Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
ACES

ACES Image Container File

image/aces
VS

Computer Graphics Metafile

image/cgm
CGM

A complete technical comparison of ACES Image Container File and Computer Graphics Metafile — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature ACES CGM
Transparency (Alpha) Yes Yes
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No Yes
ACES Image Container File
image/aces
Extension
.exr
Container OpenEXR (SMPTE ST 2065-4)
Compression Lossless / Uncompressed
Algorithm
PIZZIPRLEB44Uncompressed
Color Depth 16-bit (Half-float), 32-bit (Float)
Developed by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) / SMPTE
Released 2013
Magic Bytes
76 2F 31 01
Full ACES reference →
Computer Graphics Metafile
image/cgm
Extension
.cgm
Container CGM
Compression Uncompressed / Binary / Character / Clear Text
Algorithm
Deflate (in some WebCGM profiles)
Color Depth 8-bit, 16-bit, 24-bit, 32-bit
Developed by ISO / IEC
Released 1987
Magic Bytes
00 20 (Binary) / 42 45 47 49 4E 20 4D 45 54 41 46 49 4C 45 (Clear Text)
Full CGM reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser ACES CGM
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
ACES

ACES Strengths

  • Industry standard for high-end visual effects, compositing, and color grading
  • Supports 16-bit half-float data, accurately capturing immense dynamic range without clipping
  • Standardized by SMPTE (ST 2065-4) to guarantee universal color interoperability across different post-production facilities
Limitations
  • Considerably larger file sizes than conventional consumer image formats
  • Completely unsupported in web browsers and most standard desktop viewers
  • Requires specialized compositing or color grading software to interpret and view the scene-linear data correctly
CGM

CGM Strengths

  • Strictly standardized by ISO, ensuring long-term archiving and cross-platform compatibility in engineering
  • Excellent support for rich metadata, hyperlinks, and technical hotspots via the WebCGM profile
  • Can store complex 2D geometry, rasters, and text in a single lightweight file
Limitations
  • Multiple encoding schemes (Binary, Character, Clear Text) make parser development difficult
  • Zero native support in modern web browsers without third-party plugins
  • Largely replaced by SVG for general-purpose 2D vector graphics on the web

When to choose which format

ACES
Use ACES when…
  • Visual Effects (VFX)
  • Digital Intermediate (DI)
  • Color Grading
  • Archival
CGM
Use CGM when…
  • Technical Illustrations
  • Aerospace & Defense (S1000D)
  • CAD/CAM
  • Geophysics

More comparisons

ACES vs APNG → CGM vs APNG → ACES vs AVCI → CGM vs AVCI → ACES vs AVCS → CGM vs AVCS → ACES vs AVIF → CGM vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison