Which iMac for large Aperture library

I want to continue using Aperture to manage my 100G plus library. I'm looking at iMac 21.5 versus 27 inch. I'm used to the portability of the MacBook Air but USB 2 is much too painful.
I plan to upgrade to the 1 TB fusion drive but do I need 8 versus 16 G RAM?
Is it worth upgrading to I7 versus i5?
I use my computer for photos and short videos (display only) - no gaming - basic web surfing and basic word apps.
How realistic is it to drag the 27 inch PC around the house?
Screen size isn't that important to me.

If you intend to use a 21.5" always get 16GB becasue Aperture can use RAM and you cannot upgrade the RAM on the 2012/13 21" iMacs. As far as the CPU, either the i5 or i7 are fine, Aperture is not CPU intensive. New MBA's use USB 3 which is considerable quicker than USB 2. However they are limited on storage space, what you can (and probably should do) is save your Aperture library on an EHD.

Similar Messages

How do I import a large Aperture library from an external disk?

I have a large Aperture library, about 110GB of photos, it currently resides on an external USB3 drive for space reasons. I'd like to migrate this into Photos, but every time I try I get an error: "There is not enough disk space to migrate your library. It is estimated that you need at least 21GB of additional free space."
From finder, if I get info on my Mac's main drive, it says I have 297.51 GB available, and on disk, my Aperture library is 105.8 GB. There is almost 3x as much space available as I should need!? And after the first time I tried this I freed up an additional 30 GB of space and still received the same message, still claiming to need 21 GB of space.
My drive has FileVault enabled, would that matter?

I experienced the exact same problem. I have a iPhoto Library in another volume (or partition) with very small free space, while main/system partition (Macintosh HD) has big enough free space.
Turned out, the one that should have big free space is the volume/partition that contains original iPhoto Library (to import from), not the system partition. So, I freed up some space, reopen Photos app (while holding Alt key), and select the iPhoto Library to import. It works!

I recently moved my Aperture Library file to an external hard drive. Can I now create a vault to be saved on my Time Capsule for the Aperture library on this external hard drive?

I recently moved my Aperture Library file to an external hard drive. Can I now create a vault to be saved on my Time Capsule for the Aperture library on this external hard drive?

One thing to bear in mind, if you are using Time Machine on your Time Capsule and have it set so the TM backup includes your external drive, you will effectively be backing up your Aperture library twice on the same drive, once with Time Machine and once with the vault. This isn't a problem unless you start to run out of space.
Another thing to note, vaults on network drives used to be flaky (i.e. not really supported) and required workarounds to be able to use them. I'm not sure if this has changed, but I just managed to create a vault on my TC ok.

Disconnect Large Aperture Library from FCP X

Hi,
I have a large Aperture library of over 200 gigs that takes over 10 minutes to load when I start FCP X. I'd like to disconnect Aperture altogether from FCP X and then just save the few jpgs I need, when I need them to a folder that I can then pull the photos from. How can I do that?
Thanks,
Don

I experienced the exact same problem. I have a iPhoto Library in another volume (or partition) with very small free space, while main/system partition (Macintosh HD) has big enough free space.
Turned out, the one that should have big free space is the volume/partition that contains original iPhoto Library (to import from), not the system partition. So, I freed up some space, reopen Photos app (while holding Alt key), and select the iPhoto Library to import. It works!

