Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How fast a Mac do you need for aperture?  (Read 10303 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« on: May 05, 2007, 01:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Repeatedly I have read about Aperture being such a demanding software.

I have an iMac 2.1 ghz with 1.5 gb ddr2 ram.

How would aperture run on this machine?

Any recommendations?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Gabe
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2007, 02:30:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Repeatedly I have read about Aperture being such a demanding software.

I have an iMac 2.1 ghz with 1.5 gb ddr2 ram.

How would aperture run on this machine?

Any recommendations?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It should run reasonably well, although that will depend to a large degree on the size and type of original you're working with, as well as how many images you have in your library. The most recent update did quite a bit in terms of performance improvement.

I'd definitely recommend maxing out the RAM in your iMac if it isn't already though -- Aperture eats RAM like you wouldn't believe.
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6730


« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2007, 03:41:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Repeatedly I have read about Aperture being such a demanding software.

I have an iMac 2.1 ghz with 1.5 gb ddr2 ram.

How would aperture run on this machine?

Any recommendations?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It should be OK but you should really download the [a href=\"http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/]trial version[/url] and see for yourself.
Logged

Francois
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2007, 11:27:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks.

It doesn't have to run superfast right now, as I will upgrade this year (I hope they will put in more RAM slots in the next generation of iMacs).

I just wonder if you have experience with both Aperture and Lightroom. Is Lightroom really faster than Aperture? When you read the Lightroom threads, it looks like it isn't.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2007, 11:37:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It should be OK but you should really download the trial version and see for yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What does actually happen, if you try out both Aperture and Lightroom in their trial versions. Will you still have access to the photos you worked on if you don't choose the software.

I think I like Aperture better, but I want to try both. And I want to be sure that my work isn't locked up with the application which I don't buy.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2007, 01:59:54 PM »
ReplyReply

With Aperture RAM and CPU is less important than the video card (not to say they don't count, just not as much as the video card). It doesn't matter how buff your system is, if you have the low-end video card Aperture will crawl. The reason is that Aperture is video hardware accelerated.

The base video card on the tower is the GeForce 7300 and from the reviews I've read of aperture, that card is under-powered. You'll want to upgrade to the next one up, the ATI x1900. Unfortunately, the iMacs best card is the 7300 so performance may be rough especially when you have lots of adjustments going.

Download the trial and see if it'll work for you. I know the recent update to Aperture sped things up slightly but I don't know it that version is the same as the trial. When I tried it, the trial was 1.1 when 1.5 was out.

I think it's a safe bet Lightroom will perform better on your iMac than Aperture since LR is CPU and RAM-bound and does not rely on the video card.

Quote
What does actually happen, if you try out both Aperture and Lightroom in their trial versions. Will you still have access to the photos you worked on if you don't choose the software
Yes. LR will store everything in a file folder structure you can easily read. Aperture keeps everything in a package which you can view by right-clinking on it and selecting "show contents." However, I don't know how the images are structured inside.

I think metadata is exchangeable when you export since it's XMP-based in both apps but otherwise what you do in one will stay there.

When testing, set aside copies of some images from your main collection and import those into the programs.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2007, 02:11:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just wonder if you have experience with both Aperture and Lightroom. Is Lightroom really faster than Aperture? When you read the Lightroom threads, it looks like it isn't.
I work on a Dual 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac with 5.5GB RAM and a ATI 9650 card (faster than the 7300 but not much) LR is faster than Aperture and that is not in reference to adjusting images. Performance in adjusting images were about the same in both for me but the interface was more sluggish in Aperture and Aperture will make you wait for tasks to complete where LR will allow you to work while operations occur in the background. LR for me felt snappier.

More than that, I found the interface in Aperture to be far more complicated than needed. It's very customizable and can be easy once set up but it requires a somewhat steep learning curve to get a hang of it first. LR is strait forward and doesn't require much of a learning curve to start using it.

In short, if you are tech-savvy and used to using a wide array of complicated applications then Aperture will be just fine and you may actually like the customization available. But if you are not computer savvy, LR will be a better bet.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2007, 02:13:28 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2007, 03:49:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With Aperture RAM and CPU is less important than the video card (not to say they don't count, just not as much as the video card). It doesn't matter how buff your system is, if you have the low-end video card Aperture will crawl. The reason is that Aperture is video hardware accelerated.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, my current video card with the iMac g5 2.1ghz is an ATI Radeon X600 XT, which seems to be even below the 7300.

I guess I will try out both applications, and see what fits better (as I won't lose the images when the trial freeze up, this is great).
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2007, 03:50:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I am really curious if Apple will give us the choice of video card.

As iMacs are so popular, and apple applications are video card driven (final cut is possible the same thing), it would make sense to give higher end useres a choice.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2007, 03:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

61Dynamic, what do you think about the RAW engine of LR. On the LR threads I could read several complaints about it, expressing is was the same not so good RAW engine like in photoshop.

Is there something to it, and is Aperture's RAW engine really better?

I heard raves about bibble's RAW engine and the included noise ninja noise reduction in the pro version. But isn't Bibble falling short of being an allrounder software like Aperture and Lightroom?

Where would you see Bibble in comparison?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2007, 04:43:16 PM »
ReplyReply

LR uses the same raw engine as ACR, which has been great since 2.4 which is when I decided to switch to it from C1. I have to gander that people complaining about it either don't know what they are doing or simply like a different aesthetic look than what comes from ACR by default.

Aperture's raw engine is very young and actually is worse in some cases than ACR (I've read reports of it printing noisy images, particularly in skies). V1 was really bad with severe noise and mosaic patterns but most of that has improved to the point where it can compete with C1, ACR, etc depending on one's tastes.

I see Bibble as a last-generation application just as is C1, RSE, Bridge/ACR, and so on. It is not an all-round management system. There are only two applications currently in existence like that. Lightroom and Aperture.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 374


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2007, 05:04:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am really curious if Apple will give us the choice of video card.

As iMacs are so popular, and apple applications are video card driven (final cut is possible the same thing), it would make sense to give higher end useres a choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On the 24" iMac you can choose an upgraded video card with twice the RAM and a faster clock speed.
Logged

CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 374


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2007, 05:08:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
Yes. LR will store everything in a file folder structure you can easily read. Aperture keeps everything in a package which you can view by right-clinking on it and selecting "show contents." However, I don't know how the images are structured inside.

I think metadata is exchangeable when you export since it's XMP-based in both apps but otherwise what you do in one will stay there.

...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Aperture can also store images in a file folder structure you can easily read.  This functionality was added in Aperture 1.5, so it's been available for nearly a year.

As far as metadata -- Aperture can export metadata in XMP files.  These can be read and used by Lightroom (or ACR, or anything that can read XMP files).  I've tried this, and it works nicely.  Unfortunately, Aperture cannot import XMP metadata, so getting that data in would be tricker.  It would be possible to whip up an Automator script to do this, but that would be work.  Perhaps there are 3rd party solutions that would ease this -- in the same way that the product 'Annoture' makes it easy to move metadata out of iView Multimedia Pro and into Aperture.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad