The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Aperture 2.0+GX100 works
- Thread starter 4season
- Start date
Daniel
New member
not old news yet 
after all the noise about aperture not supporting ricoh files, it's strangely quiet at the other forums regarding version 2 support for ricoh raw files. it's quite amusing to me.
anyway, i know i'm happy importing my ricoh raw files into aperture 2.
-dan
edit: i think aperture 2's camera support is now independent of the os. previously, it has to depend on the mac os x team to update the os to support new cameras. hopefully i'm assuming correctly. if this is the case, then the aperture team can send out updates as they see appropriate for new cameras independently of the os update cycle.
after all the noise about aperture not supporting ricoh files, it's strangely quiet at the other forums regarding version 2 support for ricoh raw files. it's quite amusing to me.
anyway, i know i'm happy importing my ricoh raw files into aperture 2.
-dan
edit: i think aperture 2's camera support is now independent of the os. previously, it has to depend on the mac os x team to update the os to support new cameras. hopefully i'm assuming correctly. if this is the case, then the aperture team can send out updates as they see appropriate for new cameras independently of the os update cycle.
Last edited:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Playing with it now with M8 images , look at image processing. This has some nice tools and pretty darn powerful. Have to play a lot more but pretty good
E
edslaughter
Guest
I haven't tried Aperture 2 yet, but am eager to, when I replace my ancient G4 machine.
I believe, though, that the RAW handling is still done in the OS. The change is not in Aperture but in 10.5.2. A number of new RAW formats were added, including the very important ability to recognize "generic" Adobe DNG RAW (not Linear). A GX100 RAW file is identified by the OS as "Adobe DNG". Furthermore, the DNG is now used by all applications: a GX100 RAW DNG file is viewable not only by Aperture (I assume) but by iPhoto and Preview (I know from test).
Not only can 10.5.2 work natively with GX100 RAW files, but it is very fast. On my wife's new iMac I didn't notice any difference between working with a jpeg and working with a GX100 RAW file in iPhoto.
ed
I believe, though, that the RAW handling is still done in the OS. The change is not in Aperture but in 10.5.2. A number of new RAW formats were added, including the very important ability to recognize "generic" Adobe DNG RAW (not Linear). A GX100 RAW file is identified by the OS as "Adobe DNG". Furthermore, the DNG is now used by all applications: a GX100 RAW DNG file is viewable not only by Aperture (I assume) but by iPhoto and Preview (I know from test).
Not only can 10.5.2 work natively with GX100 RAW files, but it is very fast. On my wife's new iMac I didn't notice any difference between working with a jpeg and working with a GX100 RAW file in iPhoto.
ed
C
Colman
Guest
And a bit faster on a nice new MacBook Air than it was on a 12" Powerbook G4! It does look good.
E
edslaughter
Guest
A couple of further observations about 10.5.2 and the way it handles GX100 RAW .dng files:
The .dngs really are handled as just another graphics file by the OS. Not only will Preview and iPhoto dislpay them, but the OS makes a graphic icon for any .dng viewed in the Finder. Furthermore, the media inspectors see and handle the files, and so they can be dragged into Pages documents, TextEdit documents, etc. If you paste a GX100 raw file into a TextEdit document, it's automatically sized for the document and displays just as if it were a jpeg. But if you save the document and open its package (.rtfd files are saved as OS X packages) you will see that there is no jpeg but only the original, full sized .dng. I'm not sure what good this does, but it's certainly cool.
This new feature of OS X should mean that any camera, now or in the future, that uses .dng as its RAW format will automatically work with all Apple programs.
Also, any new camera that _doesn't_ use .dngs and isn't yet supported by OS X may be usable if there is a RAW to DNG converter for it (such as the free, standalone Adobe converter).
The .dngs really are handled as just another graphics file by the OS. Not only will Preview and iPhoto dislpay them, but the OS makes a graphic icon for any .dng viewed in the Finder. Furthermore, the media inspectors see and handle the files, and so they can be dragged into Pages documents, TextEdit documents, etc. If you paste a GX100 raw file into a TextEdit document, it's automatically sized for the document and displays just as if it were a jpeg. But if you save the document and open its package (.rtfd files are saved as OS X packages) you will see that there is no jpeg but only the original, full sized .dng. I'm not sure what good this does, but it's certainly cool.
This new feature of OS X should mean that any camera, now or in the future, that uses .dng as its RAW format will automatically work with all Apple programs.
Also, any new camera that _doesn't_ use .dngs and isn't yet supported by OS X may be usable if there is a RAW to DNG converter for it (such as the free, standalone Adobe converter).
Yes! :clap: The new Aperture is awesome, MUCH faster much better tools (brush!).
The 2.0 conversions are almost without exception better than the 1.1 ones. In some photos I've seen whole areas of detail appear, which I could not get at with the recovery tools in aperture 1.5 no matter what - especially in night shots for some reason. (Note: The camera in question is GRD II).
One point though. We now have two choices for conversion. One is the Panasonic LX entry copied in the .plist file and made to look like a ricoh entry, and the other is the generic dng conversion. The two are quite different. In particular, the default dng conversion seems to apply a lot more sharpening than the LX conversion, which introduces noise into dark areas. The sliders for the dng default are .50 sharpening .80 edges. I think this is just too strong. Any opinions?
However, even when the sliders are adjusted to be the same as in the panasonic conversion (.78 sharpening, .20 edges), the two conversions are different. Not clear if one in general looks better than the other, i keep changing my mind from photo to photo. Any thoughts on this, from people who may know more about how raw conversions work?
I'll try and post some examples later.
The 2.0 conversions are almost without exception better than the 1.1 ones. In some photos I've seen whole areas of detail appear, which I could not get at with the recovery tools in aperture 1.5 no matter what - especially in night shots for some reason. (Note: The camera in question is GRD II).
One point though. We now have two choices for conversion. One is the Panasonic LX entry copied in the .plist file and made to look like a ricoh entry, and the other is the generic dng conversion. The two are quite different. In particular, the default dng conversion seems to apply a lot more sharpening than the LX conversion, which introduces noise into dark areas. The sliders for the dng default are .50 sharpening .80 edges. I think this is just too strong. Any opinions?
However, even when the sliders are adjusted to be the same as in the panasonic conversion (.78 sharpening, .20 edges), the two conversions are different. Not clear if one in general looks better than the other, i keep changing my mind from photo to photo. Any thoughts on this, from people who may know more about how raw conversions work?
I'll try and post some examples later.