Topaz: Edit JPG to Raw Files

[digitaldog]

It doesn't do that. It does more than that.

It doesn't do that (according to you, convert JPEG to high bit) yet that's what the web site says it does do. So as a Topaz cheerleader, you're kind of ignoring what they tell us and have yet to explain if and how they convert a JPEG into raw data.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Topaz claim:

"An 8-bit JPEG only has 256 values per channel. Running that JPEG through JPEG to RAW AI will expand it to 65,532 values per channel...

Think of it this way: it will move 256 values per channel into a wider container, capable of storing up to 65,532 values per channel, but it will still contain no more than 256 values per channel.

Or think of it this way: you have a wall-to-wall-carpet in a room 10'x10'. You move it to a room of 20'x20' and it becomes an area carpet, but still measuring only 100 square feet, within a room of 400 square feet.

The real question though is this: is AI capable of inventing extra values and adding them sensibly to the original 256?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It doesn't do that (according to you, convert JPEG to high bit) yet that's what the web site says it does do. So as a Topaz cheerleader, you're kind of ignoring what they tell us and have yet to explain if and how they convert a JPEG into raw data.

I was hoping you were just trolling but apparently you really do not (want to) understand what it actually does.

I, therefore, doubt the usefulness of explaining it once more, so I'll refrain. I have more useful and rewarding things to do.

Cheers,
Bart

[billbane]

Slobodan says, "The real question though is this: is AI capable of inventing extra values and adding them sensibly to the original 256?" And, I say, this is exactly what I read Topaz to say. Just like the Adobe's A.I. Content aware fill feature in PS  "invents" extra values that are not in the source pixels. Call it "interpolation by other means" if that helps.

More generally than Slobodan's comment, call it anything one likes, but shouldn't the only material question be if it is useful to the particular user?

How good is Topaz J2R at image processing, actually and potentially, irrespective of whether it is called "Potato" or "Tomato"?

Bill

[digitaldog]

I was hoping you were just trolling but apparently you really do not (want to) understand what it actually does.

Yes, how it converts JPEG into raw data. Still waiting.
Does it use the new Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Little Green men from Mars, Chupacabra algorithms to do this Bart?
You didn't explain it. Nor show it's even possible to convert a JPEG to raw data. Nor provide that raw data converted from my TIFF.
And I'm trolling? Kind of the pot calling the kettle black. 
Rewarding work is justifying a company lying to unsuspecting customers?

[digitaldog]

How good is Topaz J2R at image processing, actually and potentially, irrespective of whether it is called "Potato" or "Tomato"?

More like calling a JPEG a raw. But like a Potato and a Tomato, two totally different things. You can believe they are the same but I don't recommend you believe that's true for either; they are not.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The real question though is this: is AI capable of inventing extra values and adding them sensibly to the original 256?

Exactly.

A.I. does allow to invent credible detail after long enough training of the model with good (before/after) example images. Whether the values are sensible enough to call it an improvement? That is up to the beholder to judge.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Next we'll hear that A.I. can take a Carrot Cake and un-bake it and provide us the individual ingredients specified in it's original recipe. 
If you actually believe that, the oceanfront properly in New Mexico is on sale until February 8th, instead of $9999.00 per cubic inch, it's a mere $7999.00 per cubic inch.
Whether the oceanfront property is sensible enough to call it an oceanfront properly? That is up to the beholder to judge.

[albytastic]

Well this argument is becoming circular so all I can say is that Bart has it right and so does Topaz - the program works brilliantly as I have shown with ACTUAL examples on my Flickr site.

So frankly all arguments to me are fallacious - it works!

I'm afraid that those who try to claim that it can't produce the results it actually does because they disagree with Topaz' nomenclature had better get used to a simple fact - AI is here - and many programs like PhotoShop are already extinct - they simply don't know it yet.

I have used Neat Image for many years, but that program can no longer compete with J2R in terms of noise reduction and there are many other AI programs now appearing.

The future of photography is clear and Topaz and others are leading the way.

[Doug Gray]

Think of it this way: it will move 256 values per channel into a wider container, capable of storing up to 65,532 values per channel, but it will still contain no more than 256 values per channel.

Or think of it this way: you have a wall-to-wall-carpet in a room 10'x10'. You move it to a room of 20'x20' and it becomes an area carpet, but still measuring only 100 square feet, within a room of 400 square feet.

The real question though is this: is AI capable of inventing extra values and adding them sensibly to the original 256?

That would be how a standard application converts jpg, or any 8 bits/ch format, to 16 bit tiff.

But, to be fair it actually does expand to a larger space since it uses AI against a surrounding region to reconstruct, to some degree, what it expects the image to be had it not been lossily compressed to jpg. And this produces higher bits/ch.

That, of course, doesn't make it a conversion to RAW but it could improve the image and make it more editable.

[digitaldog]

Some people here just can’t tell the difference between “it works” and we’re telling you a lie.

[Ray Harrison]

Well this argument is becoming circular so all I can say is that Bart has it right and so does Topaz - the program works brilliantly as I have shown with ACTUAL examples on my Flickr site.

So frankly all arguments to me are fallacious - it works!

I'm afraid that those who try to claim that it can't produce the results it actually does because they disagree with Topaz' nomenclature had better get used to a simple fact - AI is here - and many programs like PhotoShop are already extinct - they simply don't know it yet.

I have used Neat Image for many years, but that program can no longer compete with J2R in terms of noise reduction and there are many other AI programs now appearing.

The future of photography is clear and Topaz and others are leading the way.

I've failed to stop commenting. After this time, for sure. 

I don't think anyone is claiming "it can't produce the results it actually does". I've seen results it produces on a handful of my images, and believe me, I won't deny it produces those results  . You're certainly nothing if not extremely, extremely enthusiastic. Enjoy!

[billbane]

Andrew,

Are you in charge of "thought purity" on this blog, because that is the tone of almost all of your remarks.

You seem to wish to shut down discussions that do not fit your views. I understand and appreciate constructive disagreement but lotsa seemingly irrelevant invective in your messages.

Given your ignorance of and indifference toward learning what A.I. is, why don't you give it a rest until you close that knowledge gap you have?

Also, this might let some topaz actual users come out from the shadows without worrying that their damn heads will be cut off when they discuss their experiences. I for one would like to hear about their experiences.

Bill

[digitaldog]

Andrew,
Are you in charge of "thought purity" on this blog, because that is the tone of almost all of your remarks.

I'm not in charge of critical thinking but I recommend it to everyone. It is a shame it is so often lacking. 
BTW, this isn't a blog; try to use the correct nomenclature if you can. This is a web forum.


blogDictionary result for blog
/bläɡ/Submit
noun
1.
a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style.

An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages. They differ from chat rooms in that messages are often longer than one line of text, and are at least temporarily archived.

I have no ignorance, like some posting here what raw data is, how DNG operates, and the vast differences in data and editing overhead between a JPEG and raw data.
Topaz users can state it works; I've never stated otherwise. But then the Topaz fanboys miss that and the fact that Topaz is outright lying about what the product does and how. But given the current state of many governments, this doesn't surprise me, even if what we're discussing, well some of us, is based on actual imaging science.

You guys can and should discuss your user experience but you guys should recognize that Topaz is making stuff up and absolutely is NOT converting a JPEG to raw. But it seems so many of the Topaz fanboys find it necessary to ignore that lie and confuse a product that actually does something versus a product that does something and utterly lies about what it does. Connecting those dots seems rather difficult for a few people posting in this forum unfortunately.

[Michael Erlewine]

As the OP, my thought was to draw attention to and point out what may be useful to some of us. Not all of us were born yesterday. I have serious film, slides, and so on going back to 1955 that can benefit from this treatment, not to mention JPGs. from having the first digital Nikon camera, etc. I have tens of thousands of images that would be great to "clean up" and do some further editing on. so much of this discussion is over my head or above my use-grade. LOL.

[faberryman]

I have tens of thousands of images that would be great to "clean up" and do some further editing on.

You better get started. Life is short. I am more interested in making new images rather that futzing with my archive.

[Michael Erlewine]

You better get started. Life is short. I am more interested in making new images rather that futzing with my archive.

Well, as they say, "two trains are running." LOL.

[Garnick]

Well, as they say, "two trains are running." LOL.

+ 1 Michael 

The way I see it, Life is only as short as you make it.  I love collecting "Sayings" and coining a few of my own occasionally.  One of my favourites(not mine) is as follows - "Die Young, As Late As Possible".  In my 72nd decade I cannot compete with your archive of thousands, but I do still enjoy "Futzing" through the ones I have.  Occasionally I'll open one in PS and create a brand new version with some or all of the components.  Sometimes abstracts and others exactly as it was shot, but with brand new edits.  I also love the experience of capturing new images, although physical issues don't allow the mobility I once to enjoyed.  I sincerely hope you will find some treasures from the past Michael, as I'm sure you will.  The past is where we live, the present is just a word, and the future is the Twilight Zone.

Gary

[faberryman]

The past is where we live, the present is just a word, and the future is the Twilight Zone.

Sorry, but I live in the present and look forward to the future.

[Patricia Sheley]

Quote Gary, " 72nd decade"

WOW!!!!! You've seen some things!