JPEG or RAW?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So with A.I (or not), Topaz converts JPEG to raw? Yes or no?

42

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

42

Cheers,
Bart

You must have been watching Attorney General Matt Whitaker today, yes or no answers should not be so difficult to answer.

[Alan Klein]

https://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/purse/

Cheers,
Bart

I wonder if they tried tasting the purses??? 

[Mark D Segal]

https://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/purse/

Cheers,
Bart

This is a most interesting story Bart - thanks for the reference; but on reading it, it struck me that "silk" has a specific etiology - it is made from the salivary glands of silk worms. In fact I saw the whole manufacturing process from the worm to the finished product at a silk mill in Thailand. So very much like true Cognac can only come from the Cognac region of France, true silk can only come from the silk worm, and RAW files can only come from a digital camera so enabled, not a JPEG. So the obvious answer to Andrew's question isn't "42", it's NO.

[TomFrerichs]

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.

Thank you. You have clearly stated the question I'd like to have answered, too. 

Before I get the standard comments...
1. The name is misleading, but the name has nothing to do with how it actually performs. If your objection is based solely on how it's being marketed, then you have nothing new to add. You aren't addressing the question.
2. I agree starting with a raw file is preferred to trying to clean up a JPEG.
There are circumstances where it is impossible to get an original raw file. Some devices do not supply a raw file, or the original photographer may not have chosen that option. If you are fortunate enough to never encounter that problem, then this application is not for you. You don't even need to know that it exists, and the answer to Dave's question has no value to you.

It may be possible to duplicate the action of this application using Photoshop or other image editing software. This has not been established as far as I know. However, even if it is possible, does this application make it easier or faster to obtain the same results. If it does, then it may still have value for certain users.  Though not those who don't ever have to "polish turds."

TG Frerichs

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is a most interesting story Bart - thanks for the reference; but on reading it, it struck me that "silk" has a specific etiology - it is made from the salivary glands of silk worms. In fact I saw the whole manufacturing process from the worm to the finished product at a silk mill in Thailand. So very much like true Cognac can only come from the Cognac region of France, true silk can only come from the silk worm, and RAW files can only come from a digital camera so enabled, not a JPEG. So the obvious answer to Andrew's question isn't "42", it's NO.

Hi Mark,

As you have correctly understood, it totally depends on one's definition of "Raw", or RAW.

BTW, I'm glad that the result is not merely a 12-14 bit single channel per pixel Bayer Mosaic, or a 4-2-2 (or worse) lossy compressed file.
Instead, as long as the A.I. has found better alternative local features (which is the goal), I'm happy with a much more robust 48-bit per pixel RGB file.

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

Cheers,
Bart

[albytastic]

Hi Mark,

As you have correctly understood, it totally depends on one's definition of "Raw", or RAW.

BTW, I'm glad that the result is not merely a 12-14 bit single channel per pixel Bayer Mosaic, or a 4-2-2 (or worse) lossy compressed file.
Instead, as long as the A.I. has found better alternative local features (which is the goal), I'm happy with a much more robust 48-bit per pixel RGB file.

Cheers,
Bart

The future is already here:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/17/18144356/ai-image-generation-fake-faces-people-nvidia-generative-adversarial-networks-gans

[digitaldog]

Hi Mark,
As you have correctly understood, it totally depends on one's definition of "Raw", or RAW.

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data.

Read on, doesn't matter if you want to use RAW or raw; what raw image data is, is pretty established and understood by many but not all.

[digitaldog]

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

Intermediate Raw, seriously? Do provide a lick of evidence that's occurring at any state of this products processing of JPEG data.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data.

Read on, doesn't matter if you want to use RAW or raw; what raw image data is, is pretty established and understood by many but not all.

And it still says nothing about image quality. A Raw turd remains a turd.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Intermediate Raw, seriously? Do provide a lick of evidence that's occurring at any state of this products processing of JPEG data.

If you think that a Raw file is the final result instead of an intermediate result, dream on.

Cheers,
Bart

[albytastic]

And it still says nothing about image quality. A Raw turd remains a turd.

Cheers,
Bart

Not after I've polished it!

[Mark D Segal]

If you think that a Raw file is the final result instead of an intermediate result, dream on.

Cheers,
Bart

We're getting into semantics here, but a raw file is a final result of a raw capture process. But it is not the final result of making the photograph. The next stage is post-capture processing. Final is final. No matter what you do with the raw file in a post-capture processing context, with ANY raw processors I know about, the raw file remains completely unaffected.

[albytastic]

We're getting into semantics here, but a raw file is a final result of a raw capture process. But it is not the final result of making the photograph. The next stage is post-capture processing. Final is final. No matter what you do with the raw file in a post-capture processing context, with ANY raw processors I know about, the raw file remains completely unaffected.

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

But make a copy first!

[digitaldog]

And it still says nothing about image quality. A Raw turd remains a turd.

Cheers,
Bart

No. Raw data has to be rendered. That rendering could be a turd. But the point you've made is rather pointless and seems a digression on what the product you're so fond of actually does, case in point:

If you think that a Raw file is the final result instead of an intermediate result, dream on.

As I suspected, your assumption this product produces a so called 'intermediary raw' is pure supplication and like my TIFF you were going to reverse engineer to a raw, simply another assumption. It's getting more difficult to take you seriously when you can't answer simple yes or no answers about the product you are cheerleading actually does, then you suggest wildly there might be some intermediary raw.
Does it convert JPEG into raw at any point of the processing, yes or no? Seems the obvious answer is no. If yes, prove it does, provide outside reference from Topaz it does and don't wiggle around suggesting there's a differing interpretation of what raw data is, or if it's written as raw or RAW.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

We're getting into semantics here, but a raw file is a final result of a raw capture process. But it is not the final result of making the photograph.

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

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

We're getting into semantics here, but a raw file is a final result of a raw capture process. But it is not the final result of making the photograph. The next stage is post-capture processing. Final is final. No matter what you do with the raw file in a post-capture processing context, with ANY raw processors I know about, the raw file remains completely unaffected.

A tactic to divert from facts that don't fit their assumptions I fear.

[faberryman]

If you think that a Raw file is the final result instead of an intermediate result, dream on.

How does that pertain to the question asked?

[Mark D Segal]

I think it's time to call a truce - or even an armistice - on whether that application produces raw files. It doesn't, and Topaz is remiss in its representation of the product.

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. The fact is that we don't know the answer to that question first hand because it would seem that none of the contributors to this thread other than the OP have tested it, and the O/P's testing seems very limited. That is why I brought in the message from Tim Grey, so we have his word, which I take seriously, but not his test results. So the jury is out on what this application can do with what kind of JPEG images under what processing requirements and objectives. I don't think there's much point discussing it further without additional, carefully developed first-hand evidence. BTW, yours truly will not be doing that.

[digitaldog]

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

Cheers,
Bart

Of course, you'll provide proof that an intermediate raw is produced in the product, yes?