making adjustments often instantly brings up the spinning beach ball of death. It's gotten to the point where I dread sitting down to work because of the inevitable frustration and lack of productivity.
Last night I was reading Vincent Laforet's blog about the 28,000 or so shots he made at the Olympics. He uses Aperture, and while he may have a slightly more powerful 17" MBP, I can't imagine that he would use an application that would slow him down in the slightest. What is going on here....
I made a fresh library and put a few images in it and started playing around. One thing I noticed was that using the straighten tool seems to slow down the responsiveness of the sliders in the other adjustments. In other words, I can adjust white balance, exposure and enhance with only minor slowdown as I move from one brick to the next, but once I apply straightening, then things start crawling or spinning or hanging. I haven't tested this thoroughly, but my guess is that other similar tools such as cropping, or retouching may also have a disproportionate affect. If I remove all the adjustments, the images load instantly, and the sliders are responsive again.
Yes, I have read and applied Bagelturfs excellent advice on the subject: http://www.bagelturf.com/aparticles/tips/tipperf/index.php
and yes my 30" is probably slowing things down a bit, but the slowdowns are way beyond acceptable.
While a high horsepower desktop will certainly help, I still need to use my MBP on the road. Short of dreaming of Aperture 2.1.2 (or 3.x) and whatever improvements it may or may not bring, I'm really curious how other people who are trying to use Aperture for daily professional work on the MBP are dealing with this.

OK, did some testing.....
1) Did a 100% fresh install on an external FW800 drive. No Share/Freeware, just OS & Aperture. App launched slightly faster, but not much. Adjustments seemed ever so slightly faster, but not much. Overall experience was about the same.
2) Disconnected the external monitor and ran Aperture from the fresh install. Everything seemed snappier. Image pops into full screen much faster. Adjustements were snappy. Adding the Straighten adjustment did slow things down, but overall performance was improved.
3) Booted back to my daily OS (which has some free/shareware, but mostly mainstream stuff and no Unsanity, APE, etc.) Tested in my normal configuration. Seemed about the same as running off the fresh OS.
4) Ran from my daily OS, but without the external. Bingo. Snappy. Can move the levels slider in real time. Could not get any of the adjustments to beachball. Straighten slows things slightly.
So it looks like the video card is the culprit. I've got a mid-2007 MBP with the 256MB of VRAM. I see the newest MBPs have 512MB (but still using the same GeForce 8600)
I upgraded from my 23" ACD to the 30" NEC for both color accuracy and to speed up my workflow by giving myself more real estate for comparison, etc., but I now see that without a MacPro and speedy graphics card I've shot myself in the foot. I'd spring for a MP except a refresh seem like its probably right around the corner. Would be wonderful if Apple shifted its focus away from the iPhone/iTunes for a few nanoseconds and released a real workstation.....
In the meantime I'm in this strange limbo where if I want to use my ultra color accurate monitor for adjusting images, I have to deal with slow motion software. (BTW, the NEC LCD3090wQXi and Spectraview software is fantastic. Maybe 95% the quality of an EIZO for 50% of the cost.)

Aperture Performance Sluggish When in Full Screen Mode

Hi
I have an iMac 3.06 GHz with a NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS:with 512 MB of VRAM and 4GB of RAM and every time I go to Aperture's fullscreen mode performance is sluggish. When I click on buttons with my mouse it takes them about 3 to 5 seconds to actually realize they've been clicked. Also when I try to adjust something in a HUD, it takes forever to register my command. I would love to be able to use full screen mode because of my big screen on my iMac but it's really not worth it if it's this slow.
All help appreciated
Thanks in advance
macdiscuss

My problem has been solved. It was just my particular photo.

IMac & Aperture performance?

I'm going to be switching from PC, and my primary usage is photography with Photoshop and hopefully the opportunity to now use Aperture.
Is anyone using Aperture with an iMac? I would be getting a 20" with the full 2ghz RAM and the upgraded 256mb graphics card. I understand Aperture to be heavily dependant on the card for performance.
Any feedback is appreciated. My other option is a Mac Pro but this seems a little overkill for personal use (not to mention the additional costs...)
Many thanks

I use Aperture on the 20" imac along with Lightroom (beta) and Photoshop CS2. Aperture is designed to use the gpu of the video card and it is very fast on my iMac. Both Aperture and Lightroom are univeral binary applications. Photoshop CS2 is not a universal binary application as of yet so it runs under the Rosetta emulator. Given that is still runs faster on my iMac than my 3.0ghz P4 machine with 1 gig of ram.

Aperture performance on G5

Hi
I'm considering getting aperture and would like to get some idea of how fast it will perform on my system - I've heard that Aperture can be sluggish.
I've got a Dual G5 2 Ghz, 2 GM raw with an ATI Radeon 9600 XT Graphics card with 128 MB raw.
I know this meets the minimum system requirements listed by Apple for Aperture. However, its recommended system requirements don't mention my graphics card. Do I need a faster graphics card?
Thanks
Daul G5 2 Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.5) 2 gigs memory, 250 gb hd

There was a common problem when upgrading the raw engine to 1.1 with the 1.1 update. When migrating images to raw 1.1 two procesing steps happened, one visible through the obvious progress bar, the second only visible through the rotating circle in the control bar and it takes ages to do its thing.
This second step caught me and others out thinking the 1.1 raw update killed perfromance, but it was actually just the second processing step running on. It took over 25 mins to complete a batch of my raws (CR2). If you leave the system to complete this without doing other work you get back to normal performance.
It could be that Charles system needs some Aperture alone time, then hopefully you'll get back to the performance you had under 1.01. These 1.1 conversion perfromance hiccups only happen when you convert to raw 1.1 from raw 1.01 and its a one time hit. Just a thought...

Aperture performance on old vs. new MBP

I run Aperture 3.1 on a MBP3,1 (late '07/early '08) with 2.4Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM, and nVidia 8600 with 128MB.
I'm thinking of u/g to a current model MBP so today I went into my local Apple Store and found a 17" MBP, 2.53Ghz Core i5, 4GB RAM, nVidia 330 with 512MB with Aperture installed and I was disappointed to say the least with the performance as it didn't seem noticeably quicker than mine.
I use 10Mpx Canon CR2 raw files and my MBP takes ~3-5 secs to render each one - the time the Loading... message is displayed. The one in the Apple Store had 12.6Mpx Nikon NEF raw files and took about the same time to render them.
Given that my MBP is 3 generations old and so current h/w is - or should be - significantly more powerful, especially the GPU, I would have expected a very noticeable increase in performance. I would have expected a render time of 1-2 secs.
OK, so it wasn't a very scientific test, I wasn't comparing identical files, and maybe the ones on the Store machine had more adjustments than most of mine, but even so I would have expected to notice a difference.
I'm now wondering whether it is worth u/g to a current gen MBP. What are others experience of Aperture on different generations if h/w? Should 25% larger files make such a difference? Are Nikon NEF files more time consuming to render than Canon CR2 files?
Any observations, advice, or recommendations would be appreciated.

I have the same system that is MBP 15" Santa Ana 2.4 Ghz 4 4GB RAM, and nVidia 8600 running latest 10.6.5 and latest AP3.1.1 . I obtained much increase in AP3 performance when I read "Kevin Doyle" blog where he explained AP3 frag. problems, solved by operating the Aperture Library from an external HDD. So I purchased a Gtech 500GB w/ eSata, Sonnet SATA Express 34 (2port), Addonnics eSATA CF card reader. My files from Canon 1D MkIII (10mp). I import direct into AP3 using the import function a project, renaming, adding metadata, light colour balance adjustments, backup CR2 to Gtech 250GB on firewire 800. 250 to 300 files = 15 min. AP3 does take another 15 min, max to process if we are shooting an indoor arena with ISO. It use to take 45-60 min. w/ AP2 + I was forced to rename in Cannon DPP = very slow. The external eSATA HDD has changed my life and I will be forced to buy a MBP 17" to get Express 34 form factor, thanks Apple! I have a friend that just bought a MBP I7 17" to work with her MBP Santa Ana. she has not tested difference in speed yet.

Any Tips on Maximizing Computer Performance?

Windows has defrag and disk cleanup for all of their unresolved problems, but does Mac have an equivalent program to give the computer an extra push? I'm perfectly fine with my performance right now, but who would complain about getting a bit extra out of it? I'm running on my Intel-Based MacBook on OSX10.4.11

As mentioned defrag is not needed. Here is Apples take on it. About disk optimization with Mac OS X
Mac OS X: How to force background maintenance tasks ( logs and temporary items)
I prefer to use Onyx for the maintenance issues addressed in the second link. MacJanitor is also good.

Maximizing Aperture Performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for