- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
There's a tonne of analogies being flung around this thread, many of them more allied to chemistry - but that's another story, to be frank yours is no less worthless. Unless you sit with the company and completely get to grips about the algorithms they're using to fill the gaps, you're guessing and using that guess to debase the work. It may be that you're right, but until you garner that knowledge - you simply do not know. I don't think anyone in this thread has said "it is RAW as it is out of a camera," my take is it is a RAW format, you (colloquial) need to decide whether the format fits a purpose.
Last edited: