Topaz: Edit JPG to Raw Files

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,
Many thanks for an actual level headed and honestly useful overview!

Ray, you're welcome.

It's always a bit of a disappointment when people try to hide their lack of knowledge with monologues about semantics, instead of trying the software.

What they apparently fail to recognize is that Raw images were used, together with resulting JPEGs to train A.I. models that can approximately reverse the lossy compression operation. The goal result is a higher than JPEG quality 'New Original'. It would not make much sense to cripple such a 16-bit/channel larger gamut RGB image by converting it to a 14-bit single channel Bayerized Mosaic, thus throwing away information that was just painstakingly (re)created.

Maybe TopazLabs was a bit too creative in using 'JPEG' and 'RAW' in the product name, because they used  JPEGs and Raws to train the model. But thank goodness the result is not dumbed-down to a traditional Raw status. Maybe that's also the reason they called it RAW instead of Raw. Because it's better than Raw 

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray Harrison]

Ray, you're welcome.

It's always a bit of a disappointment when people try to hide their lack of knowledge with monologues about semantics, instead of trying the software.

What they apparently fail to recognize is that Raw images were used, together with resulting JPEGs to train A.I. models that can approximately reverse the lossy compression operation. The goal result is a higher than JPEG quality 'New Original'. It would not make much sense to cripple such a 16-bit/channel larger gamut RGB image by converting it to a 14-bit single channel Bayerized Mosaic, thus throwing away information that was just painstakingly (re)created.

Maybe TopazLabs was a bit too creative in using 'JPEG' and 'RAW' in the product name, because they used  JPEGs and Raws to train the model. But thank goodness the result is not dumbed-down to a traditional Raw status. Maybe that's also the reason they called it RAW instead of Raw. Because it's better than Raw 

Cheers,
Bart

And mea culpa - I did get buried in semantics and I'll freely admit ignorance where I'm due (I'm in a constant state of learning) .

[digitaldog]

It's always a bit of a disappointment when people try to hide their lack of knowledge with monologues about semantics, instead of trying the software.

Andrew,
Maybe I can get down and dirty and such a description might help understand what Topaz is attempting.....

Utter waste of time for me. I ONLY capture raw. I consider JPEG and sRGB to be an output specific end products of editing raw solely for uploading to the web and mobile devices.
I have no JPEG turds to polish. Keep in mind too: GIGO:Garbage In Garbage Out!
Recommending I try the software is akin to suggesting I download and try software that evaluates how many green unicorn's reside in Guam.
I've never said without looking at this product that it can't improve a JPEG that needs some editing (or perhaps for some here, turd polishing). It better do something to make the image look better or the suckers who believe it converts JPEG to raw, as the manufacturer falsely claims, will be even more clueless to purchase it, let alone waste their time testing it.

I've stated and will state again, Topaz Labs is lying, is full of sh*t, is so desperate to sell a product that may or may not be better than the hundreds of products that edit images, and they should be called out for lying. I don't support companies, software or otherwise, that lie to their potential customers let alone their existing customers who feel the need to for whatever reason, defend their egregious lies.

It's always a disappointment when people who know they are being lied to hide their lack of knowledge with monologues about trying software that promises something that's impossible to provide; a big fat wet lie. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And mea culpa - I did get buried in semantics and I'll freely admit ignorance where I'm due (I'm in a constant state of learning) .

I didn't mean you.

Cheers,
Bart

[albytastic]

Utter waste of time for me. I ONLY capture raw. I consider JPEG and sRGB to be an output specific end products of editing raw solely for uploading to the web and mobile devices.
I have no JPEG turds to polish. Keep in mind too: GIGO:Garbage In Garbage Out!
Recommending I try the software is akin to suggesting I download and try software that evaluates how many green unicorn's reside in Guam.
I've never said without looking at this product that it can't improve a JPEG that needs some editing (or perhaps for some here, turd polishing). It better do something to make the image look better or the suckers who believe it converts JPEG to raw, as the manufacturer falsely claims, will be even more clueless to purchase it, let alone waste their time testing it.

I've stated and will state again, Topaz Labs is lying, is full of sh*t, is so desperate to sell a product that may or may not be better than the hundreds of products that edit images, and they should be called out for lying. I don't support companies, software or otherwise, that lie to their potential customers let alone their existing customers who feel the need to for whatever reason, defend their egregious lies.

It's always a disappointment when people who know they are being lied to hide their lack of knowledge with monologues about trying software that promises something that's impossible to provide; a big fat wet lie. 

So you know the product that others, like me, have actually tried and evaluated and found to be excellent, is absolute rubbish simply because you say so?

Based on what evaluation?

The fact that you only shoot raw?

Some evaluation.

And BTW Topaz  does NOT claim that it converts JPEGs to raw - the name of the program is "JPEG to RAW" - RAW - NOT raw!

And as a legal point the vituperation you spout may be considered to be libel and if Topaz' lawyers wished could see you end up suffering considerable damages.

