jpeg2k is far far more complex, hard to implement, is far more computationally complex. The quality of the results arguably aren't that much better. Revisitin

jpeg2k is far far more complex, hard to implement, is far more computationally complex. The quality of the results arguably aren't that much better. Revisiting the encoding of the DCT coefficients shows tremendous gains can be had there. After digging into jpeg2k I was never a big fan. IMHO for image compression there's a balance between algorithmic simplicity, computational efficiency and image quality. I'm looking for an article some months back about DCT coding sans huffman, but here's a quick page on how using arithmetic coding in the JPEG standard cuts jpeg file sizes down 5-12% http://www.rw-designer.com/entry/1311 http://www.rw-designer.com/entry/1311 Okay one DCT based recompressor is "lepton" which is 20% smaller than jpeg with the identical DCT quality: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/07/lepton-image-compression-saving-22-losslessly-from-images-at-15mbs/ https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/07/lepton-image-compress...