Need Step-by-Step Instructions for Moving Aperture Library to New iMac

I've been using Aperture on an old MacBook Pro and am totally out of memory on it (I have less than 4GB free out of 465 GB). I'm needing to move my Aperture library over to a newly purchased iMac.
I have already installed Aperture on the new iMac and have updated the version to 3.5.1. Aperture on my old MacBook Pro is version 3.4.5. Will this difference in versions be a problem as I move the library over?
On the MacBook Pro, I use a referenced library, housing all of my masters on an external drive. I had to do this because of insufficient memory/storage capacity.
I do not have any vaults.
While I had been backing up to an old TimeMachine, I ran into problems with it a few months back (would spin and spin and spin and never complete a backup) and stopped attempting to back up to it. We have purchased a new TimeMachine for use with the new iMac, but have not had our AV guys out to the house to connect it to an otherwise overly complicated whole-house AV system. So, I'm afraid TimeMachine is not the useful mechanism in transferring the library to the new computer.
The thunderbolt connection evidently will not work with the old MacBook Pro, so this isn't the transfer mechanism either.
Please tell me in very simple steps how to move my library over to the new computer. Please! I have read through the Aperture users manual and do not see this topic addressed directly, though it is vaguely mentioned within the discussion on vaults. I have searched this community and do not find a simple enough explanation.
Do I need to run out and get another external drive and set up a vault to do the transfer? But, would that even work with the referenced library? There is no way I can convert to a managed library on the MacBook Pro, as I am out of space.
Please help! I have tons of photo projects that I was wanting to complete for the holidays gift-giving, but I'm at a standstill until I can get up and running on the new computer.
Many thanks for your feedback

If you cannot connect the old mac via thunderbolt or firewire in target mode, an external drive - large enough to hold the library plus some additional free space - would really be the best option for the transfer. I would not use the network to copy a referenced library. You do not need to create a vault.
Connect the drive to the old Mac.
Make sure the external drive is formatted for Mac - MacOS X Extended (Journaled).
Set the "Ignore Ownership on this volume" flag on the external drive.
Copy the Aperture library over to the external drive by dragging it in the Finder.
Now double-click it to open it in Aperture.
To move all references images to the external drive select all images in Aperture in the Photos view and use the command "File > Relocate Originals" and select a folder on your external drive as the destination.
Once the library and the referenced files are safely on your external drive, I'd run a "Repair" using the First Aid Tools: See this Manual page: Repairing and Rebuilding Your Aperture Library: Aperture 3 User Manual
Test the library on the new drive and check, if everything transferred safely.
Now dismount the drive and connect it to your new mac.
Copy the library to your new Mac by dragging it in the Finder from the drive to a folder on your new mac.
Now double-click it to open it in Aperture. Aperture will now upgrade it to version 3.5.
Use the command "File > Relocate Originals" to move the originals where you want them.
Regards
Léonie

Large Aperture Library 250GB

Afternoon App,
I have a large 250GB Library for Aperture - which is currently backed up on my External hard drive via Time Machine.
Im looking to update my laptop Mac Pro 2012 to Mac Pro 2013 Retina - but as these come with SSD im never going to fit it all in with my current setup (Used 550GB) this runs off a Hybrid SSD and Normal Disc drive.
Question - I dont think you can upgrade the retina drive to a normal drive ? - if you can then this wouldnt be a problem as I would swop the two drives over.
Question 2 - If you cant and have to use SSD - then what is the best way for me to keep my libary in tact - ie one folder structure - but off load the orginal images onto a drive ? Im guessing this would be the way todo it' ?
If someone could help I would be really greatful ?
Mick

Hi Mick,
Swapping out an unused CD-ROM for a useful HDD is a good exchange. OWC can likely help you determine what you can do and what parts you need.
I run a mixed Library on my personal machine (rMBP w. 500 GB SSD, no second drive bay). People generally think that it's the Library that is either referenced or managed, but it is more properly each Image's Original that is referenced or managed. I keep my Library on my laptop's SSD, import all new files into it with managed Originals, and once every month or so relocate the Originals of any Images that are older then 45 days. So my Library functions as a kind of processing tube: files come in, they are indexed, they are adjusted to my needs, and then the files are moved to an external HD. The index, and the Previews, stay with the Library, which stays on my laptop. With some tweaking for portfolio Images and incomplete projects, this system works well for me.
Note, though, that bus speeds for external drives are no longer the bottleneck they used to be. IME, you lose nothing perceptible if you put your entire Library on an external drive connected via USB-3 (or, I assume, Thunderbolt).
Having your system files on a large SSD, and your Library on a second internal drive, is almost ideal for a laptop.
In all cases I recommend leaving 100 GB unused on your SSD. OS X and Aperture are good at using this "scratch" space.
HTH,
--Kirby.

