Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
JPM

JPEG 2000 Compound Image File Format

image/jpm
VS

T.38 Fax over IP (FoIP)

image/t38
T.38

A complete technical comparison of JPEG 2000 Compound Image File Format 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 JPM T.38
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading Yes ✕ No
HDR Support ✕ No ✕ No
EXIF Metadata Yes ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
JPEG 2000 Compound Image File Format
image/jpm
Extension
.jpm.jpgm
Container ISOBMFF / JPM (ISO/IEC 15444-6)
Compression Lossy / Lossless / Mixed Raster Content (MRC)
Algorithm
JPEG 2000JBIG2JPEGMMR
Color Depth 1-bit (Text/Masks), 8-bit, 16-bit, 24-bit
Developed by Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG)
Released 2003
Magic Bytes
00 00 00 0C 6A 50 20 20 0D 0A 87 0A ... 66 74 79 70 6A 70 6D 20
Full JPM 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 JPM T.38
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
JPM

JPM Strengths

  • Highly optimized for scanned documents, drastically reducing file sizes without sacrificing the readability of text or the quality of embedded photos
  • Supports multi-page documents within a single file
  • Object-based architecture allows for complex layout representation and independent extraction of elements
Limitations
  • Failed to achieve widespread adoption, largely being overshadowed by PDF/A and DjVu
  • Zero native web browser compatibility
  • Requires complex, specialized software to properly encode and decode the multi-layered MRC structure
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

JPM
Use JPM when…
  • Scanned Document Archiving
  • Mixed Raster Content (MRC) Imaging
  • Digital Libraries
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

JPM vs ACES → T.38 vs ACES → JPM vs APNG → T.38 vs APNG → JPM vs AVCI → T.38 vs AVCI → JPM vs AVCS → T.38 vs AVCS → JPM vs AVIF → T.38 vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison