JPEG 2000 vs. Tif, etc.

I know that a lot of you convert to .tif after post-processing your images. It is my understanding, however, that JPEG 2000 has an advantage over .tif in that, while both are lossless, the j2k is not as bulky (large, that is) while retaining the same level of quality as the .tif.

Am I -- for those of you who know a lot more about these things -- wrong or misguided about this information?

Jpg was always historically a lossy compression method (the more you compress, the more damage you do to the file). Tiff is lossless, but not as small.

If they have a new system (probably not in mass usueage yet), then if it is indeed lossless at the best qualitites, the savings will probably not be that great.

Probably no real need to change until it is a proved technology.

Graham

J2k has been around for ages - PSP7 supports it, and I think its just had some serious issues with uptake.

Leo

More info if anyone is interested:

http://www.jpeg2000inf​o.com/what/index.html

I would say for just a basic image, the JPEG2000 will be better in that the compressed size will be smaller. However, I don't think that JPEG2000 supports the inclusion of layers. I am pretty sure that is the reason TIFF is used more often.

Thanks for all the responses. I asked this question when a little message came on while converting RAW into .tiff that stated that my C-drive is running out of space!! The Jpeg 2000 is definitly smaller which is a big help in storage. Since there seems to unresolved issues with J2K, I guess I'll just have to be more diligent transferring the images to CD's to free up my laptop storage space.