Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
HTJ2K-(JPH)

High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Image

image/jph
VS

T.38 Fax over IP (FoIP)

image/t38
T.38

A complete technical comparison of High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Image and T.38 Fax over IP (FoIP) — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature HTJ2K-(JPH) T.38
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading Yes ✕ No
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
EXIF Metadata Yes ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Image
image/jph
Extension
.jph
Container JPH (ISO/IEC 15444-15)
Compression Lossy / Lossless
Algorithm
High-Throughput JPEG 2000 (HTJ2K)
Color Depth 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 38-bit
Developed by Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG)
Released 2019
Magic Bytes
00 00 00 0C 6A 50 20 20 0D 0A 87 0A ... 66 74 79 70 6A 70 68 20
Full HTJ2K-(JPH) reference →
T.38 Fax over IP (FoIP)
image/t38
Extension
.t38
Container UDPTL or TCP (Network Transport)
Compression Lossless (MH, MR, MMR / T.4, T.6)
Algorithm
MH (Modified Huffman)MR (Modified Read)MMR (Modified Modified Read)
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome B&W)
Developed by ITU-T (International Telecommunication Union)
Released 1998
Magic Bytes
None (Network Stream)
Full T.38 reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser HTJ2K-(JPH) T.38
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
HTJ2K-(JPH)

HTJ2K-(JPH) Strengths

  • Delivers orders of magnitude faster encoding and decoding than standard JPEG 2000 by utilizing a new, parallelizable block coder
  • Supports mathematically lossless and lossy compression within the same codestream architecture
  • Allows for resolution scalability, progressive decoding, and region-of-interest extraction without needing to decode the entire image
Limitations
  • Zero native web browser support, requiring specialized libraries, API conversions, or WebAssembly (like OpenJPH.js) for web deployment
  • Lack of broad consumer awareness, keeping it confined to professional, medical, and scientific workflows
  • Requires more advanced software ecosystems to decode than ubiquitous formats like JPEG or WebP
T.38

T.38 Strengths

  • Designed specifically to overcome the timing and packet-loss issues that plague traditional fax over standard VoIP audio codecs (like G.711)
  • Reduces bandwidth requirements by transmitting fax protocol data rather than uncompressed audio tones
  • Universally supported by enterprise SIP trunks and Session Border Controllers (SBCs) for FoIP
Limitations
  • Not an actual image file format, causing confusion due to its 'image/' MIME classification
  • Extremely complex to implement correctly over lossy UDP networks (relies on UDPTL redundancy mechanisms)
  • Zero support in web browsers or standard image viewing software

When to choose which format

HTJ2K-(JPH)
Use HTJ2K-(JPH) when…
  • Medical Imaging (DICOM)
  • Geospatial Data
  • Digital Cinema
  • Professional Archiving
T.38
Use T.38 when…
  • Fax over IP (FoIP) Transmissions
  • SIP/SDP Media Negotiation
  • VoIP Gateways and PBX Systems
  • Enterprise Fax Servers

More comparisons

HTJ2K-(JPH) vs ACES → T.38 vs ACES → HTJ2K-(JPH) vs APNG → T.38 vs APNG → HTJ2K-(JPH) vs AVCI → T.38 vs AVCI → HTJ2K-(JPH) vs AVCS → T.38 vs AVCS → HTJ2K-(JPH) vs AVIF → T.38 vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison