Topaz: Edit JPG to Raw Files

[Garnick]

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

This becomes somewhat philosophical I suppose, but I imagine it probably took perhaps 3 - 5 seconds to type your reply.  Were you still in the present as you finished typing?  Actually as soon as you typed one letter that action was in the past.  The present consists only of a nano of a nano of a nano second, and probably shorter than that.  Therefore, existence in the present can not efficiently or accurately be measured on any level we can understand.  By the time it takes to press a key and release all of that action then exists in the past, not the present.  I have never read anything bordering on this particular theory, but to me it has always seemed perfectly clear.  I never worry about the present, since it would be a foolish task to take on.  I can only worry about the future and whether there might be anything I can do to change it from my vantage point.  I cannot change the present, which would involve doing so at or very close to the speed of light.  At this age I can only think about that possibility, but I cannot afford to dwell on it, and only in the past.

Gary     

[Michael Erlewine]

LOL. And yet, to a marked degree, what we do in this present moment (in the present) determines the future.

The moment "now" cannot be measured, but it is infinitely present. 

[faberryman]

This becomes somewhat philosophic I suppose, but I imagine it probably took perhaps 3 - 5 seconds to type your reply.  Were you still in the present as you finished typing?  Actually as soon as you typed one letter that action was in the past.  The present consists only of a nano of a nano of a nano second, and probably shorter than that.  Therefore, existence in the present can not efficiently or accurately be measured on any level we can understand.  By the time it takes to press a key and release all of that action then exists in the past, not the present.  I have never read anything bordering on this particular theory, but to me it has always seemed perfectly clear.  I never worry about the present, since it would be a foolish task to take on.  I can only worry about the future and whether there might be anything I can do to change it from my vantage point.  I cannot change the present, which would involve doing so at or very close to the speed of light.  At this age I can only think about that possibility, but I cannot afford to dwell on it, and only in the past.

We were talking about spending time (or not) futzing around with tens of thousand of jpgs in our archives versus doing current work, so I don't think your semantical arguments are very helpful in that context.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The less time we have in the future, the more we live in the past. Including mementos.

[Garnick]

We were talking about spending time (or not) futzing around with tens of thousand of jpgs in our archives versus doing current work, so I don't think your semantical arguments are very helpful in that context.

They weren't meant to be.  Sorry for wasting your time, sort of    Oh, and by the way, since I have so much time left I'll point out that there is no such word as "semantical".  Leave the 'al' off and you've nailed it. 

Gary

[faberryman]

Oh, and by the way, since I have so much time left I'll point out that there is no such word as "semantical".  Leave the 'al' off and you've nailed it.

The word "semantical" is the adjective form of "semantic". It is in the Oxford dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semantical

[Garnick]

Quote Gary, " 72nd decade"

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

Hi Patricia,

Well yes, I suppose I have.  I love the insurance company add - "We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two".  I guess I have seen a thing or two.  Problem is I only remember one of them, and that's rather hazy.  And by the way, it's quite obvious from reading your replies that you have also seen some things.  Very impressed.  We don't see you very often in here it seems, so please feel free to chime in anytime.  Your knowledge and opinions are welcome.  I first started working in a custom printing lab in Toronto in 1968 and eventually had a lab of my own since the mid '70's.  After a number of moves I finally shut it down in early 2017 and now still do some printing etc. at home for my regular customers and few new ones as well.  So yes, I have seen quite a few things pertaining photography in general and printing specifically during those years.  However, among all of the changes I've experienced, digital imaging and all of its accompanying pluses is the biggest one yet.  I suppose perhaps digital AI is the next big advance and perhaps almost ready for prime time as it is on some levels.  Some pretty exciting and interesting things coming down the pipe I believe.

