Slashdot Mirror
Linux Alternatives To Apple's Aperture
somethingkindawierd writes "An experiment focusing on open source tools for Ubuntu Linux to compete with Aperture on the Mac. The author didn't think he would find a worthwhile open source solution, but to his surprise he found some formidable raw processing tools. A good read for any Linux fan or photographer looking for capable and inexpensive tools"
Hi, I'm GlaDoS, how may I help with your photo proooooocess-ss-ing needs?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
So far it's the best tool I've found. It's lightweight and very fast. I love how easy it is to adjust the exposure and color temps. It's easy to find blown highlights and get rid of them. The downside is getting it to work with my new XSi was a pain. I had to use a hex editor on the executable and convert my CR2 files into DNG files. The extra steps are annoying. I tried out Lightroom, but there's no way I'd pay $300 for that bloated crap. I'm definitely going to check out rawtherapee.
F-Spot, The default photo editor that comes with Ubuntu 8.04, was quickly discarded. [FOSS]
Picasa, Really liked the application overall. I crop all my photos to the golden ratio of 1.62:1, so this limitation is unacceptable. [NOT FOSS]
LightZone, very similar to both Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom. Costs $200 and is not open source. No online support forum.
Bibble, very fast and it only costs $130. It does not however have any photo-management capabilities. No tagging, project management, or meta data editing. [NOT FOSS]
Raw Therapee, raw photo processor, free. It does not, however, run on Mac OS X. Does not manage projects. And it does not work with anything but raw photos, so it will not allow for processing jpegs or tiffs
Qtpfsgui, another useful application. HDR tool for Ubuntu Linux, Macintosh, and Windows.
The result:
There isn't an all-in-one package that will do the trick, but by combining Ubuntu's file manager Nautilus for project management, Raw Therapee for raw processing, and the Gimp for non-raw processing, just about everything I do in Aperture can be done on Ubuntu Linux using free and open source solutions.
Color management means an image is shown the same on every screen, and as close as possible on paper. You cannot do serious photo work without integrated color management, but unfortunately even Winsh*t still leads Linux by ten years here. It's time the Linux guys moved their efforts to desktop app integration - the server is done - you hear me, guys ? the server is done, move to improving the desktop !
This is not a signature.
Please note that we have added a consequence for using proprietary software. Any contact with proprietary software will result in an 'unsatisfactory' mark on your official testing record followed by death. Good luck!
My wife is a pro-photographer and takes like, 500+ images per job, and, we had the $3000 dual G5 Mac and Aperature and Aperature yakked and we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...
Since then, she's switched to a WinPC and Lightroom, and Lightroom is both stable for her, and reliable and does more and she will never touch a Mac again. The moral of the story is that Adobe Lightroom is the real target, not Aperature... even the feature sets of Lightroom have her not missing her Mac...
This is my sig.
I have to admit, even though Picasa could probably use more crop aspect ratios, I immediately subconsciously discredited the author when he stated that the golden ratio was a requirement.
I stopped caring when the author said that he crops "all" his photos to the same (non-standard) ratio.
Closed, done. Sorry.
Sorry, I'm an idiot. I shoot the occasional digital photo and edit it up in the GIMP, that's the extent of my photography knowledge. Can someone explain to me what Aperture is, what a "raw photo editor" is, and how a "photo manager" differs from a "file manager"? Thanks.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What, has no-one mentioned digiKam yet?
What a terrible omission from the review.
Take a look, it's really good.
At least since the Renaissance, many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratioâ"especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratioâ"believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing.
Now, aside from disliking an Apple product, how is he a tool?
"non-standard" ahhhh, that's funny. We're talking about digital photography here; not analog. And even then, the masters, such as Adams, would trim their photos to look the way he wanted them: sometimes trimmed them to "non-standard" sizes - gasp!
