Aperture import…should I just start from scratch?
I really like C1, and feel it's far superior to Aperture.
However I've been having import issues, and recently upgraded to C1.9 because the importer was a tad better. BUT I'm having to go folder-by-folder due to my Aperture library size (61k+), and having to export smaller libraries (a few thousand images each), and import them as individual catalogs.
Not the biggest deal, but the images all just come up so SLOW. …Is this because it's an aperture library import? Or is C1 just that slow when theres a few thousand images involved?
I had my Aperture library MANAGED and planned on doing the same in C1. SHOULD I GO TO REFERENCED FILES?
I think I can easily "relocate originals" in aperture, to switch over to managed. Then import them in to C1 in their original state, and keep them as referenced.
Honestly, there's not really that many adjustments I want to keep from Aperture. Most of the "keepers" I used Nik, and those are Tiffs. The only reason I was using the importer was for speed/simplicity and folder structure.
tia
However I've been having import issues, and recently upgraded to C1.9 because the importer was a tad better. BUT I'm having to go folder-by-folder due to my Aperture library size (61k+), and having to export smaller libraries (a few thousand images each), and import them as individual catalogs.
Not the biggest deal, but the images all just come up so SLOW. …Is this because it's an aperture library import? Or is C1 just that slow when theres a few thousand images involved?
I had my Aperture library MANAGED and planned on doing the same in C1. SHOULD I GO TO REFERENCED FILES?
I think I can easily "relocate originals" in aperture, to switch over to managed. Then import them in to C1 in their original state, and keep them as referenced.
Honestly, there's not really that many adjustments I want to keep from Aperture. Most of the "keepers" I used Nik, and those are Tiffs. The only reason I was using the importer was for speed/simplicity and folder structure.
tia
0
-
[quote="NNN635692876011736091" wrote:
Not the biggest deal, but the images all just come up so SLOW. …Is this because it's an aperture library import?
No. It's because it's slow. 😲
Seriously, don't expect C1 to be anywhere near Apertures performance when it comes to browsing through thousands of images. Its just not there at the moment and nobody knows if it ever will be. There are some odd database design decisions by Phase One re. the catalog, which seems to be the main bottleneck for the time being.[quote="NNN635692876011736091" wrote:
I had my Aperture library MANAGED and planned on doing the same in C1. SHOULD I GO TO REFERENCED FILES?
I had my images managed in Aperture for 10 years and never lost an image or had a single issue with this. However, after testing C1 extensively and witnessing a lot of crashes and inconsistencies in the catalog database, I made the decision to switch everything over to referenced. I just can't trust this software so far like I would trust Apples.
I did this by relocating my whole library in Aperture into a referenced folder structure first (worked like a charm, make sure to verify/repair your library beforehand).
I can't say which way is faster, would be interesting to get some facts around this here in the forum. Don't think many people are currently using C1 in managed mode, so we have a lack of evidence. Might be an interesting topic to dig further.
FWIW: My RAW files are sitting on a SATA drive (Mac Pro), while I have my catalog on the internal SSD. It's ok in terms of performance, but Aperture in comparison screams with the same number of images.0 -
I don't think it will make any difference in terms of speed, since on OS X Capture One's catalog is actually a hidden folder (a package). You can see what's inside by right-clicking and selecting "Show Package Contents". Your pictures will be in there. 0 -
[quote="John Doe" wrote:
I don't think it will make any difference in terms of speed, since on OS X Capture One's catalog is actually a hidden folder (a package).
I have seen the weirdest things affecting computer operations and performance in the 30 years I've been using them, so I don't know why we should just put "managed or referenced" off the list of suspects here without further investigation. 😉0 -
[quote="SnappyMcGee" wrote:
I really like C1, and feel it's far superior to Aperture.
However I've been having import issues, and recently upgraded to C1.9 because the importer was a tad better. BUT I'm having to go folder-by-folder due to my Aperture library size (61k+), and having to export smaller libraries (a few thousand images each), and import them as individual catalogs.
Not the biggest deal, but the images all just come up so SLOW. …Is this because it's an aperture library import? Or is C1 just that slow when theres a few thousand images involved?
I had my Aperture library MANAGED and planned on doing the same in C1. SHOULD I GO TO REFERENCED FILES?
I think I can easily "relocate originals" in aperture, to switch over to managed. Then import them in to C1 in their original state, and keep them as referenced.
Honestly, there's not really that many adjustments I want to keep from Aperture. Most of the "keepers" I used Nik, and those are Tiffs. The only reason I was using the importer was for speed/simplicity and folder structure.
tia
Read carefully all thethreads in this forum - realise that these are recurring and persistent, not temporary.
I would strongly reccomend referenced images, and catalogs size kept under 10,000 images.0 -
[quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
Read carefully all thethreads in this forum - realise that these are recurring and persistent, not temporary.
I would strongly reccomend referenced images, and catalogs size kept under 10,000 images.
That's the sense I'm getting.
A real shame, too, because one of the selling point on C1 for me was it's organizational approach. Too bad it's got structural issues. I have read much on this forum about these very issues (hence the semi-redundant post), so thank all of you for weighing in.
Looks like I'll be moving my Aperture Library to referenced this weekend, and creating new folder structures! Yay!
PS, I too vote for C1v10 addressing these catalog issues from the ground-up. There's no reason why Lightroom and Aperture are so lightening quick in these areas and C1 isn't, despite being arguably better in most other aspects.0 -
[quote="SnappyMcGee" wrote:
PS, I too vote for C1v10 addressing these catalog issues from the ground-up. There's no reason why Lightroom and Aperture are so lightening quick in these areas and C1 isn't, despite being arguably better in most other aspects.
Are you sure that the observations you make here support your "no reason" hypothesis?
