decompressing sRAW to RAW?

I recently shot some images with the camera (5D) set to sRAW, but I didn't realize this and the client needs larger files. Since an sRAW file is a compressed version of a RAW file, I was hoping there was a way to decompress the sRAW files and make them full size RAW files.
If that isn't possible, is there a way to create TIFFs from these sRAW files that would come the same size as if they had come from full size RAW files?

First time poster.
Thank you.

Like any digital file, you can up the resolution in post.

thank you gonzogolf, but that would require a great deal of interpolation. The client wants to make large format prints (40x60ish) so starting with a bigger RAW file would be the best possible solution.

JWP-Prod wrote in post #15983644
thank you gonzogolf, but that would require a great deal of interpolation. The client wants to make large format prints (40x60ish) so starting with a bigger RAW file would be the best possible solution.

Once its compressed, its gone. So interpolation is probably the only option at this point.

hmmm. thank you.

Yep, unfortunately it is not compressed like a zip file (where the compression can be undone) but like a jpeg (where the additional data is discarded).

Dan Marchant wrote in post #15984124
Yep, unfortunately it is not compressed like a zip file (where the compression can be undone) but like a jpeg (where the additional data is discarded).

It's even worse than that. With a jpeg the compression throws away a lot of the data but it does retain the instructions to make a good guess when it wants to replicate that lost data. With sRAW the data is thrown away with no clues as to what it may have been.

Note that sRAW is not a more compressed RAW of the same size. It's the resolution (number of pixels) that's reduced, and those thrown away are lost.

sRAW data is not so much lost as it is aggregated, averaging adjacent photosites' data together.

It sounds like your client is laboring under the popular belief that large prints must have one-to-one correspondence between the file pixels and printer dots. That would be an important consideration if their 40x60 prints were to be viewed from inches away. In reality, large prints are meant to be viewed from large distances. Therefore, limitations of human visual acuity come into play. Your sRaw-based images should be fine. I had an 8 megapixel 20D shot blown up and on display for years at 36x60 in an aquarium. Nobody complained.

Yeah if you get right up to some really large prints (think billboard size) you can see the individual dots and they often look like they were each applied to the paper pointillism style with a fat marker..

I have seen a number of billboard shots that it was hard to determine what it was up close, but from 50 feet away you could not only easily see the whole picture, but you couldn't see the individual dots.. It was kinda cool really..

palamedes wrote in post #15985537
Yeah if you get right up to some really large prints (think billboard size) you can see the individual dots and they often look like they were each applied to the paper pointillism style with a fat marker..

I have seen a number of billboard shots that it was hard to determine what it was up close, but from 50 feet away you could not only easily see the whole picture, but you couldn't see the individual dots.. It was kinda cool really..

I like that description .