I have purchased LightZone for Linux after using a free beta version for 2 months. For early adopters there was a $50 discount :-)
There _are_ support forums http://www.lightcrafts.com/support/forums/index.html
I find LightZone an excellent product. It is quite adequate for making your photos look good quickly. A choice of tools is somewhat limited, but they all have built-in feathered selection/regions. The ZoneMapper and Relight tools are unique. There are very nice learning videos, see http://www.lightcrafts.com/learning/index.html
There were discussions on LightZone forums of how this product compares to Bibble, and most users prefer LightZone. Bibble 5 might change that, but then again there will be probably a new version of LightZone released soon.
I am a very happy LightZone user and can highly recommend it.
Oh, I gave him that one - artistic expression and all that. What killed me was the smilies.
Real reviews don't use smilies. Ever.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Gimp 2.4 color manages very nicely thank you.
2. The KDE desktop has monitor profile and gamma adjustment support. GNOME? Dunno.
Applications worth noting:
liblcms (excellent)xcalib
argyle (for you color geeks)
scribus
digikam
You will find most commercial profile generators place restrictive covenants on the icc profiles created by their software. I don't know if it is legal to redistribute sRGB or AdobeRGB profiles, but I doubt it.
It's also worth noting that Aperture's sole purpose is rapid acquisition and cataloging. Do not concatenate acquisition/cataloging with editing.
Lastly, Digikam works very nicely for me.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Has anyone tried to run this under wine? The wine app db only has old entries for this media management package.
F-Spot, The default photo editor that comes with Ubuntu 8.04, was quickly discarded. [FOSS]
Maybe change that to [fOSS].
It's open source, for sure, but since F-Spot is built on mono, a port of Microsoft .NET, it probably contains Microsoft intellectual property, the licensing of which may be dependent on which distro (e.g. SUSE) you're running, so 'Free' is debatable.
It could be a patent trap ... or not. That uncertainty is certainly disconcerting.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I used to have these awesome perl scripts that selected some random FLAC files that hadn't been selected lately, decompressed them and converted them to mp3 on the fly, and copied them to my sandisk player. "It does everything itunes can do!" Then I tried showing it to somebody (a chick) - got all flustered, and f*cked it up. "Just use iTunes" I said in defeat :-)
I do all my photoprocessing on Ubuntu.
-I use gthumb for organization and importing from the camera (way better than f-spot, which I've never liked)
-I use ufraw with the GIMP plugin to process raw files
-I use GIMP for further processing
-I use Hugin and its associated tools for panoramas
That's all I need, and I sell photos every week, however, I'll be looking into some of the tools mentioned in the article.
I don't know why the author thinks that Raw Therapee can't process JPEGs or TIFFs. Just go into the preferences screen, uncheck "Show only RAW files", and you're set.
Also missing from the comparison: Rawstudio and UFRaw.
If you're interested in RAW processing on Linux, there's an excellent blog called Linux Photography about this very subject.
I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less.
Then what's this?
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
But it's the golden ratio: the most perfect of ratios!
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Since the author of the blog post is asking for an Aperture clone for Linux, the answer will pretty much always be "no". If the author were to ask "Can I do my photo processing, from importing RAW files to storing the finished picture and printing?" the answer is yes.
Here's how I do it:
Just save all projects in .xcf or .xcf.bz2 and export finished product to .png.
One last thing, for all the haters who whine about ONLY having 16.8 million colors to work with, even without your help GIMP is integrating GEGL which will bring 16bit integer and 32bit floating point per component.
... And so it comes to this.
Cinelerra does raw .cr2 decompression & all the processing in floating point. Useful for stacking hundreds of astrophotography images. Only for build system masters of course.
I have used many Linux image browsers and editors along with a stable of home grown bash scripts. Even though I still use my scripts out of habit, I must say that Digikam can replace most of them and provide a seamless JPEG workflow in a state of the art environment. There are still some small things I would appreciate, such as a better curves dialog, but overall I have been a very happy user. Some tools such as the crop tool with framing aids are the best I have ever seen, and overall I have seen my photo editing time almost halved by using Digikam. It is not a general graphics editor - for retouching you still need something else, but for the basic editing (everything that touches the whole image) it fills the need perfectly. And it is the best IPTC tagger I have used so far.
And how is disappointment with one program (it's spelled Aperture by the way), translates into not liking the OS and the hardware?
