Aperture supports DMR files

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My understanding is that the DNG format is just a wrapper for the real RAW file. In other words it isn't really a camera independant format.

You can embed the original raw data within a DNG file when converting from a proprietary format to DNG, but you don’t have to – DNG is flexible enough to accommodate the various kinds of raw data from different cameras. Not all cameras use the same bit depth, use the same compression (or no compression at all), have sensor pixels of the same kind (SuperCCD and Foveon X3 are quite different from ordinary CCD or CMOS sensors) etc. etc.. DNG provides variations to be able to store these data without any kind of lossy conversion. A software attempting to convert DNG files should strive to support all these variations, but not all do.

 

BTW, I have seen no confirmation that DNG files from the DMR are now officially supported by Aperture. The DMR is nowhere listed as being supported, not even in the docs of Apple’s recent Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.2 (which added support for the four years old Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n and the three years old Sony DSC-R1, among others).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[John Thawley]

Never say never, Andy ;-)

 

But it does require some hardware power, and so does Hasselblad's Phocus by the way. They might fix it, as they did with iPhoto which was a very slow program when you got above 1.000 files or so.

 

IPhoto was a shoebox. And, if you think about it, the initial functionality was nothing more than an iTunes spin-off. Ultimately, the iTunes play list underpinnings have become the backbone of Apple's entire user software philosophy.

 

Regarding hardware, Apple has a history of making their Pro Apps hardware hungry... and built to run optimally on their top-of-the-line operating systems. And why shouldn't they... they are in the hardware business.

 

I run Aperture on a MacBook Pro 2.4 with 4GB of RAM. When at home, the laptop is tethered to 5 terabyte of external hard drives and a 23" monitor using the laptop screen in dual monitor mode. I'd like to go the 30" monitor... but I'm concerned it may slow things down using the laptops video card.

 

Aperture moves along swimmingly on this set up. I maintain multiple libraries... some containing as many as 100,000 images. I do most of my sort and editing in full screen mode without any issues at all. I couldn't be happier with the program and the efficiency it has brought to my work flow... and my work.

 

JT

[ptomsu]

Just tried my Aperture Upgrade on my DMR files which were definitely showing Purple with the previous version.

 

It really works! Great! And great RAW converter, as it delivers far superior results to C1 Pro and LR in my opinion!

[sandymc]

You can embed the original raw data within a DNG file when converting from a proprietary format to DNG, but you don’t have to – DNG is flexible enough to accommodate the various kinds of raw data from different cameras. Not all cameras use the same bit depth, use the same compression (or no compression at all), have sensor pixels of the same kind (SuperCCD and Foveon X3 are quite different from ordinary CCD or CMOS sensors) etc. etc.. DNG provides variations to be able to store these data without any kind of lossy conversion. A software attempting to convert DNG files should strive to support all these variations, but not all do.

 

BTW, I have seen no confirmation that DNG files from the DMR are now officially supported by Aperture. The DMR is nowhere listed as being supported, not even in the docs of Apple’s recent Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.2 (which added support for the four years old Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n and the three years old Sony DSC-R1, among others).

 

By way of example, DNG as a format supports things like floating point formats for pixel data, and a spectacularly complex system of back level compensation in the form of a two-D pixel pattern. Trying to support all those variations involves writing an enormous amount of code - for most raw developer writers, its a whole lot easier just to support individual cameras.

 

Sandy

[mgcd]

Well, whether Aperture now supports DMR files or not, it's totally immaterial for me, I moved on a long time ago so there is no going back to the Aperture route in any way, shape or form.

[sdai]

Apple never wanted to support DNG ... I think Leica should do every Apple user a favor by dropping this format in the next camera they build.

 

There's almost no other major camera company adopting the Adobe standard, the ones who use it choose to offer their own proprietary formats (such as Hassie's 3FR and Pentax's PEF) at the same time.

 

What's the benefit if you can't use it?

 

If someone does think DNG is the best thing since sliced bread, he/she can always use the Adobe converter to convert the files into DNG format.

[manolo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know enough of this but it sure looks as if DNG is not what Leica intended it to be: a universal RAW format.

 

The problem is that what is?

[mgcd]

Apple never wanted to support DNG ... I think Leica should do every Apple user a favor by dropping this format in the next camera they build.

 

There's almost no other major camera company adopting the Adobe standard, the ones who use it choose to offer their own proprietary formats (such as Hassie's 3FR and Pentax's PEF) at the same time.

 

What's the benefit if you can't use it?

 

If someone does think DNG is the best thing since sliced bread, he/she can always use the Adobe converter to convert the files into DNG format.

 

I, for one, am glad Leica is using DNG which is completely supported by Adobe (of course). I see no need to change that approach. If Apple could not be bothered well, there are plenty of other options out there especially C1 and Lightroom.

 

Cheers,

[John Thawley]

If Apple could not be bothered well, there are plenty of other options out there especially C1 and Lightroom.

 

Cheers,

 

You left off film.

[andybarton]

I don't know enough of this but it sure looks as if DNG is not what Leica intended it to be: a universal RAW format.

 

DNG is not a Leica invention. It's an Adobe format, that Leica have adopted.

 

Other manufacturers have chosen to keep their own, proprietary RAW formats, for their own purposes.

 

A bit like Internet Explorer not complying with www standards.

[mjh]

Apple never wanted to support DNG ... I think Leica should do every Apple user a favor by dropping this format in the next camera they build.

 

There's almost no other major camera company adopting the Adobe standard, the ones who use it choose to offer their own proprietary formats (such as Hassie's 3FR and Pentax's PEF) at the same time.

