I can easily see that being relatively sedentary in the winter cuold be advantageous from a survival standpoint. Who says you have to be perky all the time?
Think that's funny? I saw a Q&A session with Nelson Mandela, where some silly bint asked him how he felt about some issue "as an African American". He said "as a what?"
Once Jesse Jackson ran up the flag and demanded yet another jargon change, a lot of people fell all over themselves trying to comply, lest their liberal guilt overwhelm them.
I would suspect it's probably alphabet soup with a TLD suffix, but you would be able to catch "likely looking" Sober URLs.
The sober algorithm is cracked. That means, you can go right ahead and generate the whole set of Sober URLS if you want, for any date/time you like. Sober will *try* to talk to an NTP server, so you run it on a machine that's isotalated from the internet, and feed it bogus time.
It isn't, at least not in the way that you're thinking of. What's updated, is the parameters of the CoreImage units that the RAW data is going through on its way to the display.
Are you saying that when I make, e.g. a contrast correction to the image, Aperture throws away the white balance information, converts back to linear gamma, re-mosaics the image back to the Bayer pattern, pulls missing 4 bits out of its ass, and updates the 12-bit greyscale values in RAM..?
No, you're thinking in terms of how it might have been done before CoreImage existed. Read and learn.
Some mutations have survival value, and individuals manifesting those mutations will tend to become more prevalent over time. Other mutations are detrimentall, and will become less prevalent over time. Still others, probably even *most* mutations, have little effect one way or the other.
But we all know the RIAA is there to make their customers as unhappy as possible, so indeed, they are trying to fix what is not broken.
Making customers unhappy is just a side-effect of RIAA's real goals, which are twofold: to make all the money that they can, and to keep all the control they can. The second goal is what passes for long-term thinking in the recording industry.
The fact that SJ has demonstrated over the last couple of years that he knows how to do their job far better than they do themselves, they feel threatened. In fact, their very own shareholders might toss them out, and find people with clues to run recording companies. So, they need to make a show of Doing Something.
In a couple more years, when musicians self-publish nearly all of their music on the web, and iTMS has morphed into a search engine, (sort of how it works with podcasts right now), we'll look back on this fracas as the last gasp of a pack of venture capitalists who had outlasted their usefulness.
There's an excellent essay on the subject of the Radical Loser, by a German writer named Hans Enzensberger. It's probably on of the best introductions I've seen to the psychology of the kind of person who wants to join the losing side of WW II, or blow himself up in a crowded shopping mall.
You said that Aperture doesn't have non-destructive output in the same sentence in which you also said that you're able to get the RAW files to the finder. That's a contradiction.
What you are saying is that Aperture converts RAW files on-the-fly.
NO.
In Aperture, you have the RAW data in RAM, and display it through a CoreImage pipeline. In Photoshop, you pass the RAW data through a rasterization step, that loses the original data, and you then edit the result of that rasterization.
Photoshop is now working on the poor TIFF or PSD versions that Aperture makes from the RAW originals.
That really can't be helped, because photoshop can't edit RAW images.
it doesn't really have non-destructive output. (Although you can get to the original RAW files through the Finder, that seems like a poor workflow, don't you?)
So I am inclined to treat "working directly with RAW images" as nothing but Apple marketspeak with a dose of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field thrown in.
You are mistaken.
Aperture doesn't convert the RAW data as photoshop does when it imports a RAW image. The backing store for what you see on the display IS the RAW data. To get to the display, it goes through a CoreImage pipeline, which is a series of one or more filters that run on the GPU. The result of that mapping is not saved, it is computed by the GPU on the fly.
Apple messed up by trying to create a professional package that utilizes oversimplification to make it easy to use. Pro users are not the type of people that are impressed by a dumbing down of their profession.
You're really not getting it. Aperture isn't "dumbing down" anything. It's a tool for quickly and efficiently moving images through a production process.
For now, Aperature is an expensive solution for those prosumers that dabble in photography as a passtime and don't want to learn how to use complicated solutions like Photoshop.
His point is well made - if this doesn't produce the best image quality - what's the point of the app in its current state?
No, his so-called "point" shows that he doesn't understand what Adobe is doing when it imports a RAW image. What you see in Aperture is the RAW data, only going through the minimum processing to make it displayable. Photoshop is performing a conversion and enhancement step that Aperture doesn't do, because the target customers told Apple that they want to work with RAW images directly.
a) does Aperture support layers? b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching. c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)
No, yes, yes.
But, you're missing the point. Adobe Camera RAW and Picassa don't help you pick the 60 images you want to send your editor out of the 500 that you shot that day. Aperture is a workflow tool. It breaks new ground, and does things that other apps don't do!
He reviewed it as an image editor, not as a workflow tool.
Aperture is what you need if you're shooting a thousand images a day. It's not a replacement for Photoshop, and its image editing capbilities are all targeted to easy batch application.
Slashdot Mirror
I can easily see that being relatively sedentary in the winter cuold be advantageous from a survival standpoint. Who says you have to be perky all the time?
-jcr
the PR campaign that earned Greenland its name.
Actually, Greenland was green, at the time it was first settled. There was a climactic shift about a century later.
-jcr
I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)
So have I, but they're not the ones that are pushing creationism.
-jcr
It does not follow that if a more pressing need is not yet addressed, that other needs should be ignored.
We really need a cure for cancer, but that's no reason to postpone arthritis research.
-jcr
Think that's funny? I saw a Q&A session with Nelson Mandela, where some silly bint asked him how he felt about some issue "as an African American". He said "as a what?"
Once Jesse Jackson ran up the flag and demanded yet another jargon change, a lot of people fell all over themselves trying to comply, lest their liberal guilt overwhelm them.
-jcr
they totally ignore the positive teachings
What's your next guess?
The USA in fact, dwarfs the rest of the world in charitable contributions.
They're all cool with frying people on an electric chair.
No, nearly half of the people in the USA are opposed to the death penalty. It's a very hotly contested issue.
Bigotry is still bigotry, even when it's directed south, eh?
-jcr
Unless, there's major resolution in that small space (say 1280x1024), that's unworkable today.
For you, maybe. For someone who's earning about about $10 a week, and has a family to support, it's a different story.
-jcr
I would suspect it's probably alphabet soup with a TLD suffix, but you would be able to catch "likely looking" Sober URLs.
The sober algorithm is cracked. That means, you can go right ahead and generate the whole set of Sober URLS if you want, for any date/time you like. Sober will *try* to talk to an NTP server, so you run it on a machine that's isotalated from the internet, and feed it bogus time.
-jcr
Well, never mind then. Podjack all you want, you're going to hell anyway!
-jcr
Don't you know podjacking can make you go blind, boy? Now, say 10 "Hail Marys", and ego te absolvo.
-jcr
Also, how is data in RAM updated?
It isn't, at least not in the way that you're thinking of. What's updated, is the parameters of the CoreImage units that the RAW data is going through on its way to the display.
Are you saying that when I make, e.g. a contrast correction to the image, Aperture throws away the white balance information, converts back to linear gamma, re-mosaics the image back to the Bayer pattern, pulls missing 4 bits out of its ass, and updates the 12-bit greyscale values in RAM..?
No, you're thinking in terms of how it might have been done before CoreImage existed. Read and learn.
-jcr
In evolution there has to be a reason.
Nope. Mutation is random.
Some mutations have survival value, and individuals manifesting those mutations will tend to become more prevalent over time. Other mutations are detrimentall, and will become less prevalent over time. Still others, probably even *most* mutations, have little effect one way or the other.
-jcr
But we all know the RIAA is there to make their customers as unhappy as possible, so indeed, they are trying to fix what is not broken.
