JPEG converted to RAW?

[pierces]

That's what they claim. The software apparently uses AI to extrapolate color depth, tweak detail and remove JPEG artifacts. It then saves a copy as either a .dng RAW file or a 16 bit .tif.

 

Magical? Night and day? As good as shooting RAW in the first place?

 

Not from what I see so far, but it does clean the images up and removes artifacts. It does a good job on banding in large sky expanses on older JPEGs too. 

 

Sliced bread is still safe as the best thing but this might be a good tool to clean up some of those old JPEGs

 

https://topazlabs.com/jpeg-to-raw-ai/

 

Dave

 

[TinCan782]

You will not obtain more (information, detail, etc.)  from an image than what is already present in the original. Converting the image to RAW will not provide more information than is already in the image. The capability of the software and your skill with it will allow you to make the most of your images.

 

Yes, you can let your photo editing software interpolate to increase the resolution (PPI) but, the software adds the missing information. You can increase the color space but, the software adds the missing information. Your best bet is to start with the highest quality image possible - shoot with the highest quality camera settings enabled which result in larger file sizes. Best of all, shoot RAW in the camera and process that image and convert it to a JPG.

 

I normally shoot in RAW, process those images in Adobe Camera RAW and convert them to JPG. I may do some quick "touch-ups" in Photoshop. My final images are uploaded to my Flickr account. Speaking of Camera RAW, I also use it to process my JPG images (typically my smartphone images) - the images are not converted to RAW, just processed with Camera RAW. I rarely print any of my images.

Edited February 8, 2019 by TinCan782

[pierces]

12 minutes ago, TinCan782 said:

You will not obtain more (information, detail, etc.)  from an image than what is already present in the original. Converting the image to RAW will not provide more information than is already in the image. The capability of the software and your skill with it will allow you to make the most of your images.

 

Yes, you can let your photo editing software interpolate to increase the resolution (PPI) but, the software adds the missing information. You can increase the color space but, the software adds the missing information. Your best bet is to start with the highest quality image possible - shoot with the highest quality camera settings enabled which result in larger file sizes. Best of all, shoot RAW in the camera and process that image and convert it to a JPG.

 

I normally shoot in RAW, process those images in Adobe Camera RAW and convert them to JPG. I may do some quick "touch-ups" in Photoshop. My final images are uploaded to my Flickr account. Speaking of Camera RAW, I also use it to process my JPG images (typically my smartphone images) - the images are not converted to RAW, just processed with Camera RAW. I rarely print any of my images.

 

 

Not to flagellate a deceased equine, but not everybody needs or wants to shoot RAW primarily. A modern camera, especially a newer ILC, will produce a very clean JPEG with enough balance to provide a surprising amount of latitude for adjustment. Modern cameras have exceptional capabilities in regards to determining exposure and a well exposed image generally requires very little adjustment. Well within the latitude of a good JPEG.

 

All that is beside the point. The tool described uses AI to interpolate missing latitude, enhance color depth, improve sharpness and remove artifacts. The output is a faux RAW file but is intended to help enhance a JPEG perhaps from an older camera without a RAW option. It won't replace shooting with RAW if you need to or do so (or do so out of choice) but it will improve an image with the sort of problems a so-so JPEG would normally encounter.

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

That's what I got out of this software - it wasn't meant for people who want to shoot JPG, then convert to RAW, thinking they'll suddenly have all the RAW latitudes for processing.  It really doesn't need to re-open the debate over RAW vs JPG, and who's the bigger nincompoop for using one vs the other.  The intent of the software seems to be to allow better processing of existing JPGs one may have, from whatever source or whatever reason, using AI to help fill in a more intelligent interpolation of missing information...avoiding the usual JPG artifacts, color banding, and other issues common when resizing, reprocessing, or trying to recover old JPG photos.

I actually am curious about this software, and want to try the trial version on some old low resolution JPGs from P&S cameras I had almost 2 decades ago, long before 'RAW' was an option.  I have some old shots from 1MP, 2MP, and up to 5MP, cameras that look OK, but it would be nice to see if they could be resized larger.  Back then, cameras often didn't even have JPG quality settings, so the output was equivalent to today's 'medium' JPG compression, vs 'fine' or 'extra fine'...resizing with regular photo editing software results in artifacts, jaggy edges, and banded skies.  If this software can allow better resizing with smoother presentation, it might be useful to 'modernize' some old JPGs and bring up the size a bit.

[TinCan782]

Yes, the current crop of cameras do a very good job of creating quality images. Converting a JPG to RAW in and of itself does not improve image quality. You can change the color space, bit depth and resolution without converting to RAW to perform your processing and then down-sample back to an image for everyday use. 