Backing up and Restoring a large Aperture library

One of our departments is looking to backup their Aperture library (170 Gb and growing). They would like to do an initial backup of everything, and then incrementally from that point. We tried using Retrospect it backed up fine although it took about 30 hours to do it, but when we tested the restore after the full back up a good portion of the photos were inaccessible.
We then backed up a small portion of the library and then tried a restore and all the photos are there.
Any suggestions?
Does Vault allow for incremental backups?
Thank for any help
Denny

I simply copy Aperture Library file (approximately 76 Gb) on an external Hard disk (FW800).
Time of copying approximately 1 hour.
Thus backup copy works perfectly. I have one more Mac and Aperture (MacBook). I once a week copy Aperture Library file on MacBook, it as reserve working station for me, and also on some photos session I take MacBook with myself. Aperture (witch backup library from iMac) works on it fine.

I only import referenced pictures, why y do I have large Aperture library?

Firstly, thank you all for your answers to my previous posts
You are helping me wonderfully in migrating to Aperture
Given my increasingly limited disk space and other management reasons, i only import referenced pictures leaving them in their original locations.
1. I seem to have a what i think is a large and growing Aperture library even though i save no images to the library (eg 1.2G for 2000 pics averaging 300K in size). Is this just the overhead required for using the application and all its edits, previews and references or could i be doing something wrong?
2. If i drag and drop a picture into a project and folder, will it always be a referenced picture or wil it depend on some setting somewhere to determine what happens with a drag and drop import?
Thanks in Advance

I'm a relatively new Aperture user, but I think your library size is comparable to what I'm seeing, and it is previews, editing info etc that takes up the space.
As I understand it, if you drag and drop within Aperture, a referenced file will simply be re-indexed in the new location but remain a references file. If you drag and drop from a folder outside Aperture into Aperture, you will import the file rather than reference it. So far, from my experimenting, you need to use the import dialogue to keep it to referenced files.

Suggestions for large iTunes library?

I have a very large iTunes library (110G) on an external drive, which I use only occasionally. The rest of the time, I use a smaller on on my MacBook.
When I want to use the large one, which I usually do via Airport, it can take hours to update itself. The "Genius" for example, can take hours just by itself... Then it does something for "gapless playback" or something...
Why does it need to do all of this stuff, and why does it take so long? Is all of this updating done on the external drive so it won't have to be updated again from another computer? (so, for example, if my wife opens that library from her computer.)
Or does anyone have tips for managing a large iTunes library that is only used infrequently?
Thanks,
Mark

"One more question, if you do have a second library you option into, are the library documents on the external drive or in your music/iTunes folder?" So they have all been on the external drive. I called Apple Support about dead tracks issue, and the 1st guy told me I SHOULD split them up, but that caused issues and I called back and the 2nd guy told me NOT to do that, so I've left them all on the external drive. The 2nd guy seemed more knowledgeable than the 1st guy.
I was hoping you weren't going to say that. My thought was that the library needed to be on the machine with the music so that multiple libraries on different machines weren't trying to manage the same music. So much for that theory.
This being the case, it would be interesting to see how it behaves if the library lives on your macbook.
This experiment would be easy and risk free:
Option into "create a new library" and create this new library in your music folder on your macbook.
While in this blank library go to the advanced preference tab and deselect "Copy files to the itunes media folder.....)
Then, from the itunes file menu browse to the music folder on the external drive and select it.
This will build a library that lives on your machine while the music files continue to live on the external.
This experiment is only worthwhile if you are sure that the library database for the music on the external drive lives on that external drive.
The risk with having the library live on your machine is that another library on another machine might also try to manage this music (your wife's machine for example) potentially causing a mismatch between your library and the music folder.
I hope that makes sense.

