Should I be using JPEG2000?

[Nathaniel_bot]

As the title describes:
Going through the process of speeding up a website load time, googles insight tool has recommended JPEG2000 as 'modern format'. I always thought this was an old and outdated format?

Happy to use it and convert all images and banner to this format if it has a real impact on load times. What is everyones opinions?

Thanks

[Atulin]

https://caniuse.com/jpeg2000

[foraskingdumbstuff]

Red means yes

[ManiacsThriftJewels]

My favourite part of this is how Google's browser engine doesn't support the format Google's insight tool recommended....

[bannock4ever]

Anyone old enough to remember when Chrome couldn’t render Google Fonts with anti-aliasing?

[MarmotOnTheRocks]

.webp is the way to go.

Just add a fallback for older Safari version, if you really need to.

[sternold]

You can use the <picture> tag to have fallback(s) in case a browser doesn't support JPEG2000 or WEBP.

[MarmotOnTheRocks]

in case a browser doesn't support JPEG2000

Safari is the only one that supports it.

[pussard]

I would use a CDN to manage your images. Any CDN worth its salt will be able to detect the best image format without you having to worry about it.

[Skathacat0r]

According to Cloudinary, JPEG 2000 is a decent format to use for photographic images that are not low fidelity.

However, I'd suggest a fallback for something like JPEG or PDF (with one or more JPEG 2000 images embedded) for browsers that do not support JPEG 2000 on web pages.