Originally posted by macman24054 Like others have pointed out 8 bit JPEG 2000 has never caught on. Not really sure why.
1) Despite its name, JPEG200 isn't related or an extension of the JPEG format. Thus, it's not backward compatible with JPEG and both require their own code. This means more complex and larger software if support for both format is wanted. Which is a big issue with developers and cameras, since available memory space is quite limited. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for camera manufacturers to integrate both format in their products. And since they had to support jpeg for compatibility reason... Said otherwise, it's the old egg and chicken dilemna: developers never supported JPEG2000 because nobody used it, and nobody used it because developers didn't support it...
2) JPEG2000 is much more computer intensive than JPEG. Not really an issue today, but it was 20 years ago... And could still be today in cameras which still have relatively limited computing power. In a low power,low memory device, JPEG is preferable unless you absolutely have to support JPEG2000. And since nobody had to support JPEG200 but all had to support JPEG...
3) The differences in IQ between format was only visible at high compression ratio. At low compression, differences are few, or not visible enough to justify using JPG2000 over JPG.
Combine all of these, and it's easy to understand why JPEG2000 never replace JPEG for day to day photography sharing. Its advantages don't balance it's disadvantages.
Note that reasons 1 and 3 are still present with the newer formats...
Last edited by CarlJF; 01-23-2018 at 09:34 AM.