This is just silly. If you are using the Mac, then you don't need aperture nor lightroom, since both try to be image database first and image editing software second.
Mac OS's spotlight does everything Aperture does, and if you create regular backups you are fine.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
I've fought this same battle for a few years. Originally I used Canons software to process RAWs, it was terrible and I needed an alternative.
I tried Pixmatic Raw Shooter when it was free and that worked ok for me, and ran in Wine with minimal issues.
I switched to Picasa when it became available for Linux and supported RAW. It had much better album management, but looking back, the photos it produced looked terrible.
Eventually I switched to Capture One's software. I had to pay money for it, but it worked and it worked pretty well.
Recently I'd been getting fed up with them, their website is terrible to try to get updates from and there's not really a good way to manage albums of photos.
I gave the Aperture demo a shot as I'd just recently gotten a Macbook Pro. I found it very hard to use. Stuff just wasn't intuitive, the interface was cluttered and confusing.
Somewhere along the line I'd tried Lightroom v1 and thought it was very good. I was going to purchase it when it came out officially. I stalled when it came out and waited too long and missed it at the $99 launch pricing. I never did end up buying it and went back to Capture One.
Recently Adobe started up the Lightroom 2 Beta, I'm in the extended beta which will function until it's officially released and I can say with absolute certainty that I will be purchasing this when it's done. Everything about it is miles better than everything else. The interface is easy to use, and easy to get out of your way when you want to concentrate on what the photo looks like. It's got all the tools I feel I need to make it a one stop shop from import to web/print. I can't say enough good stuff about Lightroom 2 to do it justice. I guess my suggestion is that if you're really serious at all about your photos, stop screwing around with trying to find something Open Source and get Lightroom.
Of course YMMV, and that's why there's a demo/beta. Good luck, and good shooting!
Dude, RawShooter sucks horribly by comparison to Lightroom. I tried the last free version of RawShooter and it put me off so badly I almost didn't try Lightroom thinking it would be a slightly upgraded version. It was like night and day, the workflow in Lightroom just makes sense and doing slightly more complicated than simple conversion is a breeze. There's a guy out there that edited 2,000 wedding photos in three hours using Lightroom and a custom macro package, try doing that in RawShooter!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Too bad there's not an advanced app like Lightroom available for the Mac.
Oh, wait...
I am looking forward to seeing your implementation.
I'll choose Raw The Rapee for 1000. Haw haw.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
I don't know what you did wrong but I do know one thing - Aperture will NEVER overwrite a fle on export, it uses the standard OS convention of using the same name with (1), (2), etc after it.
In fact that is one of my only annoyances, that if I re-export an image I must make sure to remove the previously exported version...
If you had used a Vault, or Time Machine, none of that would have happened. Or you could have recovered the deleted contents of the drive. There's no way to had to loose what you did.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh, please. He's blaming the OS for the failures of the app. I fully admit Aperture isn't the greatest. I just don't see the point in purchasing an entirely new system to run an app that you could run on your existing machine. So, come again?
Where did I say that we got rid of the computer because of the Aperture? We got rid of it because it couldn't run all the Photoshop plug ins that Windows could, and Windows PCs were faster. You will note that Jobs did switch Apple to Intel shortly after we unloaded our G5.. so I guess Apple agreed!
This is my sig.
Aperture doesn't generate filenames
No, that's retarded. Whenever any system maintains a repository of any kind, you expect it to place its own names on things. Anything other than that is simply unacceptable. You don't buy a product like that to worry about filenames. ... you buy it do to things right..
Secondly, why are you so moronically assuming that I switched because of Aperture? Aperture might keep me from switching back because the hole in the repository design made me lose my faith in Apple, but the real problem was that there are more Photoshop plugins for windows than there are for mac, so she switched.
Why don't you read, instead of assume?
This is my sig.
What I use to view my photos is http://gqview.sourceforge.net/
I personally prefer it greatly to e.g. F-spot. It's got more degrees of freedom and it's way faster. I think people should and will pick up the development.