And if you're not sure what vituperation means:

"sustained and bitter railing and condemnation : vituperative utterance"

as defined by Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vituperation

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So you know the product that others, like me, have actually tried and evaluated and found to be excellent, is absolute rubbish simply because you say so?...

Once again, nobody is saying that.

The issue is false advertising, in the name and in marketing material.

[albytastic]

Once again, nobody is saying that.

The issue is false advertising, in the name and in marketing material.

Since the term used is RAW, not raw, which is the general term used in photography, the only ones who would gain by such a dispute is the lawyers.

[Patricia Sheley]

"It's always a disappointment when people", Andrew, express complete disinterest in the possibility that outside "Plato's Cave" the future is flying ahead with almost more speed than the eye is able to follow, or willing to investigate/study for the possibility that the container which held so much knowledge has become astoundingly inadequate. That artificial intelligence, once trained to sort billions of content points for hundreds of thousands of predictive specific data points is beneath your willingness to even explore, even in the tiny subset of photography, is well, yes, disappointing. Terabytes of information that were not able to fit in the Raw container are available and increasing before our eyes. I'd hate to miss this unfolding sapiens/technology/AI defining thriller with the years I may have left, simply for my unwillingness to step outside away from my comfortable and known depression in the face of earth. You educated me about so much early in the revolution, yet expansion of the universe has not stopped there. You must know that.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Since the term used is RAW, not raw, which is the general term used in photography, the only ones who would gain by such a dispute is the lawyers.

And the difference is...?

Basically, none. Some would argue  that "raw" shouldn't be capitalized, as it is not an acronym, some others would argue (including myself) that companies like Canon, Nikon, etc. use RAW to denote their proprietary raw files. For the purpose of this debate, RAW or raw distinction means nothing.

[digitaldog]

So you know the product that others, like me, have actually tried and evaluated and found to be excellent, is absolute rubbish simply because you say so?

Based on what evaluation?

The fact that you only shoot raw?

You don't read or comprehend my writings very well sir. I'll repeat: I didn't say it didn't work. I said the marketing and claims (convert JPEG to raw) is utter BS. As Slodobdan correctly stated: The issue is false advertising, in the name and in marketing material.
I don't need to download anything to know Topaz's claim is utter BS. You cannot convert a rendered JPEG into a raw.
At least one person here, who's yet to prove it's kind of maybe possible has not done so either despite my request for proof of concept.
As for those tricky semantics, let me provide those here with an ounce of critical thinking: And old Chinese provide states: The path towards genius is calling things by their proper names.

[digitaldog]

And BTW Topaz  does NOT claim that it converts JPEGs to raw - the name of the program is "JPEG to RAW" - RAW - NOT raw!

PLEASE attempt to remove yourself from your unreality bubble and actually examine Topaz's web site (which AGAIN I have to post for those unable to fully read the history of this tread):

[digitaldog]

Since the term used is RAW, not raw, which is the general term used in photography, the only ones who would gain by such a dispute is the lawyers.

Mostly people who only capture JPEGs and do not understand what raw data really is.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-raw-files-explained/

[albytastic]

But it does convert them to a raw file - DNG.

Or are you going to claim that Adobe is also tricking people?

"The Adobe DNG Converter enables you to easily convert camera-specific raw files from supported cameras to a more universal DNG raw file. Another benefit of using the DNG Converter is backward compatibility."

A universal raw file - raw.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

So Topaz is correct, they turn JPEGs into RAW or DNG raw.

[digitaldog]

But it does convert them to a raw file - DNG.

Or are you going to claim that Adobe is also tricking people?

"The Adobe DNG Converter enables you to easily convert camera-specific raw files from supported cameras to a more universal DNG raw file. Another benefit of using the DNG Converter is backward compatibility."

A universal raw file - raw.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

So Topaz is correct, they turn JPEGs into RAW or DNG raw.

No. You don't seem to understand how the DNG converter actually operates any more than you do what raw data really is.
The DNG converter does convert proprietary raw to DNG and that sensor data isn't touched at all, it's just as raw. FWIW, what's really being converted is the metadata! Not the sensor data.
The DNG converter can convert a TIFF or PSD or JPEG into a DNG. It's still rendered data. It isn't raw data. You can convert a JPEG to a TIFF. That's a container. The data is as JPEGy as it was prior to the conversion. What results after saving that TIFF again is a different story. A story I shouldn’t have to explain to you if you understand more about what JPEG data is and what happens when re-saving it than your understanding of what raw data really is.
The DNG format is just a container. What's placed (image data) into that container is what it was prior to conversion!

So, is Topaz correct (convert JPEG to raw data)? No, it's a massive lie.

Jules: If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.

[digitaldog]

But it does convert them to a raw file - DNG.

Or are you going to claim that Adobe is also tricking people?