Gary       

[Garnick]

The word "semantical" is the adjective form of "semantic". It is in the Oxford dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semantical

I bow to Mr. Oxford. Unfortunately Mr. Apple dropped the ball on this one, no mention of the word semantical.  You sir are correct!!!!    However, Merriam-Webster defines "semantic" as an adjective and "semantical" is mentioned only as a less commonly used variant.  Obviously "Semantically" is the adverb, but this seems to be the war of the dictionaries.  Therefore it would seem that both forms (semantic & semantical) are acceptable as adjectives, depending on which dictionary you prefer.  Of course I prefer M&W and you prefer Oxford, so I suppose we're both correct on some level.   

Gary     

[Patricia Sheley]

Thank you for your kind response Gary. It would seem it was I that was hazy, as I was just having a good chuckle at your 72 decades (72x10). My attempt at humour I had hoped would return the favour.
Best

[Garnick]

Thank you for your kind response Gary. It would seem it was I that was hazy, as I was just having a good chuckle at your 72 decades (72x10). My attempt at humour I had hoped would return the favour.
Best

Seems I'm not having a good day at all, so perhaps I should give it up for today.  Oh, you mean you didn't realize my surname is Methuselah?  Well, neither did I until I tried to find a way of squeezing out of this one.  Perhaps it would have worked better had I used a decimal point, as in 7.2 decades, but it's a bit late for that I'm afraid    Even though this isn't what I meant by "your expertise", I do appreciate your attention to detail, albeit at my expense.  And in case you're wondering, you are still very welcome to join in anytime of course.  Perhaps next time you could just drop me a personal email to let me know I've done it yet again.  That way I can just ignore it and correct it while no one is looking    What's the going rate for editing fees?

Cheers,
Gary     

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

One more example (see attached), from an image crop of a significantly diffraction-blurred shot. It is a trickier image fragment than one would expect, and it indeed reveals a few shortcomings in the recovery process. But overall, it did a good job of converting from JPG to DNG with processing in Capture One Pro 12.

Most of the C1 adjustments were aimed at reducing the oversharpening, and reducing the Saturation. No additional sharpening was applied, and I even added a tiny bit of fine graininess. C1 makes it very easy to get a better base-line image because one can wrap the tweaks into a User-Style that can be automatically applied upon import.

Do note the improved interior details visible through some of the windows, as well as a significant recovery from diffraction blur on fine detail like the vertical railing bars and horizontal ventilation grids, as well as on tree branches and bricks and grass. In addition, we now have a more robust 16-bit/channel wider-gamut image ready for postprocessing, with less risk of banding or clipping. In this particular crop, there is room for improvement with tonality adjustments to counteract the original diffraction effects.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... converting from JPG to DNG with processing in Capture One Pro 12.

C1 makes it very easy to get a better base-line image...

Bart, one thing is not clear to me in the above. Do you first process in C1 (the reference to “base-line image”) to prepare the jpeg for export to Topaz? Or you take out-of-camera (or phone) jpeg, convert it in Topaz, then fine-tune in C1?

[albytastic]

One more example (see attached), from an image crop of a significantly diffraction-blurred shot. It is a trickier image fragment than one would expect, and it indeed reveals a few shortcomings in the recovery process. But overall, it did a good job of converting from JPG to DNG with processing in Capture One Pro 12.

Most of the C1 adjustments were aimed at reducing the oversharpening, and reducing the Saturation. No additional sharpening was applied, and I even added a tiny bit of fine graininess. C1 makes it very easy to get a better base-line image because one can wrap the tweaks into a User-Style that can be automatically applied upon import.

Do note the improved interior details visible through some of the windows, as well as a significant recovery from diffraction blur on fine detail like the vertical railing bars and horizontal ventilation grids, as well as on tree branches and bricks and grass. In addition, we now have a more robust 16-bit/channel wider-gamut image ready for postprocessing, with less risk of banding or clipping. In this particular crop, there is room for improvement with tonality adjustments to counteract the original diffraction effects.

Cheers,
Bart

I also found the same when I tested the program against an old old pic taken on a Canon 350D with the 75-300mm lens, which is quite soft at the far end (300mm).

