Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th May 2006 19:17 UTC
Ars reviews Aperture 1.1, and concludes: "I have to admit, I was very skeptical that Apple could whip together professional-quality RAW conversion for numerous camera models in a few months. Either they bought some existing technology we don't know about or there are some seriously overworked software engineers getting some much-needed sleep right about now. But who cares? The plain fact is that Aperture 1.1's high-quality RAW processing says "we can move quickly in areas where we've had little experience" and the discount/refund says "users won't be expected to beta test at their own expense again." Ars's review of Aperture 1.0 was quite negative.
Thread beginning with comment 123833
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-08-02
I should point out that Bibble and Adobe Camera Raw use dcraw source code internally, so while these tools provide a gui, they use the dcraw source code to do the conversion work.
Actually, Bibble doesn't use dcraw for its conversion, afaik. only a very limited part of dcraw.c is used by it.
And Aperture is more than just RAW conversion. It's a workflow tool.
Although I am pretty disappointed with it, even at the recent 1.1.1. I still prefer to use bibble for my RAw conversion.. Aperture has a lot for it (stacks, versioning, lighttable), but it's over-designed imo..