Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

283Re: Graphics card frustration and 1.1.1 - new member

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Tukker
    May 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry 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
      do retouching.
      The power of Aperture for me is the standard RAW conversion, it is
      just drop dead gorgeous compared to any other RAW convertrer.

      Best,

      Thomas
      http://www.thomastukker.com

      --- In aperture@yahoogroups.com, 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
      > things.
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > Stroller.
      >
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic