JPEG or RAW?

[Mark D Segal]

Wanna bet? - use exiftool on it to strip out the metadata and see how unchanged it is!

But make a copy first!

Read my post - I was talking about post-capture processing, not declaring war on the file.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The real debate is whether whatever "A.I." Topaz uses in its application is good enough to ingest a JPEG file and output a result that has equivalent photographic quality to a well-processed true raw file.

Well summarized.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Wanna bet? - use exiftool on it to strip out the metadata and see how unchanged it is!

But make a copy first!

Will not alter the raw data one bit. But then you incorrectly assume, after many outside references, that a DNG always equals raw (wrong) and that converting a JPEG to DNG makes it raw (wrong again).

[digitaldog]

Well summarized.

Cheers,
Bart

Yes, and the answer is, it cannot.

[Mark D Segal]

Correct, which is why I called it an intermediate, not the final goal.

Cheers,
Bart

Oops - you said "intermediate raw" in post 45, not intermediate goal, and we've been discussing whether the concept of intermediate raw makes sense, so let's not shift the basis", otherwise the discussion gets confusing. There is a difference between "intermediate raw" which doesn't exist and "intermediate goal" which can well exist.

[Mark D Segal]

Well summarized.

Cheers,
Bart

Whew! Thank you -:)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, and the answer is, it cannot.

Cannot? What law of physics prohibits the possibility to improve the final image?

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Whew! Thank you -:)

Doesn't change the new goal posts moved about this product, now, the assumption there is an intermediate raw. I didn't make it Bart, this is your exact writings.

The output quality is determined by the A.I., not whether it becomes an intermediate Raw.

[digitaldog]

Cannot? What law of physics prohibits the possibility to improve the final image?

Cheers,
Bart

The same physics you admitted to, with the cake and omelet analogy.
Try to be consistent and please, try to prove what you state, otherwise it seems just an assumption.
The product doesn't convert a JPEG into raw or RAW if you must. It therefore cannot produce the same results from utterly different data.
But maybe, maybe you can prove there is a conversion to raw data, intermittent or otherwise. In all the posts about this product from day one, you haven't. Kind of telling IMHO.
You have the floor. But will you use it to back up what you state we should believe?

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

[Mark D Segal]

Doesn't change the new goal posts moved about this product, now, the assumption there is an intermediate raw. I didn't make it Bart, this is your exact writings.

OK, but I was trying to get us all beyond this kind of stuff in Reply #58. I.O.W. - isn't it beaten to death for the time being?  :-)

[digitaldog]

OK, but I was trying to get us all beyond this kind of stuff in Reply #58. I.O.W. - isn't it beaten to death for the time being?  :-)

It can be settled when those who insist the product is producing raw from JPEG can prove it. Just writing that it does, doesn't make it so.
Let's see what Bart and other's come up with.
Otherwise, why perpetrate the lie from Topaz?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

OK, but I was trying to get us all beyond this kind of stuff in Reply #58. I.O.W. - isn't it beaten to death for the time being?  :-)

It's beaten to Raw pulp. Good luck trying to demosaic that.

Cheers,
Bart

[Mark D Segal]

It's beaten to Raw pulp. Good luck trying to demosaic that.

Cheers,
Bart

Would it be about as challenging as reconstructing your omelette (or omelet)? 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Would it be about as challenging as reconstructing your omelette (or omelet)? 

Maybe even harder to achieve ... 

It would take real intelligence, not the Artificial kind.

Cheers,
Bart

[nirpat89]

Reading this thread, I am getting dizzy and hungry at the same time....

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Reading this thread, I am getting dizzy and hungry at the same time....

LOL

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The real debate is whether whatever "A.I." Topaz uses in its application is good enough to ingest a JPEG file and output a result that has equivalent photographic quality to a well-processed true raw file...

Correct, Mark, that is absolutely the crux of the matter.

It shouldn't be too hard to design that test:

1. set the camera to raw+jpeg
2. shoot several scenes under varied lighting conditions, e.g., deep shadows, bright highlights, light source of various temperature, etc.
3. process raw files to taste
4. send the jpeg to J2R
5. further process it to taste
6. compare the results

That should determine if J2R is capable of:

1. recovering the shadow/highlight detail and to which extent, relative to raw
2. correcting white balance and to which extent, relative to raw

[digitaldog]

Maybe even harder to achieve ... 

It would take real intelligence, not the Artificial kind.

Cheers,
Bart

Harder or not possible as you indicated? I don't expect an answer as it's obvious for both.

[digitaldog]

Correct, Mark, that is absolutely the crux of the matter.

It shouldn't be too hard to design that test:

1. set the camera to raw+jpeg
2. shoot several scenes under varied lighting conditions, e.g., deep shadows, bright highlights, light source of various temperature, etc.
3. process raw files to taste
4. send the jpeg to J2R
5. further process it to taste
6. compare the results

That should determine if J2R is capable of:

1. recovering the shadow/highlight detail and to which extent, relative to raw
2. correcting white balance and to which extent, relative to raw

Indeed! I suggested something similar but with an incorrect white balance which would make one ugly JPEG. Fix that with A.I. No takers. I found that telling.

[Mark D Segal]

Correct, Mark, that is absolutely the crux of the matter.

It shouldn't be too hard to design that test:

1. set the camera to raw+jpeg
2. shoot several scenes under varied lighting conditions, e.g., deep shadows, bright highlights, light source of various temperature, etc.
3. process raw files to taste
4. send the jpeg to J2R
5. further process it to taste
6. compare the results

That should determine if J2R is capable of:

1. recovering the shadow/highlight detail and to which extent, relative to raw
2. correcting white balance and to which extent, relative to raw

Are you volunteering to do this for us?