This is a huge increase in performance.Īs in Aperture 3.2, this time advantage is from the ability of the app to browse, adjust and export images before they are all off the memory card. In terms of a wedding, you’ll be able to go through the ceremony photos while the bride and groom are eating. On a tight deadline, that is a very long time, especially during half-time. In a typical football game I shoot about 2000 images - that means I’ll save eight minutes going through those images. That’s two minutes of time savings for every five hundred images. Not once did I have to wait for the embedded jpeg to render, and it took only three minutes to look at fully rendered images. However, the experience of looking at those photos during the import was vastly improved. Overall, a pretty good time.Īgain, the copy time took right at nine minutes to complete. It moved along nicely for about 200 images and then started to get jumpy and the rendering would not keep up with the my pushing the right arrow key on the keyboard. The performance was much better on my iMac than it is on a newer and maxed out MBP, but still leaves room for improvement. That’s a major times savings, especially when there’s over a thousand images on a card and you have multiple cards. (Because of the way Aperture works, you don’t actually have to wait for the files to complete copying before you can view them at full resolution). However, it took only five minutes to browse those 500 images. It took nine minutes to copy 500 RAW images to an external FW800 drive from a CF card. We can only hope my efforts are consistent. It’s not an absolute timed import speed because it relies on a human to determine when to advance to the next frame. I will also admit this is where the test is weakest. I will do my best to consistent from one app to the next. If there is no delay in the rendering, I will still take time to look at the image just as I would during a real shoot. I will not move through the images so fast that I wouldn’t be able to see what the images are, but I will do it very fast nonetheless. As soon the image renders, I will push the right arrow button. So, I will time how long it takes to import and then look at the image in full resolution before moving onto the next image. The idea here is to see which app is best for importing and looking at rendered images the fastest. All the import settings will be as much the same as they can be. The images will be imported off a 32GB SanDisk Extreme Compact Flash card ( 60MB/s) using a Lexar FW800 card reader. I will use the same 27-inch iMac ( 12GB RAM, 2.93 GHz Intel Core i7) for all the work. I will import 500 RAW images from a Canon 1D Mark IV into a new Aperture 3.2 library, a new Aperture 3.3 Library, to a folder using Lightroom 4.1 and to a folder using Photo Mechanic. Are their perceptions correct? I want to know. They perceive it to be faster than Aperture and Lightroom. ![]() Many pro photographers still swear by Photo Mechanic for their deadline photo browsing and metadata duties. I hear it’s more responsive, and I want to know for sure. It made me wonder is Aperture faster than the other apps pro photographers use to do this? Adobe has recently made made Lightroom 4.1 available. They have made the speed in which the images draw to screen much faster. Now, the Aperture team has taken Aperture 3.3 to the next level with dramatic improvements to handling the embedded JPEG file. Aperture 3.0 gave us the ability to browse, adjust and export images before they were even all finished copying from the card to the hard drive - this was a massive leap forward in productivity. I’m always wanting it to move faster.Īperture 3.3 has dramatically improved the speed in which we can look at photos not already in the library. I’ll never complain that something is too fast. Sometimes I even show images from a wedding that I’m still shooting. Joseph every assignment I do is deadline driven.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |