283Re: Graphics card frustration and 1.1.1 - new member
- May 8, 2006Sorry but your video card is a huge difference with mine, which might
be the difference.
I go through shoots like nothing else when using Aperture and of
course I have Lightroom too but it just doesnt compare at all.
I use Aperture 90% of the time, rest is done in Photoshop if I need to
The power of Aperture for me is the standard RAW conversion, it is
just drop dead gorgeous compared to any other RAW convertrer.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Stroller <strolls_uk@...> wrote:
> On 8 May 2006, at 10:22, Thomas Tukker wrote:
> > For me 1.1.1 works great, no problems at all. My system is an older G5
> > dual 2.0 with a X800XT 256mb card and 3.5GB of RAM.
> I tried Aperture 1.1.1 for the first time last night, having switched
> from Aperture 1.0 when Lightroom Beta 1 came out.
> I have a dual 1.8 G5 with 3gig of RAM and the ATI Radeon 9600 XT
> video card, and the worst thing is straightening images. I have to
> click on the image, move the pointer and then wait seconds to see the
> image rotate. If I get impatient I eventually find the image see-
> sawing clockwise & anti-clockwise as it tries to follow my movements
> with several seconds' of lag. Honestly, at this, Aperture makes my G5
> feel like a 486! I have not felt like I had a computer this under-
> powered in nearly a decade.
> Other functions are not so snappy, but still usable - when I was
> trying the auto-levels buttons I thought initially they made no
> visible difference to the image. Then a few seconds later the image
> would update to reflect the changes. That's a lot more manageable
> than the rotation problem, tho', because the delay is _after_ the
> button click, rather than _while_ I'm holding the pointer.
> I notice that when I'm waiting for Aperture to perform these tasks
> the CPU & memory usage in Activity Monitor is quite reasonable -
> Safari often is more demanding when it has a few windows open! - so
> the problem is surely with the graphics card.
> I'd really like to try Aperture properly at full speed, because right
> now I'm not getting along with it at all - Aperture's controls seem
> far more complicated & less intuitive than those of Lightroom. I can
> open Lightroom, make my changes & in only a couple of minutes have an
> image that I'm happy with - right now this is usually impossible for
> me with Aperture. Hopefully at full speed I would get the opportunity
> to actually learn Aperture & appreciate it.
> The reason I moved back from Lightroom to Aperture is that Lightroom
> does some stuff in its library that I'm not happy about. In ~/
> Lightroom/Photos I have a number of directories, each named for one
> of my projects (or "shoots" as Lightroom calls them); I like this
> "open" approach to the library, but not enough to forgive its
> failings. I import from my 350D using the Canon utility, which dumps
> all the images in a folder named "2006_05_08"; when I then import
> into Lightroom the shoot name will default to "2006_05_08" and a
> folder will be created in Lightroom's library by this name. If I
> rename the shoot in Lightroom, the folder name in the Library remains
> unchanged however, and if I transfer the images to another shoot then
> I find that the empty directory remains in the Lightroom library. So
> the upshot of this is that after a dozen or two imports I am unable
> to accurately locate images in the library based on the "shoot" in
> which they're located in Lightroom, even though it would appear at
> first glance that I should be able to do so. So at the end of the day
> I tend to prefer Aperture's closed library which doesn't try to fool
> me into thinking I should be able to determine where it's keeping
> Other things I prefer about Aperture are its ability to handle dual-
> screens so well and its stacks feature. Stacks just seems to be an
> entirely logical way of working.
> Undoubtedly Lightroom will improve with later releases, and I'm
> blaming neither Apple nor Adobe for my annoyances - they're both
> trying to produce innovative software in an untested market segment
> and it's obvious that both products are improving rapidly. It's just
> frustrating being a user who wants a tool he can use _now_. If I
> wasn't new to digital photography in January then I'd probably have a
> workflow already established, probably involving Finder or Bridge &
> Photoshop; if had a workflow like that established for some time then
> - considering my current hardware - there would be no reason for me
> to change it.
> Right now, I'm dying for the release of the Intel PowrMacs - I don't
> want to spend money on a graphics card for this machine when I hope
> the Intel PowerMac release will be so soon. I play games
> occasionally, would do so more if I were able to boot into XP, and
> also work with XP for my job quite a lot, so the upgrade might make a
> lot of sense. This depends on price, of course, and there's a bit of
> me that says "wait until the second generation Intel PowerMacs as
> they'll be cheaper", but I really don't want to spend a lot of money
> on a graphics card for a machine I really want to replace within a year.
> For those of you concerned about the StrangeDogs cards then I advise
> you not to be. I have my beefs with those guys but they seem to be
> responsible enough to ensure that the drivers for the cards they sell
> on eBay are mature enough for consumer use. At the end of the day,
> fitting an incompatible graphics card is not going to toast your
> computer and the worst case scenario is that that the card is buggy
> or doesn't work with OS X quite as you anticipated. In this case you
> could easily fit the card in a PeeCee, flash it back to the original
> firmware and you have a card you can resell to a PeeCee user for 75%
> of what you paid for it. Yes, this 25% is a "risk" but betting 25% of
> a couple of hundred dollars against the retail price of a top-of-the-
> range Apple-certified cost is worthwhile, IMO.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>