k2edm Loc: FN32AD

IF I understand it, your camera shoots RAW, and records raw,[and makes jpg] or both as you select. true? if so the only reason not to save RAW is camera memory size... ?? BTW, I save both.....

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

After 10 pages of posts it's hard to tell whom you are replying to but basically it's true that many modern digital cameras can shoot raw and since memory is fairly cheap it's not a big burden to save the raw files.

However, older digital cameras and some of the low end cameras do not have the option of saving the raw files. Most cell phone cameras do not produce raw files. Photos received by email are predominately jpg. Prints that are scanned are mostly jpg. So there's value in a program that will improve the quality of a jpg.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

BradJP Loc: Omaha, NE

Email from Topaz Labs today at 11:30AM Central.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the difference between AI Gigapixel and JPEG to RAW AI? What is the appropriate workflow?"

Gigapixel is trained to fill in believable pixels for enlarging photos. If you think about the actual process of creating 6x the amount of pixels from an image, the main problem the software needs to solve is how those pixels should look. The format, color space, dynamic range, etc. will generally not change when you use Gigapixel. Generally you'd want to use Gigapixel as the last step before printing (or as the first step as you're importing stock photos or similar).

JPEG to RAW is trained to improve the format of the image by expanding color space/depth, improving dynamic range, and recovering detail. Sometimes it won't even explicitly improve how the image looks immediately and might look the same! However, you'll really notice the difference when you edit the photo - you'll see less banding and artifacts. You would typically use JPEG to RAW before doing anything else with your JPEG.

Here is the recommended workflow: First, run your JPEG photo through JPEG to RAW AI. Take the resulting .TIFF or .DNG into Topaz Studio and edit it in Topaz Studio or your preferred photo editing platform. Then, take your final product into AI Gigapixel for enlargement! The resulting image will be massively improved from the compressed JPEG you started with!

BradJP Loc: Omaha, NE

For even more info, PetaPixel.com has a Jan 29 article titled "Can JPEGs Be Improved to RAW Quality?".

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

I dont understand how you can generate missing information.....kinda like focusing the enlarger to remove out of focus, don't work... !!

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Photoshop invents information in "content aware" fill. Same sort of thing. Modern signal processing.
Of course it can't do everything but it can probably make something look better than it did in many cases.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

That's what jpeg compression does. First it looks at what information can be "thrown away" which is similar colors that the eye can't discern any difference. This information isn't really missing, it is changed so it can be efficiently encoded. When you open a jpg file, it decodes all the information and produces the same exact size file that was there before it was encoded (compressed). So rather than throwing away information, it changes some of the information, hopefully, and depending on amount of compression requested, the human eye cannot tell anything has been changed. In reality, only a very small amount of useful data is in the RAW file that's not in the jpg file (at low levels of compression) The size of the two files is NOT the indicator of how much information has been changed (discarded).

How close one can come to duplicating the raw file would depend on the file, on what was encoded, and so on. Personally, for 99% of my work, raw files are meaningless waste of time and space, so for me, I don't see any value in trying to convert a jpg to a raw file. There are tons of reasons to convert a raw file into a jpg, and those are the reasons jpg has been the de facto standard in photo compression all this time.

For the rare person, and rarer picture that would benefit from raw, they can start out in raw, it's not really that big a deal. No need for a secret raw society, or wearing raw t-shirts bragging about how wonderful they are because they shoot in raw, or belittling those that don't.

I'm not talking specifically to you here, but to those that think raw is so great they wear the shirt, or think there is a dire need for a jpg to raw converter. I guess if it worked perfectly, it might be useful for somewhere under 1% of the worlds pictures.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Ain't this yet another form of interpolation? Maybe some mild single frame HDR?
I like Topaz too. Also. Could this be like using Gigapixel, jack it up and process, then shrink it back down and keep all the new data? WAGging here.
I'll trial the trial, and compare iterations.