I have been using Bibble Pro from Bibble Labs for years now, and have been very very happy with the results. I want my photo editor to be a dedicated to the task of just editing photos - I don't need it to be an all-purpose graphics tool or a file manager. In this task, Bibble really excels. It is geared towards users with higher-end needs, such as very broad raw file support, multi-threaded batch processing, and bulk workflow tools.
Well worth the $130.
This experiment focuses mainly on Aperture and what tools, if any, exist for Ubuntu to replace my Aperture workflow with something cross-platform and open-source that I can use on Mac OS X and Ubuntu.
And then what he looks at,
He stated a criteria ("open-source"), then 4 out of 6 had nothing to do with that criteria. Nice work on consistency there, pal.
Having tried some free, Free and non-free tools, I settled to relatively simple solutions. I just organize photos per shooting session manually.
Directories:
Having preview in most file browsers helps (I am using Nautilus). GQview or EoG launches quickly if I want to view the details.
Then I convert RAWs using UFRaw or GIMP UFRaw plugin (having file association). It is quite handy and just one click away. I save the retouched image with a different name: dscfXXXX.raf -> dscfXXXX_subject.{tif,png,jpg}. Bad shots are deleted. Dups get moved to a separate directory.
Special needs: Hugin + autopanosift + enblend for panoramas. Qtpfsgui for HDR (I am not particularly fond of). Exposure Blend GIMP plugin for HDR imitation (I like it) or enfuse. GREYCstoration GIMP plugin is usable for noise reduction, but non-free NeatImage performs better and works in Wine. Inkscape is superb for over-the-photo writing, adding speach-bubbles, notes etc.
This approach is flexible, cross-platform and does not depend on any particular tools (any may be substituted). Directory tree is easy to backup and filenames are easy to search. I can always distinguish good from bad, original from the retouched version etc.
Recently I have also given another try to digiKam. It turned out to be perfectly compatible with my photo archive structure (album == folder). A really good tool for navigating in a archive, running a slideshow and photo tagging. Also it saves tags and other metadata in IPTC (nice!) and has a bunch of useful plugins. Its editing features are not bad, but I find using UFRaw/Gimp/Hugin more convenient.
There are some other tools to consider: F-spot (too slow for me and insufficient editing tools), Blue Marine (even slower), gThumb (actually I used it and liked it a lot, it's a pity it does not save metadata in IPTC, Picasa (good interface, but proprietary, did not support UTF-8 until recently, metadata saved in a proprietary format, rather slow)
If someone can tell how he includes also colour management into his photo workflow in GNU/Linux, it would be interesting.
My $0.02 here...
If you are not afraid of the command line...
'xv' works great for quick viewing of images, cropping, simple manipulations, etc. It supports numerous image formats. A very lightweight gimp-like tool. (Caveats: Shareware. Been around forever.)
Package 'libjpeg' provides jpegtran, cjpeg, djpeg, etc. Useful for lossless rotations of jpeg images.
Package 'ImageMagick' provides identify, mogrify, montage, composite, animate, etc.
A quick perl script will let you produce thumbnailed images + HTML, letting any web browser quickly look over all your photos.
Please pardon my asking this rather unrelated question about KDE, but I've been looking for some sort of excuse to ask this for a while now.
In a KDE setup like Kubuntu, one can open the System Settings program, and it will have icons for various settings you can control, like "Mouse" or "Desktop" or "Printers".
I used to have one called "Desktop Effects", for setting Compiz-KDE settings. When I clicked it, it would open a dialogue for tweaking the Compiz-KDE settings.
But later, it disappeared! (I had messed around with some KDE config files in trying to re-establish previously saved KDE settings.) The icon was no longer there. I found that the icon linked to a file called "Desktop Effects.desktop" (or something like that); when I click on this "Desktop Effects.desktop" file, it opened the dialogue for tweaking the Compiz-KDE settings, exactly as before. The only problem is that I can no longer use the System Settings program to get to this particular dialogue.