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Are you sure that the observations you make here support your "no reason" hypothesis?
Grant
I have no idea what that means. Can you say it a different way?0 -
[quote="SnappyMcGee" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Are you sure that the observations you make here support your "no reason" hypothesis?
Grant
I have no idea what that means. Can you say it a different way?
OK.
How do you come to a conclusion that C1 has "Structural issues"?
How have you compared the way that Aperture and LightRoom were designed and developed with the decisions taken for the design of the Capture One approach?
Does any part of the adopted design approach account for the aspects of C1 that you prefer compared to the other two products you mentioned?
I assume that you have looked into these matters in some detail before coming to your conclusion that there is "no reason" why Capture One cannot be as "lightning quick" as the others.
I'm interested because once in a while I see comments about LightRoom, for example that suggests people are not impressed with performance and then a new version comes out and all is improved, apparently.
From memory there was a time when comments compared C1 V8 rather favourably in terms of performance compared to LightRoom (V5 I think at that time).
But it's really not that easy to undertake side by side performance testing or year on year performance testing in an ever changing hardware and software environment.
From comments on forums it would seem that people are having somewhat different experiences in terms of their satisfaction with performance. In that case there does not seem to be an entirely convincing fit with a conclusion that a product might have "structural issues" although it may suggest that you are right about there being "no reason" why different product cannot deliver equally acceptable over all performance.
It makes me wonder what other issues might be more influential.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
How do you come to a conclusion that C1 has "Structural issues"?
BECAUSE IT IS DOG SLOW, GRANT, THAT'S WHY!
You are not even a Mac-User, so I find it quite bold from you to comment on threads in this particular forum here, where the majority of people complaining about C1's lack of speed are former Aperture-converts, who are simply disappointed to now have a kick ass photo editing platform that is unfortunately sometimes a pain in the ass to work with.
You do not know or have ever used Aperture, let alone for many years, so you are simply not in a position to tell us that everything with C1 is A-Ok and its just us morons expecting too much.[quote="SFA" wrote:
I'm interested because once in a while I see comments about LightRoom, for example that suggests people are not impressed with performance and then a new version comes out and all is improved, apparently.
Lightroom is much slower than Aperture, but still quicker than C1. That's all there is to it. You will hardly find anyone complaining about Apertures performance after the release of version 3.0 and the newer hardware that was available then. On any decent Mac released in the last 8 years it simply flies, no matter how many images you throw at it.0 -
[quote="EnderWiggins" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
How do you come to a conclusion that C1 has "Structural issues"?
BECAUSE IT IS DOG SLOW, GRANT, THAT'S WHY!
You are not even a Mac-User, so I find it quite bold from you to comment on threads in this particular forum here, where the majority of people complaining about C1's lack of speed are former Aperture-converts, who are simply disappointed to now have a kick ass photo editing platform that is unfortunately sometimes a pain in the ass to work with.
You do not know or have ever used Aperture, let alone for many years, so you are simply not in a position to tell us that everything with C1 is A-Ok and its just us morons expecting too much.[quote="SFA" wrote:
I'm interested because once in a while I see comments about LightRoom, for example that suggests people are not impressed with performance and then a new version comes out and all is improved, apparently.
Lightroom is much slower than Aperture, but still quicker than C1. That's all there is to it. You will hardly find anyone complaining about Apertures performance after the release of version 3.0 and the newer hardware that was available then. On any decent Mac released in the last 8 years it simply flies, no matter how many images you throw at it.
You're right, I'm not a Mac user so it's just possible that I can take a neutral view.
The performance comparison comments I mentioned were, if I recall correctly, from Mac users making them all the more memorable. Indeed is seems that not all Mac user have issues (or at least not severe issues) as things stand. I wonder why not?
Quite frankly if Apple could not create some software that is perceived to perform extremely well using their own development tools on their own hardware and operating system and with all of the very well funded resources they have at their disposal, then I doubt they would stay in business. They would certainly be expected to be in a position to take instant advantage of any new developments in their technology - something others may need to take some time to adapt to, especially if they were to run it on multiple platforms.
One also has to wonder, yet again, why Apple would choose to walk away from such a successful product.
I have several photo editing applications with incredibly fast Browser display capability. Great. However the edit processes tend to be somewhat slower losing all of the gains made when browsing.
The question of end to end performance is not, in my view, all about speed unless you segregate the workflow into very clear cut operations. Take 2000, select 20, only work on those 20 images, for example, then extremely fast selection based mainly on embedded thumbnails at that point may well appeal.
If the proportion of selection operation is the other way around the speed of display is not so important - the ability to work on the images whilst they are still being prepared is probably more significant.
If Apple managed both with Aperture then all power to their developers. But - as i wrote above - one would really expect them to be able to excel at that since they have control over all aspects of the development infrastructure they required to deliver the solution.
Grant0 -
For whatever reason, Apple abandoned their product and forced us all to find alternatives. Yeah, it sucks, but it's reality.
And those of us HERE have obviously come to the conclusion that C1 is the best option for us. Warts and all. And there are, unfortunately, some warts.
While C1 seems to be far, far superior with its image conversion, correction and manipulation tools, its frustratingly lacking in its organizational chops. Something which Aperture was amazingly great at. And once you get a taste of the silky smoothness of handling 100,000+ images at a time, with no noticeable loading time and no glitches…you start to wonder why C1, with all its superior image tools, can't crack the database problem.
Hence the (correct) suggestion on these forums for PhaseOne to embrace a "tock" cycle, where they perhaps rebuild their catalog approach from the ground-up. Because the way it is now isn't working very well.
It's even more frustrating because if PhaseOne fixed that part of the equation, there would really be zero need to use anything else. They would have the beauty and the brawn 😉0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
11件のコメント