Shel Belinkoff mused: > > And where does JPEG 2000 fit in. It's supposed to be lossless, but the few > tries I've attempted at using it didn't seem to save much, if any, space. > > Shel
JPEG 2000 can be lossless (as could the earlier version of JPEG, in theory). The big difference between the earlier JPEG and JPEG 2000 is the ability to handle files with more than 8 bits per colour component. As you have discovered, image files don't compress all that well if you are using the full resolution of your sensor (i.e. more than 8 bits/colour). That's because (to over-simplify) the compression algorithms are looking for adjacent blocks of pixels that are all the same colour. Unfortunately if you are recording every last bit from the sensor you'll be getting some noise along with the signal; noise which changes the sensor values slightly, which means you get less pixels that are all the same colour.