There must be some config file that says which icons appear in System Settings, right? Could someone please help me find it? Grep doesn't seem to find anything. Any help would be appreciated. Sorry about the OT post.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Why not? Actually to print he would need to add on whitespace around the image to restore it to a standard ratio but the point is it could be trimmed and mounted like that. If I want to print something in a 27:2 ratio I should be able to. That Picassa doesn't allow it makes me sick.
Could you email me? I tried to do the same thing (I had an unencrypted version of the last rawshooter pro package) search and replaced in a hex editor all 350d to 450d, tried all the options in the Adobe dng converter, etc., and it did not work. uaksas{at}gmail.com
Pentax/Samsung DSLRs can shoot in DNG, and there may also be others.
It's a nice enough engine, with some quirks, but having to process 300 pictures with it from an event sucks. A lot. Aperture lets me get it done in a tenth the time. It was trying to process 50 pictures from a shoot that made me give up on Linux for serious photo editing - ufraw is good for the occasional shot, but it's too slow and clunky for someone who has to justify the time spent on the software.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
That, while strictly true, is not the correct answer. RAW images are the raw data from the camera sensor, with little if any processing. That raw data must be processed to generate a raster image like a jpeg, tiff or png.
Nearly all cameras come set up so that the RAW -> JPEG conversion happens on the camera. This conversion, in a good camera, results in two things:
Setting your camera to output RAW and processing the RAW files in your computer allows you to control the raw conversion. A RAW converter in your computer can sometimes get more detail, and most usefully, allows you to compensate for under or overexposure to some degree.
Are you adequate?
But I'm a bit surprised to see that no one has mentioned BlueMarine.
Granted, I'm just beginning to examine how such applications address me needs (not sure if they do, yet... Adobe Bridge seems to be all I need), but I do like the way that BlueMarine works.
Any thoughts?
#SickNotWeak
Last time I looked at it, Gimp could not work with 16-bit TIFF files (it could open them, but then converting to 8-bit). This was Gimp's big shortcoming as far as serious photo editing is concerned. Perhaps the situation changed.
Arcady Genkin
I've been playing with Linux software and not had any success in getting Canon 1ds, not mark II or mark III, *.tif file recognized. Each program that claim raw support only loads up the tiny jpeg thumbnail in the *.tif, not the raw data itself. Has anyone found a solution for this?
Then you invent some arbitrary rules that the program should have followed to prevent you from screwing up.
I'm sorry that you feel that these are arbitrary rules, but really, this is consistent, standard practice in computers.
Every repository of any kind must impose its own keys on data. It's really simple. You can't be relying on someone else's external key because in general you can't assume that is unique, particularly when you start mixing information from a variety of sources.
XML, C#, Java, C++, all have namespaces. Name spaces allow you to mix in multiple sources into your data, program, or even a web page, all which must deal with the problem of aggregation. In all cases, you have a foreign sort of data you are integrating, and a way for the consumer of that information to organize that into namespaces.
More directly, in document management systems, dating all the way back to big systems used by the government to many systems used by corporations, every document, regardless of its file path and place of origin, receives a unique name on import. This not only makes it easier for the developers of those systems to attach meta-data to the document being imported, but it also allows the repository to function as an aggregation tool. For example, you could, take a bunch of documents from many sources, ram into a document management system, and then, export those documents back out into a single folder, and the resulting documents would be uniquely named because the repository correctly managed the names.
Or, you could easily and consistently make URIs for them on web pages. Even better blogs do this by default, although it is admittedly not as important because we do have a sort of assumption that a good URI is unique.
In any case, this practice is so pervasive that relational database vendors ALL follow a similar pattern to support the inclusion of images and documents into their database. They can either link to a document, store the document directly, or, allow the developer to store the originating path as a field. Regardless of which approach is adopted, the DBA will invariably create his own key on that document table, and use that key as a primary key. This is often an integer and is often autopopulated by the database engine using either autonumber in SQL Server or sequences in Oracle. I tend to prefer Oracle sequences as I think they are easier to work with, but, to each his own.