Making customers unhappy is just a side-effect of RIAA's real goals, which are twofold: to make all the money that they can, and to keep all the control they can. The second goal is what passes for long-term thinking in the recording industry.
The fact that SJ has demonstrated over the last couple of years that he knows how to do their job far better than they do themselves, they feel threatened. In fact, their very own shareholders might toss them out, and find people with clues to run recording companies. So, they need to make a show of Doing Something.
In a couple more years, when musicians self-publish nearly all of their music on the web, and iTMS has morphed into a search engine, (sort of how it works with podcasts right now), we'll look back on this fracas as the last gasp of a pack of venture capitalists who had outlasted their usefulness.
-jcr
Truly, Australian and US working cultures are worlds apart.
Indeed they are. Good luck getting that fixed.
-jcr
I just wish they weren't forcing adult websites to be hosted offshore. I would like to have the revenue.
If you want the revenue, then operate an adult site on an offshore server. Good luck to you, but it sure looks like a crowded market to jump into.
-jcr
There's an excellent essay on the subject of the Radical Loser, by a German writer named Hans Enzensberger. It's probably on of the best introductions I've seen to the psychology of the kind of person who wants to join the losing side of WW II, or blow himself up in a crowded shopping mall.
-jcr
I had not contradicted myself.
You said that Aperture doesn't have non-destructive output in the same sentence in which you also said that you're able to get the RAW files to the finder. That's a contradiction.
-jcr
What you are saying is that Aperture converts RAW files on-the-fly.
NO.
In Aperture, you have the RAW data in RAM, and display it through a CoreImage pipeline. In Photoshop, you pass the RAW data through a rasterization step, that loses the original data, and you then edit the result of that rasterization.
-jcr
Photoshop is now working on the poor TIFF or PSD versions that Aperture makes from the RAW originals.
That really can't be helped, because photoshop can't edit RAW images.
it doesn't really have non-destructive output. (Although you can get to the original RAW files through the Finder, that seems like a poor workflow, don't you?)
You've just contradicted yourself.
-jcr
So I am inclined to treat "working directly with RAW images" as nothing but Apple marketspeak with a dose of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field thrown in.
You are mistaken.
Aperture doesn't convert the RAW data as photoshop does when it imports a RAW image. The backing store for what you see on the display IS the RAW data. To get to the display, it goes through a CoreImage pipeline, which is a series of one or more filters that run on the GPU. The result of that mapping is not saved, it is computed by the GPU on the fly.
-jcr
Apple messed up by trying to create a professional package that utilizes oversimplification to make it easy to use. Pro users are not the type of people that are impressed by a dumbing down of their profession.
You're really not getting it. Aperture isn't "dumbing down" anything. It's a tool for quickly and efficiently moving images through a production process.
For now, Aperature is an expensive solution for those prosumers that dabble in photography as a passtime and don't want to learn how to use complicated solutions like Photoshop.
Oh, for Christ's sake. It's not an image editor!
-jcr
His point is well made - if this doesn't produce the best image quality - what's the point of the app in its current state?
No, his so-called "point" shows that he doesn't understand what Adobe is doing when it imports a RAW image. What you see in Aperture is the RAW data, only going through the minimum processing to make it displayable. Photoshop is performing a conversion and enhancement step that Aperture doesn't do, because the target customers told Apple that they want to work with RAW images directly.
-jcr
a) does Aperture support layers?
b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.
c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)
No, yes, yes.
But, you're missing the point. Adobe Camera RAW and Picassa don't help you pick the 60 images you want to send your editor out of the 500 that you shot that day. Aperture is a workflow tool. It breaks new ground, and does things that other apps don't do!
-jcr
He reviewed it as an image editor, not as a workflow tool.
Aperture is what you need if you're shooting a thousand images a day. It's not a replacement for Photoshop, and its image editing capbilities are all targeted to easy batch application.
-jcr
If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?
Try storing 50,000 RAW images in iPhoto, and you'll understand.
-jcr