# jpeg 2000



## patoperro

Forgive me if this has been treated before, but I searched for the above terms and waded through 10 pages of posts without any luck.

I just got Lightroom 5, but have been using Photoshop for years to archive my scanned film negatives. The jpeg 2000 file format allows me to save the photos in a lossless format that I didn't plan on using anywhere else, just for archival purposes.

So, you can imagine my utter dismay when I find out that Lightroom cannot handle Adobe's own jpeg2000 format. Is this a joke, I'm thinking! I can use it with any new pictures taken with my newly purchased digital camera, but with all of my photos dating from earlier this year back to 1993 (some 2000+) it is completely useless.

I so wish I could return this product, but since I can't, can anyone tell me if there's a plugin I haven't found? What about modifying the original Adobe jpeg 2000 plugin? And, while I'm at it, anyone know where to send my grievances directly to Adobe?

Thanks,
Pato


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Hi Pato, welcome to the forum!

Nope, it's not a joke, sorry. JPEG2000 never really took off.  You can add your voice at Official Feature Request/Bug Report Forum though.


----------



## patoperro

Victoria Bampton said:


> Hi Pato, welcome to the forum!
> 
> Nope, it's not a joke, sorry. JPEG2000 never really took off.  You can add your voice at Official Feature Request/Bug Report Forum though.


Very disappointing!  I have read a lot about the jpeg2000 not gaining the support it needed to become a standard (such as browser compatibility), but it still finds a lot of use; among many others the US Library of Congress apparently employs it for their archives. My point being it's far from dead.
How many years has Lightroom been around anyway? Would it have been that much effort for a massive company like Adobe to "port" their Photoshop plugin for their "professional" digital photographer's tool? Oh yeah, but they're not making any money on it, so why should they give a flip?


----------



## clee01l

patoperro said:


> Very disappointing!  I have read a lot about the jpeg2000 not gaining the support it needed to become a standard (such as browser compatibility), but it still finds a lot of use; among many others the US Library of Congress apparently employs it for their archives. My point being it's far from dead.
> How many years has Lightroom been around anyway? Would it have been that much effort for a massive company like Adobe to "port" their Photoshop plugin for their "professional" digital photographer's tool? Oh yeah, but they're not making any money on it, so why should they give a flip?


You are the first person that I have ever encountered that used JP2 for anything.  LR supports image formats primarily produced by most cameras and scanners. It was developed to manage photographic workflows. Those formats include JPEG, TIFF, DNG and most proprietary RAW file formats.  It has also supported PSD, but Adobe has been de-emphasizing PSD for some time.  It was not until version 5 (or was it v4?) of LR that PNGs were supported.  For file formats not supported, Adobe recommends converting to TIFF or DNG before importing.   For your purposes, if it were me, I would batch convert the JPEG2000 files to 8 or 16 bit lossless TIFF.

It could be with enough weight behind it from the LoC, that JPEG2000 will gain a foothold.  Until then you run the risk of enduring the pain of being an early adopter.


----------



## patoperro

clee01l said:


> You are the first person that I have ever encountered that used JP2 for anything.  LR supports image formats primarily produced by most cameras and scanners. It was developed to manage photographic workflows. Those formats include JPEG, TIFF, DNG and most proprietary RAW file formats.  It has also supported PSD, but Adobe has been de-emphasizing PSD for some time.  It was not until version 5 (or was it v4?) of LR that PNGs were supported.  For file formats not supported, Adobe recommends converting to TIFF or DNG before importing.   For your purposes, if it were me, I would batch convert the JPEG2000 files to 8 or 16 bit lossless TIFF. It could be with enough weight behind it from the LoC, that JPEG2000 will gain a foothold.  Until then you run the risk of enduring the pain of being an early adopter.



I used jpeg2000 to decrease file size for archival purposes. The software I have used to scan my film negatives for years, Silverfast, generates those files to this day, as does Photoshop (BTW, on PSD dying out... really?). 
I understand that TIFF is lossless, but batch converting my 2000+ photo repository would mean that I'd have to upgrade my NAS, as the file sizes would increase on average by 1/3. That the main reason it is used for many archives to this day. 