You've been tricked by misunderstanding and assumptions about DNG. DNG may equal raw. DNG may not equal raw. As for JPEG to DNG, read, learn:


http://asktimgrey.com/2015/09/01/jpeg-to-dng/
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1049709
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2189544
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/968134
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/73475/how-to-convert-jpeg-to-raw-in-photoshop-or-similar
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/jpg-to-dng.35456/

[albytastic]

No. You don't seem to understand how the DNG converter actually operates any more than you do what raw data really is.
The DNG converter does convert proprietary raw to DNG and that sensor data isn't touched at all, it's just as raw. FWIW, what's really being converted is the metadata! Not the sensor data.
The DNG converter can convert a TIFF or PSD or JPEG into a DNG. It's still rendered data. It isn't raw data. You can convert a JPEG to a TIFF. That's a container. The data is as JPEGy as it was prior to the conversion. What results after saving that TIFF again is a different story. A story I shouldn’t have to explain to you if you understand more about what JPEG data is and what happens when re-saving it than your understanding of what raw data really is.
The DNG format is just a container. What's placed (image data) into that container is what it was prior to conversion!

So, is Topaz correct (convert JPEG to raw data)? No, it's a massive lie.

Jules: If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.

Really?

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. This will prevent posterization and banding when you adjust the contrast in your images."

So the DNG or TIFF is a 16 bit image which JPEGs definitely are not.

Can you PROVE them wrong?

Not what you claim but what you can prove?

Incidentally DXOmark says in relation to portrait colour depth and their tests:

"For our DxOMark camera sensor reviews, we measure the image quality performance only of camera sensors that are capable of capturing images in RAW format, and we do this before demosaicing or any JPG processing has taken place. You can read more about the DxOMark approach to image quality measurement and why we base our testing on RAW image files here.

Maximum color sensitivity reports in bits the number of colors that the sensor is able to distinguish.

The higher the color sensitivity, the more color nuances can be distinguished. As with dynamic range, color sensitivity is greatest when ISO speed is minimal, and tends to decrease rapidly with rising ISO settings. In DxOMark testing we measure only the maximum color sensitivity. A color sensitivity of 22bits is excellent, and differences below 1 bit are barely noticeable."

A JPEG has 24 bits, more than the 22 bits of colour information that DXOMark considers excellent.

What am I missing?

[digitaldog]

Really?

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. This will prevent posterization and banding when you adjust the contrast in your images.

So the DNG or TIFF is a 16 bit image which JPEGs definitely are not.

You are still very confused. One CAN convert JPEG data to 16bits. You've gained nothing by doing so. You can't save this as a JPEG, it doesn't support that bit depth. You can save that as a TIFF or PSD or DNG (from Photoshop). SO bloody what?
Topaz, like Photoshop can convert a JPEG to high bit and save it as a DNG. You've gained absolutely nothing doing so and had you read the various URL's from outside experts before posting again, you'd understand that fact.
Can I prove them wrong? Yes. Converting a JPEG to DNG doesn't make it raw data. If you would study this a bit before believing their hype, you'd see this is the case.
What are you missing? A lot of facts that have been presented to you. And not only from me.
You need to learn what raw data really is (URLs provided, read them).
You need to learn what happens when you place rendered data or raw data into a container like DNG or TIFF (URL's provided, read them).
You need to learn that simply taking an 8-bit per color document and using something like Photoshop (a nearly 30 year old product) and using Mode Change to select 16-bits doesn't provide any more data than in the original. It's just encoding of numbers.
You don't appear to know the difference between device values (numbers in a document) and colors either. So here's more homework.
http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf
Come back and reply when you better understand what you're not correctly arguing about. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Topaz, like Photoshop can convert a JPEG to high bit and save it as a DNG. You've gained absolutely nothing doing so and had you read the various URL's from outside experts before posting again, you'd understand that fact.

Sorry Andrew, but what Topaz JPEG to RAW does is unlike what Photoshop does. Once the A.I. learning has been optimized a bit more, one does gain over what Photoshop does; reduced JPEG compression artifacts, additional detail, reduced noise.

As I've said before, there is some more room for improvement in the current version, but it already does a lot of what it promises.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Sorry Andrew, but what Topaz JPEG to RAW does is unlike what Photoshop does.

In converting JPEG to high bit, how? That's specifically what I'm referring to for albytastic! Tell us how converting a JPEG to high bit, in either product inherently produces more data, more DR etc.

As I've said before, there is some more room for improvement in the current version, but it already does a lot of what it promises.

One thing it promises is utter BS; a conversion of JPEG to raw. You have any proof that's anything but marketing claim? Yeah, it can convert a JPEG to high bit (so can PS). Yeah, it can convert a JPEG to DNG (so can LR) and that doesn't make it raw as I am trying to explain to albytastic. Now tell us about it's promise, shown now twice, to convert a JPEG to raw data. Please.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In converting JPEG to high bit, how?

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

Cheers,
Bart