The results I got showed the same type of improvement you got, so much so that I have no doubt that as this becomes even better with the addition of more images for the AI to learn from we could easily see it correcting more lens faults, including chromatic aberration etc.

I have now actually bought this program so pleased am I with it.

[albytastic]

Bart, one thing is not clear to me in the above. Do you first process in C1 (the reference to “base-line image”) to prepare the jpeg for export to Topaz? Or you take out-of-camera (or phone) jpeg, convert it in Topaz, then fine-tune in C1?

I don't know about Bart but I always put the JPEG through J2R as a first step.

[earlybird]

I appreciate how appropriate the additional visual cues seem.

In the second example the tree bark looks more like tree bark and the bricks look more like bricks.

Thank you for posting the comparison.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hmmm... if Topaz’ AI is so automagical, why don’t they come up with a superior raw converter in the first place?

I shoot jpeg only by accident, a temporary lack of sanity, or with a phone. Should I now convert my gazillion raw files into jpegs in order to benefit from the AI magic?

[albytastic]

Hmmm... if Topaz’ AI is so automagical, why don’t they come up with a superior raw converter in the first place?

I shoot jpeg only by accident, a temporary lack of sanity, or with a phone. Should I now convert my gazillion raw files into jpegs in order to benefit from the AI magic?

Of course not, but in addition to it's other outstanding qualities it is a superb noise reduction program.

[32BT]

A very appropriate application of AI would be to reduce/remove jpg compression artifacts for example. That would be a distinct advantage as a first step in any subsequent editing. It is a specific task with more or less known reversal patterns. Just like we recognise certain patterns and objects "behind" the jpeg compression artifacts, so also can a well shaped AI implementation.

If this is all that the product does and turns the result into a dng for editing purposes, it can certainly be a very beneficial product. Another benefit would be to convert the jpg back to capture space in linear gamma which would improve wb adjustments and other editing. Whether it is useful to do so with AI is questionable of course, since the math relation is pretty much transparently known, very specific to the capture device, and can't be generalised.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, one thing is not clear to me in the above. Do you first process in C1 (the reference to “base-line image”) to prepare the jpeg for export to Topaz? Or you take out-of-camera (or phone) jpeg, convert it in Topaz, then fine-tune in C1?

Hi Slobodan,

The latter. All steps in detail:
1. I started with an existing (dated 23 Nov 2012) cropped JPEG (one from an earlier set of tests involving progressively narrower apertures, in order to find the sweet spot).
2. I then took that cropped area JPEG and ran it through JPEG to RAW A.I. with the Normal setting, to produce a DNG output.
3. that DNG output was converted with Capture One Pro 12 to an Adobe RGB colorspace TIFF, with some of the default reigns pulled.
4. that TIFF was converted to a 100% quality for Web JPEG (sRGB colorspace included) with Photoshop and shown in my previous post.

It was a demonstration of what to expect when no original Raw file would have been available, but just a diffraction blur handicapped JPEG.

Cheers,
Bart

[earlybird]

After looking at the most recent examples posted here, I optimistically downloaded and installed a JPEG to RAW trial, and dug up some old JPEG pictures I made before I began working with RAW. The pictures I had on hand were already well made and didn't really have any features which I sought to improve, but they were handy.

I ran them through the JPEG to Raw process and was somewhat unimpressed with my results. I began to consider the idea that I could easily replicate the exaggeration of detail using Focus Magic or some other detail enhancer, while I also wondered if I thought the exaggeration of detail actually enhanced the picture.

So, I then made some several direct comparisons to see if I could support my suspicions. What I found is that the AI provided a cleaner enhancement of detail than I could achieve using methods familiar to me, and that my suspicions were unfounded.

Finally, I downloaded a copies of Bart's examples and tried various settings of sharpening on the basic JPEG to see how it compared to the AI output. I could not better the results of the AI. By the time I had enhanced the details to seem as crisp as the AI did, I had overcooked the edges and caused noticeable ringing. The AI system arrived at a better looking final result.

I do not think I will personally benefit from this application, but it does seem like an impressive application of computing technology.