It's purdy dated, Cletus, but this is an interesting read (and clearly a testament to the fact that I'm not the only one affected): https://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/04/jpeg_2000_do_you_use_it.html


----------



## clee01l

The gist of the Adobe sponsored blog article is, "_I’m just trying to gauge the value of supporting standalone JPEG 2000 reading and writing._"  And the comments best summarized by this one, "_It’s no loss that not many people and industries have not adopted it."

So, you can continue to swim against the tide or you can upgrade your NAS.  If you want to adopt LR, one of the most widely used image management systems, you will need to convert your files to a more universal file format.  Then there's always Apple's Aperture for a while longer at least. _


----------



## patoperro

clee01l said:


> And the comments best summarized by this one, "_It’s no loss that not many people and industries have not adopted it." So, you can continue to swim against the tide or you can upgrade your NAS.  If you want to adopt LR, one of the most widely used image management systems, you will need to convert your files to a more universal file format.  Then there's always Apple's Aperture for a while longer at least. _


Judging by most of the comments you've made, I think you WANT to miss the point.

Regardless of how many users there are - we can assume, can't we, that they're not limited to me, people you've encountered or the few individuals who responded to that forum post (US Library of Congress - have you any idea how LARGE their collection is?) - *Adobe should support their own plug-ins*. Full stop. They support the plug-in in Photoshop. Why not in Lightroom?

After all, Apple's Aperture supports it. I just wish I hadn't been so naive to think Adobe WOULD without looking into it first. Otherwise, I just would've purchased Aperture to begin with.

#kthanksbai


----------



## clee01l

patoperro said:


> Judging by most of the comments you've made, I think you WANT to miss the point.
> 
> Regardless of how many users there are - we can assume, can't we, that they're not limited to me, people you've encountered or the few individuals who responded to that forum post (US Library of Congress - have you any idea how LARGE their collection is?) - *Adobe should support their own plug-ins*. Full stop. They support the plug-in in Photoshop. Why not in Lightroom?
> 
> After all, Apple's Aperture supports it. I just wish I hadn't been so naive to think Adobe WOULD without looking into it first. Otherwise, I just would've purchased Aperture to begin with.
> 
> #kthanksbai


Not really "wanting to miss the point",  you do have a valid issue that Adobe supports JPEG2000 in Photoshop but not LR. I just thought I could point out some of the very valid reasons that Adobe has chosen NOT to provide support.  To be consistent, Adobe should cease support for JPEG2000 in PS. Perhaps that will happen in the next release or two. Who can say?

Adobe or any other for profit company is under no obligation to continue to support legacy, orphaned file formats into perpetuity even their own.  To do so requires programming resources that financially (for Adobe and the customer) make better sense utilized elsewhere.  Adobe no longer supports legacy versions of CS or LR or many other products.  They no longer support 32 bit versions of those apps on any platform.



> After all, Apple's Aperture supports it


While that may be true, Apple no longer supports Aperture.  And who can say what Aperture would be supporting if it had been updated regularly since version 3.x was released nearly 6 years ago. If there had been an Aperture 4x or 5x version, support might have been dropped by now.  Apple has recommended that their professional Aperture users migrate to LR.  

Adobe has a proscribed method for converting JPEG2000 to a more universal format.  And I gave you that option early in this discussion. You can continue to argue against the reality that LR does not and probably never will support JPEG2000 or you can convert your JPEG2000 file to a common universal file format or you can continue your search for a data asset manager that does support your legacy file format. Those are as I see it your three choices and only the last two choices move you forward.


----------



## patoperro

clee01l said:


> Adobe or any other for profit company is under no obligation to continue to support legacy, orphaned file formats into perpetuity even their own.  To do so requires programming resources that financially (for Adobe and the customer) make better sense utilized elsewhere.  Adobe no longer supports legacy versions of CS or LR or many other products.  They no longer support 32 bit versions of those apps on any platform.



You're mixing peas and carrots. I'm not arguing that they should support legacy software indefinitely. I started out with Photoshop 2 (still have it on 2 1/2" floppies) and although it would be silly to expect them to support that, I can still open those files. I'm merely suggesting (as I have to Adobe directly) that they could modify their existing Photoshop plug-in for Lightroom. It's not re-inventing the wheel, is it? 



clee01l said:


> While that may be true, Apple no longer supports Aperture.  And who can say what Aperture would be supporting if it had been updated regularly since version 3.x was released nearly 6 years ago. If there had been an Aperture 4x or 5x version, support might have been dropped by now.  Apple has recommended that their professional Aperture users migrate to LR.



Apple still sells Aperture, so oddly enough they still support it. The most recent update was Aperture 3.4 in 2012, two years ago nearly to the day. Being that old, perhaps they've had time to iron the wrinkles out. We can speculate whether something else is in the pipeline there all day. If Aperture is dead, all the more reason for Adobe to take up the banner, IMHO.  



clee01l said:


> Adobe has a proscribed method for converting JPEG2000 to a more universal format.  And I gave you that option early in this discussion. You can continue to argue against the reality that LR does not and probably never will support JPEG2000 or you can convert your JPEG2000 file to a common universal file format or you can continue your search for a data asset manager that does support your legacy file format.



I am quite familiar with "Save as..." in the file handling dialogue, thank you very much. I can even do it batch-style in Photoshop. But, you're right, of course. I didn't exactly thank you for "giving me that option". 

For your information, the international consortium developing JPEG2000 (with ISO certification) released the most recent version of it in 2013. And, for the record, the Mars rover Curiosity sends back pictures using a file format that is adapted from JPEG 2000. You calling it legacy, is flat out wrong.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

patoperro said:


> It's not re-inventing the wheel, is it?



Unfortunately in this case it is a bit like re-inventing the wheel, because the programs are written in completely different languages, so there would be a significant amount of work involved.


----------



## Mr_Taipan

Hello Everyone.

Sorry to bounce and old thread but I arrived at this  forum whilst searching the web for info on JP2 plug ins for LR. Where I work JP2 is now being considered as our archival format, mainly because all our imaging seems to ultimately be for web use and the storage of TIFFs is becoming expensive.

The opinion round here is that JP2 is resurfacing but yes its validity as an archive format is hotly contested. I just read this article from last year which I found interesting, given the authors.

Anyway, I just point and shoot a camera at old things and export images out of LR and this thread tells me I wont find a plug in for LR to do that in JP2. But it did give me an opportunity to say hi etc. See you on the forums.


----------



## clee01l

Dave Welcome to the forum.   While no one can say if JP2 will ever resurrect itself from the dead, the forces that would drive that resurrection are image software developers.  Perhaps, the leading image software developer is Adobe.  And they seem to be moving away from JP2 as fast as possible.  Instead they have continued to push their universal image file format (DNG) to the point that it has been extended to produce Lossy DNGs.  Why anyone would introduce a lossy file format when there is JPEG is beyond me.  But Adobe in their research into the needs of the image/web/community seem to think that there is a place for a lossy DNG file format. 
If your company is searching for a lossless archival product, lossless DNGs (not lossy DNG) would seem to have more merit than JP2s.


----------



## Vicsha

It is surprising you compare DNG with other formats (apart of RAW) or define it as universal file format. In any case it would be Universal file format RAW.
DNG and RAW are not baked by any edit, meaning that beyond his creation all is done in any edit is to add metadata with the modifications. This has a big problem, it is not fully portable as that metadata only can be read by the same engine. This means you can not open an edited raw-dng from lightroom in other programs that are not from adobe without losing the edits.
I would love a way to bake the edits in the DNG but from I know it is not possible.
About JP2 it is beyond me why you don't understand somebody would like to be able to use 4-5 times less storage while keeping the same 16bits. Tiff files from RAW conversion are typically 4-5 times bigger than the original RAW, and this even being compressed internally with ZIP compression option. Also JP2 is supported currently by most of editing and graphic software (including Photoshop) except, you guess, Lightroom. Meaning that each time I need to send a 360 panorama with bracketed images and save the edits from Lightroom I need to save it in TIFF using a huge amount of space, let alone to archive it. Having in mind it is a combination of dozens of images a low compressing JP2 16 bits would be OK but I can't use it.