When you don’t already have a proprietary raw format, choosing DNG is really a no-brainer. Why introduce yet another raw format? And who cares whether it’s supported by Aperture when so many superior raw converters are available? (Yes, I am fully aware that Aperture in its current incarnation isn’t quite as awful as it used to be, but it’s not like the camera industry was revolving around it.)

[sdai]

Point taken ... Michael. I actually don't use Aperture myself, but I certainly understand that many Mac purists' wish on absolutely everything from Apple. I don't use LR or ACR either ... never liked their color templates so at least I can claim that I'm neutral. LOL

[mjh]

Point taken ... Michael. I actually don't use Aperture myself, but I certainly understand that many Mac purists' wish on absolutely everything from Apple.

I’ve been an avid Mac user since 1989 or thereabouts, but I’ve rarely been overly impressed by the quality of Apple’s software. Don’t even touch it until it reaches version 2.0 has always been a useful guideline. It sure looks impressive when you see Steve demoing it, but don’t expect your own experience to match that impression.

[John Thawley]

I’ve been an avid Mac user since 1989 or thereabouts, but I’ve rarely been overly impressed by the quality of Apple’s software. Don’t even touch it until it reaches version 2.0 has always been a useful guideline. It sure looks impressive when you see Steve demoing it, but don’t expect your own experience to match that impression.

 

While it's fair to say most software is ultimately beta tested on the first series buyers, my personal experience with Apple software couldn't be any more opposite to yours. That said, I'm stumbling to understand how you know all of this without using it. ???

 

JT

[sdai]

While it's fair to say most software is ultimately beta tested on the first series buyers, my personal experience with Apple software couldn't be any more opposite to yours. That said, I'm stumbling to understand how you know all of this without using it. ???

 

 

Michael is a regular contributor to several mainstream German photo magazines, including the Hasselblad magazine. He is also one of the fewest people who has played with a true 16 bit M8. You think he hasn't played with Aperture?

[sdai]

I’ve been an avid Mac user since 1989 or thereabouts, but I’ve rarely been overly impressed by the quality of Apple’s software. Don’t even touch it until it reaches version 2.0 has always been a useful guideline. It sure looks impressive when you see Steve demoing it, but don’t expect your own experience to match that impression.

 

One has to admit that Apple is best at attracting folks from the PC world, only after one got converted, he/she is going to have the real experience.

[EH21]

Aperture had so much promise, but to little too late. Okay so they got DMR compatibility but still my phase p20 files don't work and I've already imported everything to lightroom. Do not plan on going back.

[John Thawley]

Michael is a regular contributor to several mainstream German photo magazines, including the Hasselblad magazine. He is also one of the fewest people who has played with a true 16 bit M8. You think he hasn't played with Aperture?

 

Thank you. I wasn't questioning his credentials.

 

I was questioning the a statement that was a generalization about Apple software. My experience, as been the opposite.

 

While my own published work is only commercial (I don't do editorial), I have completed Aperture certification. It's not a program you can just "play" with. You either learn it, understand it or stay on the porch.

 

Regardless, I'm not here to measure dicks and I don't believe I offended anyone. I simply posed a reasonable question.

 

Thank you.

 

JT

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Overgaard]

I think you're both right.

 

Also an avid Apple user since 1986, my observation is that Apple has a very firm grip on software, but that their software can be tricky in the beginning.

 

At least that has been true for iPhoto, iWork (Pages) that in the beginning it didn't work that well. But as Apple approach it over a period of time, it becomes the standard. As in iTunes and Final Cut.

 

Aperture seem to be a great software that those who use it seem to have no doubts is the best. For my part, I'm going to give it a chance now that it has DMR support.

 

I think Apple has a long proven philosophy for workflow, usability, creativity and quality that make it worth looking into what they present.

[John Thawley]

I think you're both right.

 

Also an avid Apple user since 1986, my observation is that Apple has a very firm grip on software, but that their software can be tricky in the beginning.

 

At least that has been true for iPhoto, iWork (Pages) that in the beginning it didn't work that well. But as Apple approach it over a period of time, it becomes the standard. As in iTunes and Final Cut.

 

Aperture seem to be a great software that those who use it seem to have no doubts is the best. For my part, I'm going to give it a chance now that it has DMR support.

 

I think Apple has a long proven philosophy for workflow, usability, creativity and quality that make it worth looking into what they present.

 

I think that's a very fair observation.

 

I can tell you the one caveat with Aperture is to truly grasp the power and full benefit of the program you have to use it and know it. It is a bit of a Catch 22. But it is like a language. If you are communicating in a foreign language and are required to stop and translate every word, you're going to struggle. It's only when you're fluent in the language you can take control and TRULY communicate like it is your native tongue.

 

One of the unique aspects about the program is there are typically three different ways to do the same thing. Seems redundant at first. However, the purpose of this is to allow each user to use the software to DESIGN their own workflow that best suits their work and/or style.

 

Often my discussions with typical Photoshop users where they are cobbling together a workflow from Bridge, or Photo Mechanic or iView.. etc., is often hampered by their inability to think in linear terms of everything working together on one screen. For example, when they sort through thumbnails choosing "keepers" or rating them, the would never stop midstream, post process and image and FTP or add it to a web gallery on-the-fly. Their workflow is typically, import, sort, edit, adjust, transmit, archive.

 

My workflow can take a similar rhythm. However, the transition from one step to the next is seamless and isn't required to be an absolute.

 

Lastly, as an aside, Overgaard, I took the opportunity to view your web site and some of your work. I have to tell you, the simplicity, elegance of your compositions are so beautiful and understated. I don't think I've ever been so taken back by photos so brilliantly exposed and natural looking. Honestly, I keep going back and looking... and I can't find any strained effort whatsoever. Often I can deconstruct a photo and figure out how the photographer got there. Not so with your work. The simplicity is stunning.

 

JT