It's not cliché, it's true. You fundamentally can't get back information that has been destroyed/or never captured in the first place. Yes, a low-res image ha

It's not cliché, it's true. You fundamentally can't get back information that has been destroyed/or never captured in the first place. Yes, a low-res image has lots of information. You can process that information in many ways. Missing data can't just be magically blinked into existence though. Copy/pasting bits of guessed data is NOT getting back information that has been destroyed or never captured. Obscured data is very different from non-existent data. Could the software recreate a destroyed painting of mine based on a simple sketch? Of course not, because it would have to invent details it knows nothing about. I think it's almost dangerous to call this line of thinking cliché. It should be celebrated, not ridiculed.