----------



## clee01l

Vicsha said:


> It is surprising you compare DNG with other formats (apart of RAW) or define it as universal file format. In any case it would be Universal file format RAW.


Welcome to the forum. 
Let me clear up some misunderstanding of the DNG format.  First, it is not limited to RAW.  You can have any data inside the data block (even lossy JPEG data).  The DNG standard is a data specification "wrapper" based upon the TIFF/EP6 standard.   This "wrapper" describes the type of data to be found in the data block. That data can be RAW or RGB (like are JPEGs, TIFFs etc), linear or non-linear, layered or flattened to a single layer, compressed (lossy or lossless) or not compressed.    
JPEG2000 can only be RGB and a single layer. RAW data is contained in a proprietary format (CR2, NEF) or Non-proprietary (DNG).   It is to this extent that DNG is a universal RAW format. RAW data in the data block needs to be demosaic'd and converted to RGB before if can be utilized by any photo processing software.  This is true whether the data arrives in DNG, CR2, NEF or any other proprietary RAW format. Once converted to RGB, the data has to have fixed the White Balance, tone, overall exposure and noise adjustments.  
You might want to look into the parameters that you use to create your TIFF files.  TIFF can be single or multi layered, non compressed or compressed to varying levels and types of compression.  If you create your panorama using the Lightroom function, it will be saved as an RGB single layer DNG.  You can also save output from Photoshop as DNG.


----------



## Vicsha

I'm aware DNG can compress lossy data and keep 16 bits. But my point is that it is not a portable format for edits and because that lacks of flexibility and can't be Universal. We need a intermediate format to do so and then is when problems arise as converting to TIFF 16 bits mean a lot bigger files and lost of quality and it won't keep the full dynamic range. Ironically Tiff also supports lossy compression but only by Photoshop, not by Lightroom as if Lightroom is interested in making the files as big as possible. I think the solution would be a format as EXR, that could keep quality and also supports lossy and lossless  but there is not way to save it in Lightroom either. Also Lightroom (or photoshop) doesn't support directly 32 EXR bits bracketed panos, that is what I do. Meaning I need to send the files edited in Lightroom to other programs and then is when problems arise (size, color depth etc)
I get more quality sending directly the RAW files to whose programs but then I lose the noise reduction and removal of chromatic aberration that is better done in lightroom-camera raw than in any other program.


----------



## PhilBurton

clee01l said:


> Dave Welcome to the forum.   While no one can say if JP2 will ever resurrect itself from the dead, the forces that would drive that resurrection are image software developers.  Perhaps, the leading image software developer is Adobe.  And they seem to be moving away from JP2 as fast as possible.  Instead they have continued to push their universal image file format (DNG) to the point that it has been extended to produce Lossy DNGs.  Why anyone would introduce a lossy file format when there is JPEG is beyond me.  But Adobe in their research into the needs of the image/web/community seem to think that there is a place for a lossy DNG file format.
> If your company is searching for a lossless archival product, lossless DNGs (not lossy DNG) would seem to have more merit than JP2s.


I would go further and say that Adobe will never provide new support for JPG2000.  Overall in technology industries there are countless data formats, system designs, operating systms, etc., that have never been adopted, or enjoyed some amount of early adoption, only to die off completely. Remember 8-track cassette tapes?   As just one computer industry example, the original Macs were powered by Motorola CPUs, 6502s, then 68000s.  Then Apple switched to IBM's Power PC CPU.  Now all Mac systems are powered by Intel CPUs.  As far as I know, Apple does not issue PowerPC versions of its current OSX.

It's time to move on.

Phil


----------



## clee01l

Vicsha said:


> But my point is that it is not a portable format for edits and because that lacks of flexibility and can't be Universal.


Universal in the sense that it is an open public format and supported by most image processing apps.  If it is not supported by your particular app, then that is a shortcoming of your app and not the open DNG format. 
There are no apps that process RAW image data without first de-mosaicing and converting the data to RGB.  While there are many apps that can handle RAW data, they do so by first de-mosaicing and converting the data to RGB, then in that conversion process applying WB, tone and NR.  This is what the ACR component in LR does to provide you with an image in LR.   Adobe's ACR is good at this task, better than some camera manufacturers own post processing apps.   Post processing done in LR is not saved as an image file until it is exported.  And it is true that the LR export process is limiting the output file to a few of the most common popular file formats.  OpenEXR is 1) not common, 2) not popular and too specialized.  And until those two criteria are met, not likely to be supported by Adobe in any product.


----------



## Vicsha

Phil, the problem is the large storage that TIFF uses with lightroom. JPG 2000 would be an alternative in the same way than EXR or TIFF with lossy compression. None of these solutions are available in Lightroom but they are in Photoshop and other programs, all of them. But if our main tool is lightroom we are stuck with huge TIFF files. Then we could say Lightroom is outdated in that aspect, not the formats.


----------



## Vicsha

Cletus, It is not a shortcoming, it is done by design. Programs that are not from Adobe has no access to camera raw processing systems and therefore not readable, even if they want to. There is no future implementation in those programs that can solve it unless Adobe makes camera raw process public domain. DNG is universal only from the point of view preservers original RAW data but edits are lost. DNG is simply raw solution but never a way to communicate edits between programs.
Lightroom can load and edit 32 bits but can only save 16. It can not save any kind of 32 bits (EXR, TIF, HDR). The data is stored in a RAW image is beyond the visible spectrum, similar to 32 bits but narrower. When saving in 16 bits the RAW extra data is lost. 32 bits formats are a lot superior and the only reason why the people don't use them more is because programs don't support them enough. Photoshop supports edits in 32 bits and save them in EXR, TIF or HDR. Popularity has nothing to do with this question. For some tasks, as fully HDRi images or panoramas, 32 bits are unavoidable. 16 bits don't store anything else than the data displayed when 32 bit can store a huge amount of hidden data. You simply need to fight with the limitations of the programs, in this case camera raw-lightroom.


----------



## PhilBurton

Vicsha said:


> Phil, the problem is the large storage that TIFF uses with lightroom. JPG 2000 would be an alternative in the same way than EXR or TIFF with lossy compression. None of these solutions are available in Lightroom but they are in Photoshop and other programs, all of them. But if our main tool is lightroom we are stuck with huge TIFF files. Then we could say Lightroom is outdated in that aspect, not the formats.


Vicsha,

Storage today is exponentially less expensive than just a few years ago.  I remember paying US $1000 for a* 1 GB* drive.  Now I can pay about $140 for a *6 TB* drive.  Software is always designed for an intended hardware platform.  Lightroom is not outdated.  You might better say that Photoshop is dealing with legacy formats and it would not surprise me if Photoshop dropped support for legacy formats in the future.


----------



## PhilBurton

Vicsha said:


> Cletus, It is not a shortcoming, it is done by design. Programs that are not from Adobe has no access to camera raw processing systems and therefore not readable, even if they want to. There is no future implementation in those programs that can solve it unless Adobe makes camera raw process public domain. DNG is universal only from the point of view preservers original RAW data but edits are lost. DNG is simply raw solution but never a way to communicate edits between programs.
> Lightroom can load and edit 32 bits but can only save 16. It can not save any kind of 32 bits (EXR, TIF, HDR). The data is stored in a RAW image is beyond the visible spectrum, similar to 32 bits but narrower. When saving in 16 bits the RAW extra data is lost. 32 bits formats are a lot superior and the only reason why the people don't use them more is because programs don't support them enough. Photoshop supports edits in 32 bits and save them in EXR, TIF or HDR. Popularity has nothing to do with this question. For some tasks, as fully HDRi images or panoramas, 32 bits are unavoidable. 16 bits don't store anything else than the data displayed when 32 bit can store a huge amount of hidden data. You simply need to fight with the limitations of the programs, in this case camera raw-lightroom.


Vicsha,

So don't use Lightroom.  There are alternatives, which are discussed from time to time in this forum.

