Over the years I have explained this to musically inclined, but processing comprehension challenged, as an enormous band or orchestra. ACR and others could do that sugar enhancement for you, but not manufacture the discarded spice variety that was originally in the BIG bowl of varied content. You could make the salt and sugar become larger presences if that is what you had saved, baked, processed, but no getting back what went down the drain. If you were too early in your ability to recognize the presence of those spices, that represented permanent loss. Once you have thrown out the Raw spices and washed the big bowl there would be no bringing them back up the drain. You could choose to process the ingredients of that small bowl again, but only shaping and reshaping what was in that bowl. Once you zeroed in on which ingredients in that bowl you wished to use, and "baked them" forever more into a JPEG cookie, what you now had for ingredients could be contained in a tiny, tiny bowl in comparison. JPC especiallywould spread out his arms to illustrate the enormous bowl necessary to contain the information available for use in a Raw file. and Andy R were two in those days that that lighted and focused the subject for me. Keith Cooper has written an initial review based on an earlier beta version of the software:Įarly in the digital revolution there were a few who managed to get this concept of Raw vs JPEG across very well for the strugglers as myself. Sure, a reverse-engineered TIFF is not an un-demosaiced Raw, but it could be very close, or even at times better (because we have replaced pixels by credible RGB data per pixel instead of only R, or G, or B interpolations). But then, TIFFs from Raws are also not created equal. The results depends on the training sets. It won't be exact, because image fragments are replaced by the results of trained AI models. It can be done to greater precision in 16-b/ch, and also when using a wider gamut colorspace.
The loss of precision in the Chromaticity is where most of the compression is achieved, and this process can be reversed to a certain degree. Interestingly, by using Artificial Intelligence, it is possible to recover from some of the losses incurred when converting to 'lossy compression' JPEGs. Their robustness has been sacrificed for smalle size, and artifacts are baked in. JPEGs are basically an end-product for display or print. ProPhoto RGB to RGB conversion, and additionally by going from 16-bit/channel precision to 8-b/ch precision.īy the time we have a JPEG image, it's not very suited for postprocessing anymore, and it's not very robust. And usually, there are additionally also losses due to gamut compression, going from e.g. Then we get additional JPEG compression losses of, mostly, Chroma precision depending on the quality settings at conversion time. So different Raw conversion engines will also produce somewhat different output, even in TIFFs.
An application like RawTherapee offers a choice of algorithms, and they do produce different results (resolution/artifact trade-offs, sensitivity to noise amplification, and false-color artifacts from the more undersampled Red and Blue Bayer filtered pixels compared to the undersampled Greens). Otherwise, they would all use a similar, maybe DCRaw type of demosaicing. I don't need to try it, they've lost me based on their marketing lies and I have tools that can do just what they propose anyway.įirst of all, Demosaicing Raw file data can be done in different ways, that's why we have different Raw conversion engines in the market.
You can save a JPEG into a DNG, it's still not raw data, DNG is like TIFF simply a container for image data.īut the worst part of this product is the massive BS they claim that people will believe and lay down money for.
You can open a JPEG in Photoshop and use ACR as a Filter, edit that data in high bit and wide gamut so there's nothing new here in this new product either. You can edit that TIFF and you'll get less data loss after saving it back as a TIFF instead of a JPEG but otherwise, you've gained nothing and Photoshop has been able to do this for a couple decades. You can convert a JPEG to a 16-bit TIFF, you gain nothing doing so. You can of course edit a JPEG to make it look better. I did check it myself, there's a massive degree of marketing BS! It's nonsense. You can't convert a JPEG (or a TIFF) into a raw. Next I'm asking you and others to use some critical thinking about this. Again, your topic states JPG to Raw files and you speak of JPEG to TIFF. I'm not shooting the messenger but I am asking him to clearly his writings.
0 kommentar(er)
