[X4U] New Software for PPC

[Stroller]

On 15 Jan 2006, at 23:41, Jim Robertson wrote:
>
> Also, Lightroom doesn't bundle everything into
> one huge database. I've not explored it yet, but that's a real  
> concern with
> Aperture.

I can't really see much difference between the database format of the  
two apps.

Lightroom has ~/Pictures/Lightroom/Photos/<shootname> containing a  
bunch of original image files and perhaps a <filename>-Edit.TIFF if  
the image has been edited in Photoshop. Everything else seems to be  
in ~/Pictures/Lightroom/Lightroom\ Library.aglib and ~/Pictures/ 
Lightroom/Lightroom\ Library.thumbs (I haven't done much work in it  
yet, so it wouldn't surprise me to find more metadata files stored in  
the future).

Aperture's "single file" database is simply a directory called ~/ 
Pictures/Aperture\ Library.aplibrary - OS X treats this directory as  
a bundle or a package or whatever, and so you have to right-click &  
choose "Show Package Contents" in order to explore it. Once you've  
grokked this philosophy, folder layout is remarkably similar to that  
of Lightroom. "Tibet - Aperture Sample Project.approject" contains a  
folder titled "2005-10-20.apimportgroup"; all the original image  
files are stored in there and data & XML files are littered around  
liberally.

Of course if you don't like its database, Lightroom has the advantage  
that you don't have to use it. When importing files you get a bunch  
of options - you can move files into its database, copy them, copy  
them as digital-negative RAWs or just leave them where they are and  
"reference them".

Core Image Technology is supposed to make Aperture more efficient,  
but Lightroom seems to run much faster for me. This is on a dual 1.8  
G5, which I don't consider exactly slow, but all the Aperture users  
on the DPreview forums are talking about quads with 4gig of RAM.  
Maybe my 1.25gig of RAM is letting me down here, but it's the first  
time its done so. Even my unqualified eyes can see much better image  
quality in Lightroom, but I guess other cameras may be supported  
better in Aperture than mine is.

Lightroom has quite a way to go yet - straightening & cropping are  
not yet available in the public betas (the Adobe reps who were at  
MacExpo are rumoured to have mentioned that they that feature in  
their builds) - but I suspect it's what I'll be using in a year's  
time. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or if my dual-process  
G5 is underpowered, but Aperture is currently unusable for me, with  
presently only a handful of images in it.

Stroller.