Sadly, I don't know what JPEG 2000 is or how to use it. Is it superior? If so, why would anyone use regular JPEG?

Feeling clueless,
Eddie

Oh, Eddie. I'm glad you asked that because I've been secretly wondering that myself. I do know that tests show that JPEG 2000 is only noticeably better at extremely high compression. I'm sure interested to see what others say about it in real-world applications. By the way, your work is absolutely phenomenal and everyone should be busting down your door to second shoot for you!
-E

From this article on OpenRAW.com:

# JPEG 2000
Despite a name similar to JPEG, the new JPEG 2000 is a totally new image format, using wavelet image encoding/compression instead of DCT encoding as used by JPEG.

Very unlikely to be used for on-camera encoding for a long time, for a number of reasons:

* Wavelet space encoding style not ideal for on-camera sensor encoding
* Very complex to implement in fast / low power hardware
* Patent risks associated with any new format.

The core JPEG 2000 standard unfortunately does not define a standard Meta format, although it does define a way to add new information to a JPEG 2000 file. One extension to JPEG 2000 (so-called because extensions are not part of the core format and thus don’t have to be supported by JPEG 2000 applications) is the “JPX” file format, which is a superset of the "JP2" JPEG 2000 file format. JPX files enable definition of an ICM within a JPX file, and also have a detailed definition of storing Meta data using XML.

In addition, it is possible that other formats (EXIF, IPTC et al) will simply be wrapped and stored in JPEG 2000 files. Given the many Meta data standards, and the lack of a core standard Meta definition within JPEG 2000, unified and generic support for meta data within JPEG 2000 is likely to be some time away. However (and despite its complexity), the JPEG 2000 Meta data stored in XML hold promise for the future.
--

Obviously this is just one person's opinion, but I thought the article offered solid arguments for and against DNG, JPG2000, and the proprietary RAW formats.

My vote: None of the above!

I'm saving in 16-color BMP, baby!

Thanks Damon (and KC). So it looks like there's never really a compelling reason to use it. It sounds like it's out there just to get people acclimated and to start a base. It'll be interesting to see where all the formats go. I just hope they can narrow down the possibilities and keep some standards.
Thanks,
Eddie