JPEG2000 – That’s JPEG, right?
The most common question I get asked about JPEG2000 is, “That’s JPEG, right”? It’s a natural question really; I’d probably assume 
the same thing if I wasn’t in the image compression business. And as most people aren’t “in” the image compression industry, that’s why it gets asked a lot. In my opinion, it is the single biggest reason why JPEG2000 has not taken off the way it should, but that’s slowly changing.
So why did they call it JPEG2000? JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, which is the name of the committee responsible for the formation of the original JPEG standard. Work on JPEG began in 1982, culminating with the publishing of the standard in 1992 after which people started widespread adoption.
The foundation of JPEG compression is based on DCT (Discrete Cosine Transfer), which at the time, was “cutting edge” in compression theory and technology. JPEG has enjoyed tremendous success since; it is the most widely used compression format for continuous tone (full color) images on the planet. It has found itself at home on the web, handheld devices such as digital cameras, cell phones, iPods, scanners, printers and just about anywhere you have full color images. And because of it’s widespread use and adoption most people know the name and are familiar with it. So, when they hear “JPEG2000”, they naturally assume “That’s JPEG, right”?
Regarding JPEG2000, the only thing similar between it and JPEG is that the same ISO committee was involved in its development and standardization! The underlying technology at the heart of JPEG2000 is based on DWT (Discrete Wavelet Transform) compression which is fundamentally different from the DCT used in JPEG. In fact, it is an order of magnitude more complex and offers a rich set of features not found in JPEG or in any other ISO still image formats.
JPEG2000 is to JPEG as the internal combustion engine was to the steam engine. The steam engine got things started but the world really changed after the internal combustion engine gained widespread use.
JPEG2000 solves many of the limitations found in standard JPEG. It has interactive client/server features, functions extremely well in noisy environments such as wireless channels, offers both lossless and lossy compression in the same codec and on average yields 40% smaller file sizes when compared to JPEG images compressed to the same quality level. So all the shortcomings of standard JPEG are solved with JPEG2000 and then some.
So the ISO committee did a great job on the technology but missed horribly on the name. In the long run, I do not think the name will be a factor but clearly in the short term it sure has caused a lot of confusion in the marketplace.
Could they have chosen a different name which may have resulted in less confusion and helped drive adoption? I think so, and most people I have spoken with in the JPEG2000 business all agree. The similarity in names has resulted in the need for continual market education and that is always an expensive process!
So the next time someone asks you “Have you heard of JPEG2000”, you’ll know not to answer “That’s JPEG, right”?