Phil


----------



## Vicsha

To the point lightroom wont save a 16 bit smaller than Tiff lossless. Yes other programs as Capture One can do it, it can use JPG 2000 16 bits but not Tiff with lossy compression. I guess other programs also could. But you talk about alternatives as it was easy to swap. Lightroom is yes the the most popular engine with plenty of tutorials and most important shares the same engine with other Adobe products as camera raw. It would be a huge nuisance to avoid another smaller one. Having said that I'm tempted to looking into Capture One but it can be a huge waste of time if I find features are are worse done than lightroom. After a quick test noticed that Capture one manage better the noise reduction than lightroom, but desaturates when the exposure is raised, that is quite problematic for me, when lightroom keeps the saturation.
To the point lightroom wont save 32 bits, all of them are without exception 16 bits engines that can edit 32bits. All of them will output only 16bits, there are not alternatives.


----------



## PhilBurton

Vicsha said:


> To the point lightroom wont save a 16 bit smaller than Tiff lossless. Yes other programs as Capture One can do it, it can use JPG 2000 16 bits but not Tiff with lossy compression. I guess other programs also could. But you talk about alternatives as it was easy to swap. Lightroom is yes the the most popular engine with plenty of tutorials and most important shares the same engine with other Adobe products as camera raw. It would be a huge nuisance to avoid another smaller one. Having said that I'm tempted to looking into Capture One but it can be a huge waste of time if I find features are are worse done than lightroom. After a quick test noticed that Capture one manage better the noise reduction than lightroom, but desaturates when the exposure is raised, that is quite problematic for me, when lightroom keeps the saturation.
> To the point lightroom wont save 32 bits, all of them are without exception 16 bits engines that can edit 32bits. All of them will output only 16bits, there are not alternatives.


Vischa,

Then you have made your own point better than I could have.  JPG2000 is a lost cause.  Time to move on.  Seriously.

Phil


----------



## Vicsha

Phil, the point is not JPG2000 or not. The point is any alternative to TIFF 16 bit ZIP compressed that uses less space. If you fancy something modern then TIFF 16bit lossy compression would be OK but even it is supported by Photoshop it is not supported by Lightroom. I'm happy with any alternative.
I think there is a strong point for those can't afford 4-5 times more storage to store images. I have 15  5 terabytes hard drives, and you can tell how much space is taking me those TIFF, that by default uses 4 times more space than RAW.


----------



## clee01l

Vicsha said:


> Cletus, It is not a shortcoming, it is done by design. Programs that are not from Adobe has no access to camera raw processing systems and therefore not readable, even if they want to.


You simply do not have a good grasp of File formats.  RAW data is not RGB. You doing not get pixels until you do convert to RGB.   DNG can be RAW like NEF or RGB like JPEG or TIFF.  Many post processing apps can read RAW data and convert to RGB.  Adobe uses unique algorithms to adjust pixels for a desired result.  Once these pixels are fixed, you can not return to an unprocessed state. The adjusted pixels are saved in an new file to preserve the unprocessed original Even if the original is a JPEG.  This is called non destructive editing.  ACR uses unique algorithms to adjust the RAW data to a finished state.  You can do the same and achieve similar result with ON1 Photo RAW or CaptureOne Pro or Capture NX-D for proprietary Nikon RAW files.   You must "bake" in the adjustments in each of these RAW conversion apps to produce a new derivative file.  The ON1 Photo RAW or CaptureOne Pro or Capture NX-D or ACR each uses program unique algorithms,  that can't be read or processed by the other apps.   Every app that starts with RAW data produces a derivative  image file containing adjusted RGB pixels.   Your issue is the derivative image file format.   You don't like the choices offered by Lightroom of Photoshop. You are certainly free to use the other apps: ON1 Photo RAW or CaptureOne Pro or Capture NX-D,  but you won't be happy with the derivative image file formats offered by these either.  Your choices are limited by the developers of RAW processing apps.  If none do what you require, you are quite free to write your own, but you are not free to complain about the offerings  of Adobe, ON1 Photo RAW, CaptureOne Pro or Capture NX-D on this forum as it yields no benefit to anyone.


----------

