Hola Hilmar, como estas?

Jpeg2000 is a new incarnation of the jpeg format used mostly for pictures.

You can find more information at www.jpeg.org

I read on this a few weeks ago and I believe that the only advantage to jpeg2000 over the old jpeg standard is that the compression algorithm is more efficient and it also allows you to perform loss-less compression, whereas using just jpeg, the compression is lossy (the more you compress an image, the more of it that you loose).

There's also Jbig, which comes from the same organization and I believe it allows for multi-page documents (just like the tiff format).

Jpeg2000 and jbig aren't still as popular as gif, jpg, and tiff, so I suggest that you use jpg to compress pictures, and tiff to compress documents (the latter is the standard in the imaging world).

There's an excellent viewer called irfanview that's compatible with pretty much everything out there and it's free, so if you're burning cd's, you might as well include it with the images to avoid headaches.

Have fun!

Alex

>I am scanning lots of documents for a client, and somebody suggested to use JPEG 2000 format, instead of JPEG. Now, I understand that these typically take up less space for the same quality; but how about compatibility? For instance, some of these images are destined for distribution on a CD, and they should work in the major browsers. Also, to give another example, some pictures might end up being imported into PowerPoint presentations.
>
>TIA,
>
>Hilmar.