Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: JPEG or RAW?  (Read 1471 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2019, 02:00:13 PM »

Correct, and that's why near the bottom of Reply 2 I said invented information can be useful.
And one could suggest the clone tools does this as well. Content Aware in PS does work well often (and fails as well) but it's simply cloning existing data. It isn't pretending to take the existing data and make it 3D, or increase it's DR, or turn it into raw data.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12270
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2019, 02:06:27 PM »

And one could suggest the clone tools does this as well. Content Aware in PS does work well often (and fails as well) but it's simply cloning existing data. It isn't pretending to take the existing data and make it 3D, or increase it's DR, or turn it into raw data.

Exactly, but I would suggest the word "simply" could be misunderstood. I have been impressed with the extent of complex infills it can create, so there's some very clever math going on under the hood, but in the final analysis, yes correct, it is essentially borrowing and transposing existing information intelligently.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7407
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2019, 02:17:22 PM »

Hi Bart,

OK, Andrew posted at 1:16 and you posted at 1:27 so presumably you saw what he wrote. Does this boil down to the proposition that only the tooth fairy can unscramble omelettes, or does A.I. really make it possible to reverse-engineer or parse what is an already heavily compromised data base into anything resembling what the original raw data would have been like?

As I said Mark, it is not possible to unscramble the omelet, or unbake Andrew's carrot cake.

The goal of A.I. is not to unscramble/unbake, but scramble/bake again starting with other/better Raw ingredients. The way that is attempted here is by using different Raw files/fragments and resulting JPEGs, trying many combinations of Raw conversion deterioration until one can produce the same effect, and stop doing it that way! When a better result is produced, one probably found a better Raw input that survived the deterioration process (lossy compression, reduced dynamic range, partially clipped highlight), or a way to undo the deterioration. That better recipe it then tried on other image fragments, until it more often than not also creates better output on other ingredients.

This is an extremely complex process (if it were easy it would have been done already), and it can (as TopazLabs have mentioned) take months/weeks and many example image pairs before something better is found.

Result is also dependent on the training data set. A small set is easy to train on, but the resulting recipe will only work well for that specific set, and fail on anything else. To achieve more general usefulness, many many representative images are required.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2019, 02:29:05 PM »

As I said Mark, it is not possible to unscramble the omelet, or unbake Andrew's carrot cake.
So we now agree it's not possible for Topaz Labs to convert a JPEG to raw? Or that TIFF I provided for you?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

albytastic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2019, 02:31:12 PM »

As I said Mark, it is not possible to unscramble the omelet, or unbake Andrew's carrot cake.

The goal of A.I. is not to unscramble/unbake, but scramble/bake again starting with other/better Raw ingredients. The way that is attempted here is by using different Raw files/fragments and resulting JPEGs, trying many combinations of Raw conversion deterioration until one can produce the same effect, and stop doing it that way! When a better result is produced, one probably found a better Raw input that survived the deterioration process (lossy compression, reduced dynamic range, partially clipped highlight), or a way to undo the deterioration. That better recipe it then tried on other image fragments, until it more often than not also creates better output on other ingredients.

This is an extremely complex process (if it were easy it would have been done already), and it can (as TopazLabs have mentioned) take months/weeks and many example image pairs before something better is found.

Result is also dependent on the training data set. A small set is easy to train on, but the resulting recipe will only work well for that specific set, and fail on anything else. To achieve more general usefulness, many many representative images are required.

Cheers,
Bart

Excellently put Bart - but at the end of the day what so many people are desperately striving to avoid mentioning - IT WORKS!

And at the end of MY day that's all I'm really interested in!
Logged

albytastic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2019, 02:41:34 PM »

So we now agree it's not possible for Topaz Labs to convert a JPEG to raw? Or that TIFF I provided for you?

But they do create RAW file - DNG

"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."

So 3 major manufacturers actually use DNG as their RAW files.

https://expertphotography.com/dng-file-vs-raw-file/

sorry FOUR.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7403
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2019, 02:51:20 PM »

But they do create RAW file - DNG

Alby, may I, with respect, suggest that until you understand what you're talking about, you defer to those who do?

Jeremy
Logged
(formerly kikashi)

albytastic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2019, 02:52:33 PM »

Alby, may I, with respect, suggest that until you understand what you're talking about, you defer to those who do?

Jeremy

But I am, the actual camera manufacturers.
Logged

albytastic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2019, 02:54:13 PM »

Alby, may I, with respect, suggest that until you understand what you're talking about, you defer to those who do?

Jeremy

But you are quite right and I feel this topic is now exhausted.

I don't know what time it is in the USA but her in Britain it's dinner time.

So good night and sleep well.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2019, 02:56:35 PM »

But they do create RAW file - DNG

"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."

So 3 major manufacturers actually use DNG as their RAW files.

https://expertphotography.com/dng-file-vs-raw-file/

sorry FOUR.
You're confused again. DNG may equal raw, DNG may not equal raw. You've been told over and over again, and provided outside references that DNG is a container for image and metadata. You refuse to accept that a JPEG placed INTO a DNG is still a JPEG and NOT raw data.
A camera may indeed write raw data into a DNG. That data IS raw.
A proprietary raw can be converted to DNG, that sensor data is raw (and again, all that is converted is simply metadata).
A JPEG or TIFF can be converted to a DNG. That absolutely doesn't make that raw data.
I'd provide the actual DNG spec that talks of this but I suspect it would over your head as you simply cannot accept or understand the multiple outside references I've already provided to you that clearly state what happens when you convert a JPEG to DNG. What it absolutely does NOT do is make that JPEG raw data. If you believe that, you're stuck in an unreality bubble.



