[philovivero]

Like many others, I don't think I will bother talking about JPEG2000 as a preservation risk. I guess it is, given the bugs and difficult implementation.

But for me, the problem is just how unwieldy the files are. Nothing seems to work with them well, except ImageMagick, to convert the files to some more-usable format.

I do a lot of Blender renders, and for a while I thought I'd use 12-bit JPEG2000 so that I could capture more details in the shadows for subsequent photo editing.

Big mistake. I ended up having to write a series of very complicated scripts to convert all to regular JPEG for 99% of whatever I'm doing with the images. GIMP doesn't work well with them. My own image viewer, based on Kivy, doesn't work at all with them. MacOS generates thumbnails on them at maybe 1/10th the speed of comparable JPEGs.

In the end I just decided if I really want to work with the darks in an image I will go find the original .blend and re-render the scene. Now I render straight to regular JPEG and I save massive amounts of time.

[klodolph]

The arithmetic coder in JPEG2000 is often the culprit for slow encoding / decoding.

GIMP doesn't work well high-precision files, although it's gotten better. Photoshop can deal with these, even very old versions of Photoshop.

Use OpenEXR or HDR output formats and do the tone mapping as a separate step.

Also note that plain JPEG supports 12-bit in the first place.