[pierces]

3 hours ago, TinCan782 said:

Yes, the current crop of cameras do a very good job of creating quality images. Converting a JPG to RAW in and of itself does not improve image quality. You can change the color space, bit depth and resolution without converting to RAW to perform your processing and then down-sample back to an image for everyday use. 

 

Actually, the conversion process does improve the image. As mentioned before it uses AI to analyze the image and proceeds to remove JPEG compression artifacts and applies some subtle but effective sharpening. Their image editing suite has another product that cleans JPEGs and this is likely an AI-enhanced version of it. The computational editing it performs isn't really much different than the processing that a modern smartphone does to enhance the output of their small and relatively inefficient sensors (compared to a larger ILC sensor).

 

As for downsampling color, with the exception of very high-end professional monitors all methods of display commonly used are a downsampling of the color depth available in a RAW file. For that matter, since the human eye is variously estimated to discern between two and 10 million distinct shades, viewing an image on any presentation platform downsamples even the 16 million shades available in a JPEG. RAW allows the ability to shift the color data in an image into the visible range but the final output is limited to what can be seen. As evidenced by properly exposed images taken in RAW+JPEG mode there is no discernable difference in the final output. I once heard it described as carving a walking stick from a tree or a 2 x 4. Either way, you end up with a walking stick.

 

I'm not now and never have discounted the inherent advantages to shooting RAW but the myth that it is the only portal through which one can reach photographic Nirvana just isn't true. Most people who are new to an advanced camera don't need or even want the increased latitude and the extra workflow steps involved and unless you have skill and experience with RAW editors, fiddling with the output may yield worse results than an out-of-camera JPEG would have provided. Back in the early days of digital when RAW vs. JPEG often meant great vs. good output "only shoot RAW!" made sense. These days, the comparison is great vs. great and the extra steps are a choice rather than a necessity. I shoot RAW when lighting is challenging but since my cameras (including my Pixel phone) produce very nice JPEG output, I only do it rarely.

 

Dave

 

Edited February 8, 2019 by pierces

[zqvol]

If you want RAW then shoot RAW. You cannot convert JPEG to RAW, because JPEG contains a lot less information. You can't replace what is not there. Sure, the file type will show RAW, but its really just a JPEG, called RAW.

 

All this really is, is a type of software that can manipulate JPEGs.

Edited February 9, 2019 by zqvol

[tommui987]

On 2/8/2019 at 10:00 AM, pierces said:

 

 it uses AI to analyze the image and proceeds to remove JPEG compression artifacts and applies some subtle but effective sharpening. Their image editing suite has another product that cleans JPEGs and this is likely an AI-enhanced version of it.

 

Dave

 

 

Dave:

 

The latest cameras does a great job on jpegs files as you pointed out.

The Topaz  RAW conversion program is rather slow in its conversion and for the heck of it, I tried using Photolemur on some old slides (converted to CDs many years ago). While versions of AIs may vary between various programs, the AI in Photolemur did some significant changes in the slides. I am waiting to see - when the Topaz finished its conversion - as to what its AI does to the same slide.

[pierces]

22 hours ago, zqvol said:

If you want RAW then shoot RAW. You cannot convert JPEG to RAW, because JPEG contains a lot less information. You can't replace what is not there. Sure, the file type will show RAW, but its really just a JPEG, called RAW.

 

All this really is, is a type of software that can manipulate JPEGs.

 

This software doesn't presume to replace RAW shooting. 

 

Their site says: "JPEG to RAW AI is highly effective at removing compression artifacts and recovering color detail. There's also enhanced dynamic range as shown by deeper shadows and enhanced highlights."

 

It uses AI image analysis to interpolate and expand dynamic range somewhat then saves the additional data in a .dng or higher bit .tif. After using it on several generations of JPEGs, I can attest to the increased dynamic range in older images. Not much, if any improvement in files from my A7III. IMHO, the software is most effective at enhancing images from older cameras that used less effective JPEG engines. It isn't magically making a RAW file equivalent to one directly from the sensor but is does use its analytical process to extend the color depth somewhat and it does a good job of removing compression artifacts. The RAW .dng file is just a way of saving the interpolated expansion of color depth. Saving as a .tif seems to do exactly the same thing, so JPEG to RAW is likely market-speak for JPEG Repair and Dynamic Range Enhancer.

 

Tom: Slow is right! It is pretty good on the earlier, smaller files by drags on newer 24'll stuff. This seems to support my impression that it is best suited for shining up older JPEGs.

 

Dave

[Loonbeam]

Cleaning up older jpegs is pretty much what Topaz positions it for. 

 

In general, while I find their stuff a bit Pricey, its also generally pretty good.