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/
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 03:00:01 PM by digitaldog »
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12828
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2019, 02:57:08 PM »

But I am, the actual camera manufacturers.

You really, really, really do not understand the subject matter.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2019, 03:00:41 PM »

You really, really, really do not understand the subject matter.
I'd like to and yet another "really".  :-[
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16045
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2019, 03:14:45 PM »

You really, really, really do not understand the subject matter.
+1000.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7407
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2019, 03:16:52 PM »

So we now agree it's not possible for Topaz Labs to convert a JPEG to raw? Or that TIFF I provided for you?

Selective quoting of only part of my answer, only demonstrates unwillingness to understand what A.I. is about.

Or to put it differently (with a wink to the late Douglas Adams), the answer to your question is: 42.
If the answer seems to make little sense to someone, maybe the question was ill-posed, or that someone is incapable of understanding?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12270
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2019, 03:27:07 PM »

As I said Mark, it is not possible to unscramble the omelet, or unbake Andrew's carrot cake.

The goal of A.I. is not to unscramble/unbake, but scramble/bake again starting with other/better Raw ingredients. The way that is attempted here is by using different Raw files/fragments and resulting JPEGs, trying many combinations of Raw conversion deterioration until one can produce the same effect, and stop doing it that way! When a better result is produced, one probably found a better Raw input that survived the deterioration process (lossy compression, reduced dynamic range, partially clipped highlight), or a way to undo the deterioration. That better recipe it then tried on other image fragments, until it more often than not also creates better output on other ingredients.

This is an extremely complex process (if it were easy it would have been done already), and it can (as TopazLabs have mentioned) take months/weeks and many example image pairs before something better is found.

Result is also dependent on the training data set. A small set is easy to train on, but the resulting recipe will only work well for that specific set, and fail on anything else. To achieve more general usefulness, many many representative images are required.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, going back to reply 16, while I did mention "unscrambling the omelette" (or is it omelet?) I also said, more meaningfully: ".....reverse-engineer or parse what is an already heavily compromised data base into anything resembling what the original raw data....". I think we're on the same page if you interpret my use of the term reverse-engineer to your term "bake again with other/better raw ingredients". However in this case, there are no other/better raw ingredients because those were all trashed with the conversion to JPEG. One is only working with "JPEG ingredients", to pursue the analogy. Now, you are explaining to us how you think they can parlay those JPEG ingredients into better output. I'm not positioned to argue it's impossible, but I'll remain agnostic about how likely and how useful until I see it convincingly demonstrated in this particular case by an expert  commercially disinterested third party; the O/P has not accomplished that. However, no matter how it's done and no matter how convincingly it can be demonstrated for a range of images processed and magnified to various extents, the fact remains - purely by definition - that a DNG containing rendered pixels is not RAW. Period. So calling it JPEG to RAW is nonsensical and misleading before we get into the technicalities of what A.I can or cannot do. Therefore, my bottom line to this point is that what the O/P showed doesn't begin to demonstrate whatever utility the application may have beyond the one or two samples he/she shows, and the premise from TOPAZ makes no technical sense.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12270
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2019, 03:40:05 PM »

But they do create RAW file - DNG

"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."

So 3 major manufacturers actually use DNG as their RAW files.

https://expertphotography.com/dng-file-vs-raw-file/

sorry FOUR.

I think you are misunderstanding something a bit subtle but very important.

DNG is an Adobe open raw file format (means Digital Negative Graphic) that Thomas Knoll spearheaded in an effort to try to get camera manufacturers to standardize their raw file formats on this one specification. Several manufacturers have done so, hence your three or four camera makers who use the DNG format as their default raw file format.

Now here's where it gets a bit subtle: it is also possible to use the DNG specification for encapsulating JPEG or TIFF files, however this does not make them raw files. They are fully rendered pixel-based image files with a DNG "hat" on them. They are not raw. Raw data is undemosaiced/unrendered, whereas pixel-based data is. I think this is where you are getting confused. Because raw data can only come from the camera at the time of making the photograph (as a camera maker you should know this), nothing you do to a JPEG after the fact turns it back into a raw file - even putting a DNG hat on it and calling it a DNG file.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2789
    • Flicker photos
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2019, 03:54:50 PM »

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15032
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2019, 03:57:32 PM »

Selective quoting of only part of my answer, only demonstrates unwillingness to understand what A.I. is about.
So with A.I (or not), Topaz converts JPEG to raw? Yes or no?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3623
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2019, 04:19:47 PM »

I think the heat of this discussion could be dialed down if the notion of returning processed data (JPEG) to an *unprocessed state (Raw) were abandoned, and instead we focused on whether or not the Topaz software actually increases the quality (at least tonally but maybe spatially as well) of the source JPGs. Like Bart says, you can't unbreak an egg…but some methods of attempting this may get you closer than others, and the amount of "closer" may have actual value. Taking shots at hype is easy. But does the Topaz process do any good? That's the question I'd be interested in.

-Dave-

*Relatively unprocessed, that is.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7407
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2019, 04:25:27 PM »

Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up