Which iMac for Editing ACVHD video?

Hello all,
I am a long-time PC user in need of a new computer and thinking of making the switch to an iMac. I have hours of HD video shot on a Canon Vixia HF200 camcorder, and even my high-end work computer bogs down trying to edit HD video.
How much horsepower is recommended in an iMac for editing AVCHD? I know that more is always better, but from a dollars perspective, middle of the road is where I am aiming.

Most Mac OS X editing applications transcode AVCHD to an intermediate format (Apple Intermediate Codec, or ProRes if you were to use Final Cut Studio) for editing, so you don't need that much horsepower (but lots of disk space).
You might be able to edit AVCHD natively using Adobe Premiere or Premiere Elements, in which case a powerful computer would help. It may also be possible to trick Apple's apps into editing AVCHD natively by remuxing to .mov with something like ClipWrap.
I'd say get an iMac as powerful as you can afford (favoring the quad-core over a similarly-priced dual-core configuration), and consider keeping money aside for accessories (e.g. external drives) or extended warranty.

Which iMac for use with Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom

Any opinions on which iMac is best for use with Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom. Not sure if the 2.7 i5 with 512 graphics card is Plenty of power or if upgrading to the 3.1 i5 or 3.4 i7 is a wiser choice given the price differences. Appreciate the help

So I was reading over your post, and even though this is older and has to do with CS5, I have some information for CS6 that will be relevant to your question now that it is time to upgade the software. In general Photoshop has always been more about RAM than Processing power, though that is important too. Until CS5 it could never quite take advantage of what multi-core processors really had to offer, and even the graphics card didn't really effect much of it outside of certain features and the 3D optio
Now that is no longer true and Adobe can effeciently use all aspects of the computer to give you much better performance.
So much so that I was able to buy a brand New ASUS with the following specs:
Dual Core 2.2GHz Processors
8GB of RAM (4GB original to the machine)
Windows 7 Home Premium 64Bit OS
320GB HDD w/ 5400RPM
This machine not only runs photoshop CS6 and Launches in less than 5 Seconds... it can run Premier and After Effects as well, and this Laptop cost me less than $400 (on sale at Best Buy 2 Weeks Ago. You don't have to buy something this cheap, but isn't it great that you can and still run Master Collection effectively?
You can read my details on how to buy a Photoshop CS6 Laptop, what specs you need, comparison between Mac and PC and watch the video of my Photoshop Speed Test by reading this article:
http://robertoblake.com/blog/2012/06/buying-a-photoshop-cs6-laptop

Large aperture library on external drive; too large to move to internal before switching to photos

I have a 395gb aperture library on an external drive. It used to reside on my old macbook pro, but i got a new one (retina) with a smaller hard drive and i haven't found a way to bring it over yet. My plan was (and i started) to slim it down by getting rid of photos and projects that I don't need, but it'll take a while.
I was hoping i could bring it over piecemeal, like by exporting some folders/projects as aperture libraries, and then importing them into photos, but i'm not sure that's possible.
I tried opening the aperture library (on the external) in photos so it would migrate, but it said i need much more space (the external is pretty full). Any ideas?
Thanks,
Adam

jpvp wrote:
Hi,
NoisyScott: do I understand it correctly that your masterfiles on the server are just sitting in a folder individually, or are they within an aperture library that is on the server that just has your masterfiles???
And FINALLY: can you back up your referenced files (or versions) as well, and how do you go about that?
My master files are just sitting in folders on the server. I leave the Aperture Library on my laptop hard drive as it just contains thumbnails, previews and the actual Aperture database.
You can back up your master images any way you want; a separate hard drive, a Network Attached Storage device, Mozy.com, Amazon S3, etc. The issue is that backing up these images is now up to you as you can't use the Aperture Vaults with referenced masters.
For what it is worth, moving master images around in Aperture is ridiculously easy once you get used to it. You can Reference your masters to a new location at any time you want, as many times as you like then change your mind and consolidate them to your Aperture Library (and thus make them managed masters again) all without Aperture missing a beat.
The critical thing to remember is you must do any and all Master Image file operations through Aperture.
If you decide to re-organize your Master Image folder structure through the finder, Aperture will no longer be able to connect to those Master Images and you then have to attempt to re-connect the images to the references in the Aperture database. This sounds like it should be easy, but for some reason Aperture has a very difficult time doing this. If you only ever use Aperture to move the files around, everything works swimmingly.
Try all of the Relocate and Consolidate Masters functions with a small test project or two at first until you are comfortable with how you want to organize all of your files and then go for it.
Good luck.

Migrate large Aperture library to Photos

I have a 450 GB Aperture Library that I am trying to migrate to Photos. The Aperture Library is located on my external hard drive. There I right-clicked on it and chose "open with Photos".
I tried this 3 times now and it always get stuck at 34% for hours.
Is anybody else experiencing this problem? Is there a solution?
Thanks!

The article does not explain what is imported into PHOTOS if your original IPHOTO library only had the addresses of the pictures not the source vs if you imported the full picture. That may be where the confusion lies on this issue.
The article only mentions "links" to the original library. Actually, the "Links" are hard links.
Instead, Photos saves disk space by creating links to the original and preview versions of your images.
When Finder reports the file size of your Photos library, it includes all your originals and previews. It may look like your remaining iPhoto or Aperture library is taking up twice the space on your hard drive, but it isn't—your images exist only in one location, even though you may have more than one photo library.
A hard link is different from the Aliases and symbolic links used for referenced originals.
A hard links is a duplicate entry in the file table and looks for all purposes like the original file. It will be reported with the same size as the original, but the entry in the file table will reference the same disk blocks as the original.
There is a big advantage to hard links: You can delete the original file and the hard link will still work, because the disk space will only be released, when all (hard)links to the files have been deleted. So you can safely delete either the original library or the Photos library and your images will not be deleted. The storage will only be freed, when both libraries have been deleted.
If you migrate a library with referenced images, they will remain referenced like before.

Can iCloud be used to synchronize a very large Aperture library across machines effectively?

Just purchased a new 27" iMac (3.5 GHz i7 with 8 GB and 3 TB fusion drive) for my home office to provide support. Use a 15" MBPro (Retina) 90% of the time. Have a number of Aperture libraries/files varying from 10 to 70 GB that are rapidly growing. Have copied them to the iMac using a Thunderbolt cable starting the MBP in target mode.
While this works I can see problems keeping the files in sync. Thought briefly of putting the files in DropBox but when I tried that with a small test file the load time was unacceptable so I can imagine it really wouldn't be practical when the files get north of 100 GB. What about iCloud? Doesn't appear a way to do this but wonder if that's an option.
What are the rest of you doing when you need access to very large files across multiple machines?
David Voran

Hi David,
dvoran wrote:
Don't you have similar issues when the libraries exceed several thousand images? If not what's your secret to image management.
No, I don't .
It's an open secret: database maintenance requires steady application of naming conventions, tagging, and backing-up. With the digitization of records, losing records by mis-filing is no longer possible. But proper, consistent labeling is all the more important, because every database functions as its own index -- and is only as useful as the index is uniform and holds content that is meaningful.
I use one, single, personal Library. It is my master index of every digital photo I've recorded.
I import every shoot into its own Project.
I name my Projects with a verbal identifier, a date, and a location.
I apply a metadata pre-set to all the files I import. This metadata includes my contact inf. and my copyright.
I re-name all the files I import. The file name includes the date, the Project's verbal identifier and location, and the original file name given by the camera that recorded the data.
I assign a location to all the Images in each Project (easy, since "Project" = shoot; I just use the "Assign Location" button on the Project Inf. dialog).
I _always_ apply a keyword specifying the genre of the picture. The genres I use are "Still-life; Portrait; Family; Friends; People; Rural; Urban; Birds; Insects; Flowers; Flora (not Flowers); Fauna; Test Shots; and Misc." I give myself ready access to these by assigning them to a Keyword Button Set, which shows in the Control Bar.
That's the core part. Should be "do-able". (Search the forum for my naming conventions, if interested.) Or course, there is much more, but the above should allow you to find most of your Images (you have assigned when, where, why, and what genre to every Image). The additional steps include using Color Labels, Project Descriptions, keywords, and a meaningful Folder structure. NB: set up your Library to help YOU. For example, I don't sell stock images, and so I have no need for anyone else's keyword list. I created my own, and use the keywords that I think I will think of when I am searching for an Image.
One thing I found very helpful was separating my "input and storage" structure from my "output" structure. All digicam files get put in Projects by shoot, and stay there. I use Folders and Albums to group my outputs. This works for me because my outputs come from many inputs (my inputs and outputs have a many-to-many relationship). What works for you will depend on what you do with the picture data you record with your cameras. (Note that "Project" is a misleading term for the core storage group in Aperture. In my system they are shoots, and all my Images are stored by shoot. For each output project I have (small "p"), I create a Folder in Aperture, and put Albums, populated with the Images I need, in the Folder. When these projects are done, I move the whole Folder into another Folder, called "Completed".)
Sorry to be windy. I don't have time right now for concision.
HTH,
--Kirby.

Which iMac for Video Editing?

Hi Folks,
After about 7 years with my Dell 4550 I am close to making a purchase of a new Mac and leaving the Windows world - Yeah!!! My decision is now coming down to how much I should spend on the video card. Basically it is a 300-500 premium to upgrade to the discrete video cards compared to the integrated graphics in the 2.66 model (granted you do get a ~10% faster processor at 2.93 as well).
What I am wondering is that for video editing (using iMovie) is there a significant difference in performance of the machine based on the video card? I do not play video games on the computer much as I have a Wii and XBOX already to have that area covered. Primarily I will use it for iTunes, iPhoto and HD Video (have a new baby we need to record!)
So my choices are mainly these three configurations to select from:
iMac, 24-inch, 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Part Number: Z0FP
2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
$1599
iMac, 24-inch, 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Part Number: Z0FQ
2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB
$1899
iMac, 24-inch, 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Part Number: Z0FQ
2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512MB
$2049
iMac, 24-inch, 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Part Number: Z0FQ
2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
$2099
Since I will not be gaming, are the more expensive video cards worth the premium in relation to video editing, iTunes and iPhoto main purposes of the computer?

I wouldn't stress it much. I recently bought a new iMac, but for years I have been editing my home movies with iMovie on my old G4 eMac. Granted these are standard def movies, not HD, but the point is, a lot of video editing doesn't require a lot of video horsepower. Most of your time will be spent scanning through thumbnails, picking parts to cut out, etc. None of it requires fantastic video displays and most of the time you are not paying attention to the quality of the playback (as long as it isn't stuttering) and are more concentrating on the content to figure out what you want to keep, trim, edit, etc. 90+% of the time you are not actually watching a lot of video simply playing.
So get what you can reasonably afford. If you can afford the best model, then go ahead and get it. But if money is a little tight and you have to make some tradeoffs, with digital video you will want to put money towards storage. Hard drive space gets used up FAST. So get the 1TB upgrade and invest some cash toward one or two large external hard drives (one dedicated just to storing your video and then the other for back ups, extra misc. storage, time machine, etc.). Fortunately external hard drives these days are about $100 give or take per Terabyte. For the drive you will want to use for your video work, I suggest spending the extra cash and getting a model with Firewire 800 connection, not just USB.
Have fun,
Patrick

Which iMac for large Aperture library

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for