It is interesting to note then, that the file system is actually not very good at managing names and this is actually a good reason for why they fail. Why do you have to have the same name for something in two different places on the computer? In a perfect world, a filename ought to be unique by itself, and, where it is stored in a file system would be only an organizational convention, but not an identifying one. Then you wouldn't need stupid things like PATHs at all, and all the security holes that they open up, a problem with, incidentally, that this very message board takes its name from!
With all that said, it was reasonable to think that a very expensive product like Aperture would, in fact, do the right thing with its images, which is why I bought for my wife. Apple is a damned good software company and they, of all people, should know better as they have been wrestling with namespace problems since the inception of personal computers, but, in the case of Aperture, they blew it. And, no, I didn't sell the Mac because Aperture screwed up. Aperture screwed up as she was exporting images out AFTER we sold the thing. There's no lie, only disappointment in a product. It's no different than someone who buys a Ford, loses a tranny, and then never buys a Ford again. In my case too, my Apple "hatred" really isn't hatred. I still admire Apple's service and I like Macintosh, I really do. But I think Linux is a better operating system for server applications and that's where all the money is that these days. Now, I might still get a Mac to write a game for, bu
This is my sig.
For meta data management (i.e. adding & searching), I find MaPiVi
most satisfying.
The last releases of lightzone for Linux were time limited in that they would not run after a given date. I don't know if the 2.x versions were time limited.
I know under GNOME you install simple-ccsm to tweak detailed compiz settings, and you use alacarte to edit menus. Hope this helps you at least find some good search terms. If you ran Ubuntu instead of Kubuntu, you'd be home now :D
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Any solution that uses a combination of tools has completely missed the point of Aperture and Lightroom. The amount you can do just within these apps is what makes them so great.
My old workflow used to consist of the following tools / processes:
- Adobe Bridge (tagging, selecting, correcting RAW)
- Adobe Photoshop (curves, colour correction, sharpening, print sizing, etc.)
- Noise Ninja if required
Every single photograph went through at least the first two steps, and I had to manually manage files so as to have originals to revert to - none of the above gave me non-destructive editing. This meant that creative fiddling took so much longer.
Today, my workflow consists of
- Lightroom (tagging, stacking, levels, curves, exposure, colour correction)
- Photoshop (selective sharpening, creative bits)
This isn't even getting into the timesaving issues of having presets to match my camera settings available for Lightroom.
My average time to process a standard image for stock use has gone from about 10 minutes to around 3, just by purchasing lightroom. That means I can process 3 images in the time it used to take 1. That's worth a couple of hundred pounds to me !
Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?
You mentioned writing a game for Macintosh. If you wanted to do that, a Macintosh would be the better platform to work from as opposed to porting from another. There's several great tools at your disposal; Xcode, OpenGL, ClanLib, SDL is a great combo. You can do the development on Linux just as easily, but I really have enjoyed Xcode. You might too.
Actually, if I did write a game for a *nix, it probably would be for Mac. Only because, while SDL + OpenGL for Linux is pretty solid, the sound situation seems up in the air for me because it looks like there are so many different sound solutions out there for it. On the other hand, the Mac is a standardized platform. I've heard a lot of good things about XCode and I couldn't be a self respecting Geek without giving it a shot.
This is my sig.
Picasa allows it, it's the "Manual" option on the crop menu. :-)
Of course it requires a good eye and stable hands, but is *is* possible
But why be approximate when you can be exact? Even programs that don't allow you to set ratios still let you put in dimensions and then hold that ratio as you expand the selection to crop. That is what I consider "Manual". Just drawing a free-select crop is lame. Plus I'm sure Picasa lacks the ability to then expand the canvas back out to the right ratio to print the damned thing.
I was kidding, man :-)
The manual crop is a joke. It doesn't even give you any information on the size of the crop (pixels would be nice), and, as you say, it should be possible to type either exact pixels or a ratio, like Gimp does.
A sentence fragment. The author did not think.
After all, I am strangely colored.
and EXIF.
If you're looking for a database-of-images that are tagged-in-the-database, then that's different.
http://www.bibblelabs.com/
PS: Bibble Pro is $130, the Bibble Lite, without batch processing etc, is, oh, Less(tm)... :)