Now convert your JPEGs to RAW!

Craigus said:
Semantics of what this is called aside, I find it very interesting and I think most people on here and generally vastly underestimate the capability of AI these days. It is a subject that makes some very interesting reading in a more general sense.
Click to expand...

I quite agree and Gigapixel has shown just what is possible, and now this program can produce results which beat my usual NR program.

And other software producers are also producing photo programs based on neural networks and AI.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/skylum-aurora-hdr-2019-launches/

http://hdrv.org/hdrcnn/

I haven't yet tried this program on better JPEGs but I will, anything which makes PP easier is very welcome as far as I'm concerned.
 
A fuller explanation of what Topaz mean by Topaz RAW is here:

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

But frankly at the end of the day, who cares?

I don't as long as it produces results which are better then what I use now.
 
I put a few more JPEGs through the program and this is one of the results - a 100% crop.
Both photos were put through EasyHDR3 which I often use.
These geese were photographed against the light but I missed focus on then just a bit.
Here's a crop of the original:

0864-original.jpg
a bit of noise and you can see the focus is just missed.

Here is what Topaz Labs achieved with their JPEG to RAW program:

0864-J2R.jpg

Far less noise and sharpness restored, salvaging an unusable photo.
The full photo is here on Flickr:
https://flic.kr/p/2ewRDA6
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/46950512341/in/album-72157678279709128/

A really incredible result.
 
Last edited:
It also occurred to me that relatively cheap lenses like the 75-300mm which are soft from 200mm on could also benefit from this program.

I have some shots taken years ago on my 350D with the 75-300mm lens so I'll have to look them out and try them.
 
Gigapixel is actually incredible. I look forward to trying this. Nomenclature should not distract from a great product. It's obvious why they chose to use the term RAW and I can't see why it would bother anyone.
 
decigallen said:
Gigapixel is actually incredible. I look forward to trying this. Nomenclature should not distract from a great product. It's obvious why they chose to use the term RAW and I can't see why it would bother anyone.
Click to expand...

I quite agree and I have posted some photos on my flicker album for this program:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/albums/72157678279709128

I now have this program running on my Z800 just batch processing loads of my old 350D and 450D images which already shows just how incredible it is.
 
This new program from Topaz does have a rather odd "name" and its function(ing) reminded of another program I saw mentioned a while back that does bring out so much more in an image but calls itself what it is a a sharpener?

How they might compare.....no idea but here is the link https://www.projects-software.com/sharpen/sharpen-projects-photographer
 
Box Brownie said:
This new program from Topaz does have a rather odd "name" and its function(ing) reminded of another program I saw mentioned a while back that does bring out so much more in an image but calls itself what it is a a sharpener?

How they might compare.....no idea but here is the link https://www.projects-software.com/sharpen/sharpen-projects-photographer
Click to expand...

Well I'm already downloading the free trial so I'll give it a try - but does it also reduce noise as well in the way that Topaz program does?

Or produce a 16 bit image? - which is why the Topaz program is saved as a DNG or TIFF file not a JPEG.
 
Here are 2 pics from a Canon 75-300mm lens at 300mm and 100% crop.
Both were put through EasyHDR3 which tends to emphasize faults like noise etc.

Original pic:

lens.jpg

After processing in Topaz program:

Lens J2R.jpg

It still doesn't turn the lens into L glass quality but it's a great improvement and would also definitely benefit better lenses which may get slightly soft at the far end of their zoom.
 
Those geese look drastically over-sharpened.
 
I tried the Sharpen projects but I'm not impressed.

Here is a crop from the geese:

0864-crop.jpg

To be fair I only gave it a quick trial, because there were so many adjustments it was possible to make.

But I just used all the defaults so I recommend that anyone interested should also download the free trial and try it.

But with the Topaz program there are no adjustments at all except one - the noise and blur reduction can be set to normal or high - and that's it.

And the Topaz program can be used in batch mode so easily.

So I'll be sticking with it.
 
decigallen said:
Gigapixel is actually incredible. I look forward to trying this. Nomenclature should not distract from a great product. It's obvious why they chose to use the term RAW and I can't see why it would bother anyone.
Click to expand...

Because it's not raw. I'm not denying that it appears to be good at what what it does, but it does not convert jpg to raw.

That claim is misleading and to be frank, b******t!
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Because it's not raw. I'm not denying that it appears to be good at what what it does, but it does not convert jpg to raw.

That claim is misleading and to be frank, b******t!
Click to expand...

A Raw file is just the raw data from a sensor before it is converted to an image file.

But at a lower level that data only exists as a collection of 1s and 0s - as does anything on a computer.

And those 1s and 0s are themselves usually only 2 different voltage levels where a 1 is either +5 V or +3.3 V to ground and a 0 as ground or 0 V .

So in essence, since everything is only differing voltage levels moving through the processors and ancillary circuits at incredible speeds, everything is raw!

So Topaz is right - rather like me! :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
petersmart said:
A Raw file is just the raw data from a sensor before it is converted to an image file.

But at a lower level that data only exists as a collection of 1s and 0s - as does anything on a computer.

And those 1s and 0s are themselves usually only 2 different voltage levels where a 1 is either +5 V or +3.3 V to ground and a 0 as ground or 0 V .

So in essence, since everything is only differing voltage levels moving through the processors and ancillary circuits at incredible speeds, everything is raw!

So Topaz is right - rather like me! :LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

You can spin however you like. It's not raw.
 
petersmart said:
Well I'm actually more interested in whether it works - and it does.
Click to expand...
I guess that is the main thing, naming files is just irrelevant if the end result works. There are many pedants on this forum who want to argue for the sake of it. It's not something I'd likely buy as I shoot RAW and to be honest I see it as a solute to a problem that doesn't exist, but if it works well then good luck to the developer. :)
 
rick448 said:
I guess that is the main thing, naming files is just irrelevant if the end result works. There are many pedants on this forum who want to argue for the sake of it. It's not something I'd likely buy as I shoot RAW and to be honest I see it as a solute to a problem that doesn't exist, but if it works well then good luck to the developer. :)
Click to expand...

Well as I've already shown it does much more than produce 16 bit TIFF files - it also reduces noise even better than a program I've used for years and can salvage photos which might have been binned due to being OOF.

So even if you use RAW OOTC there are times when you may actually need a program like this.

And I can certainly see many professional photographers being interested in it.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
Can you do the following:-

a) process that original Canon JPG with a decent noise reduction software and show the results?

and

b) recrop the RAW output image shown above to show the blown white area around the doors at the bottom of the image (on original crop but not on converted crop)

I work in Machine vision (automated image processing), and and genuinely interested in the answers to the above two questions.
Click to expand...

I reprocessed the image of the plane to bring out more detail:


1DsII-3833 by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr
 
petersmart said:
I reprocessed the image of the plane to bring out more detail:


1DsII-3833 by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr
Click to expand...

The 'original' has more detail though?

https://flic.kr/p/2d79Knz
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/46014579535/in/dateposted-public/


Just look at the dust marks to the left of where the wing joins the plane - as one example of detail lost.
The text is clearer on the original.
Your recent post has also a dappled effect on the camo paint work.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
The 'original' has more detail though?

https://flic.kr/p/2d79Knz
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/46014579535/in/dateposted-public/


Just look at the dust marks to the left of where the wing joins the plane - as one example of detail lost.
The text is clearer on the original.
Your recent post has also a dappled effect on the camo paint work.
Click to expand...

Yes quite correct - I was trying to recover more details in the burnt out section of the doors at the back - but I think both pictures are acceptable especially considering they come from an "old" 10MP Canon 40D taken at 3200 ISO.
And I think the dappled effect is probably multiple reflections from all the lights and different colours of the various planes etc at the museum - as you may know an HDR program will often reveal things which were hidden.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
No, it isn't, but they might be able to reliably extrapolate enough additional data to allow a much greater range of manipulation before things start to fall apart.
Click to expand...
It can not extrapolate, it can invent, can create out of thin air but if it aint there to start with you cant extract


Mike
 
Last edited:
mike weeks said:
It can not extrapolate, it can invent, can create out of thin air but if it aint there to start with you cant extract


Mike
Click to expand...

Extrapolation is calculating values you can't 'see' from the data you have available. Naturally the amount of detail that can be extrapolated accurately is limited (this isn't CSI). and depends completely on what is available to start.
 
I'm interested by those standing by their guns saying "it's not RAW," quite true, it's not RAW out of a camera, but that doesn't mean it can't be made into a RAW format by algorithms, once the data has been supported by what is missing - it's simply RAW by another method, as an output is it simply perturbing people that it hasn't come from a "camera" because all your camera is, is a computer with a sensor attached to it.

Reverse engineering has been around for decades, like a lot of tools (software packages) it doesn't replace but merely supports an ever expanding arsenal in the digital processing world.
 
Gogster said:
I'm interested by those standing by their guns saying "it's not RAW," quite true, it's not RAW out of a camera, but that doesn't mean it can't be made into a RAW format by algorithms, once the data has been supported by what is missing - it's simply RAW by another method, as an output is it simply perturbing people that it hasn't come from a "camera" because all your camera is, is a computer with a sensor attached to it.

Reverse engineering has been around for decades, like a lot of tools (software packages) it doesn't replace but merely supports an ever expanding arsenal in the digital processing world.
Click to expand...

That maybe so but that doesn’t make it raw. Raw is the raw data captured by the camera. Maybe the software makes a better jpg, but then it should be sold as such. Jpg to raw is simply a misleading sales tactic. False advertising at its best.

You can’t uncook an egg.
 
ecoleman said:
That maybe so but that doesn’t make it raw. Raw is the raw data captured by the camera. Maybe the software makes a better jpg, but then it should be sold as such. Jpg to raw is simply a misleading sales tactic. False advertising at its best.

You can’t uncook an egg.
Click to expand...

Good grief.
 
Gogster said:
Reverse engineering has been around for decades, like a lot of tools (software packages) it doesn't replace but merely supports an ever expanding arsenal in the digital processing world.
Click to expand...
An analogy from the analogue world would be an internegative. If you take a photo of a print for which you have no original negative, you'll have a new negative. It won't be exactly the same as the original negative (some loss of quality is inevitable, even if you do it carefully with well controlled lighting on a copy stand), but it's still in negative format and can be used in exactly the same way as any other negative. It would then be a bit pointless to argue about whether it should still be called a 'negative', it's your ability to make further prints using standard darkroom techniques that's important.
 
Retune said:
An analogy from the analogue world would be an internegative. If you take a photo of a print for which you have no original negative, you'll have a new negative. It won't be exactly the same as the original negative (some loss of quality is inevitable, even if you do it carefully with well controlled lighting on a copy stand), but it's still in negative format and can be used in exactly the same way as any other negative. It would then be a bit pointless to argue about whether it should still be called a 'negative', it's your ability to make further prints using standard darkroom techniques that's important.
Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious difference between digital & analogue, I’d agree. There is, of course, the algorithms used by Lightroom, ON1, Capture One etc. What do people think happens when they push the exposure slider up a stop?
 
If you shoot in raw I do not see why you would need a £100 jpeg to raw converter.
If it was is sold as an Ai re-processor, to remove artifacts, and improve lost detail, colour and tonality from poorly processed originals, then it has some purpose.
But the better option is to improve ones technique in processing from raw in the first place.
or not shoot Jpegs.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
If you shoot in raw I do not see why you would need a £100 jpeg to raw converter.
If it was is sold as an Ai re-processor, to remove artifacts, and improve lost detail, colour and tonality from poorly processed originals, then it has some purpose.
But the better option is to improve ones technique in processing from raw in the first place.
or not shoot Jpegs.
Click to expand...

The REAL JEG to RAW (NOT the one they are now selling) actually could also remove noise and recover (or improve) lost detail to an incredible degree.

And if you slightly miss focus etc it doesn't matter whether you shoot in RAW or JPEG, focus is still missed, but the REAL program could correct that.

And actually improve images from lenses which were soft at the far end.

But the program they are selling now does not do that any more, and as such is not worth the money - and as you say in that case much better to shoot in RAW if you want than to rely on this ruined program.
 
Last edited:
petersmart said:
The REAL JEG to RAW (NOT the one they are now selling) actually could also remove noise and recover (or improve) lost detail to an incredible degree.

And if you slightly miss focus etc it doesn't matter whether you shoot in RAW or JPEG, focus is still missed, but the REAL program could correct that.

And actually improve images from lenses which were soft at the far end.

But the program they are selling now does not do that any more, and as such is not worth the money - and as you say in that case much better to shoot in RAW if you want than to rely on this ruined program.
Click to expand...

Yep we know. You keep telling us.
 
Gogster said:
I'm interested by those standing by their guns saying "it's not RAW," quite true, it's not RAW out of a camera, but that doesn't mean it can't be made into a RAW format by algorithms, once the data has been supported by what is missing - it's simply RAW by another method, as an output is it simply perturbing people that it hasn't come from a "camera" because all your camera is, is a computer with a sensor attached to it.

Reverse engineering has been around for decades, like a lot of tools (software packages) it doesn't replace but merely supports an ever expanding arsenal in the digital processing world.
Click to expand...
If you know anything about audio, try this analogy. You can rip a track on a CD to, say, a. wav file (lossless) or a 128k mp3. Now you can convert the mp3 to a. wav file, but that's not remotely the same as ripping to. wav in the first place.
Or a more extreme example, but just as valid IMHO - you could rip a track in mono. Now there's software out there that can convert a mono track to stereo (using very clever algorithms) but, again, that's not the same as having the original stereo file.
Yes, in both cases, you end up with a stereo 'uncompressed' file, but I it's important to be clear about the difference. I think the problem people have with the JPEG to RAW software is that it doesn't seem like it's being clear about that difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top