Summer Start

by VonSchnauzer

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I know the question is a bit subjective, what I'm after is if there is enough improvement in jpeg2000 and enough support in software (image viewers, browsers) to warrant using it.

share|improve this question
1  
possible duplicate of Why don't cameras support JPEG 2000 format? –  mattdm Jan 16 '12 at 22:41
1  
@Freed - If you have any additional questions after reading the link that mattdm gave - Feel free to edit your question at this point to address that. No answers have been given yet so it's not really a problem. –  dpollitt Jan 17 '12 at 3:24
1  
No and RAW is better. –  Gapton Jan 17 '12 at 3:34
1  
@Gapton: RAW isn't a final image format, so "better" is irrelevant. –  mattdm Jan 17 '12 at 16:48
1  
@Gapton stating something is "better" without saying why and providing evidence is rather pointless. –  jwenting Jan 18 '12 at 6:17

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I will respond by referencing the reasons for defining the JPEG2000 specification in the first place, which, when you read it, will explain why you don't see or hear about it:

JPEG 2000 images have a number of properties which make them very suitable for use with the Internet. Typically, Internet users are constrained from downloading large, high quality images because of their physical file size. Often providers of images must create three or more versions of an image, varying from a tiny thumbnail through to a page size image.

Digital cameras have improved in quality and resolution to a level where they are now competing effectively with traditional film. The images they generate are often no longer directly suitable for Internet deployment - the quality and size is wasted on traditional computer monitors. In part, this is because the monitor might show no more than a quarter of the captured image without scrolling, and in part because the colour fidelity of the monitor does not match that of the camera.

So, JPEG2000 was created to improve image download time, and the fact that digital images were getting larger. Now, while we still need to care about optimizing JPEG for web viewing, and something like JPEG2000 would be nice, times have changed. I think this is dated thinking, as the expansion of broadband, dynamic image loading of JPEG and auto-sizing found in sites like Flickr and Smugmug to name two, have really eliminated these issues. Rarely do you run into an issue where a DSLR JPEG is 'too big' to show on a screen. Not to mention that screens are higher resolution and much larger than they were in 1999, when the specification was proposed.

This was made a standard in 2000, and is supported by most browsers, but I suspect it isn't used because it doesn't solve any problems.

I think no one cares. Note that JPEG XR/HD Photo have been created since, and no one seems to care about them either, not even Microsoft, who hasn't updated their HD Photo spec or info since 2006.

share|improve this answer
    
That all makes perfect sense and explains a lot, thank you. –  SoftMemes Jan 17 '12 at 22:04

The real question is, what is the usage of jpeg2000. Since most websites only support JPEG, BMP and other 'standard' formats, mostly you won't use it for websites. For storing pictures, I personally use .NEF (Nikon RAW format) and I will always recommend RAW for every (non-casual)photographer.

I would appreciate it if someone would add some usage for JPEG2000 to this question, so that it will be answered more completely.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.