Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
ACES

ACES Image Container File

image/aces
VS

JPEG-LS

image/jls
JPEG-LS

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

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature ACES JPEG-LS
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support Yes Yes
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No ✕ No
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 →
JPEG-LS
image/jls
Extension
.jls.jl
Container JPEG Bitstream
Compression Lossless / Near-Lossless (Predictive Coding)
Algorithm
LOCO-I (Low Complexity Lossless Compression for Images)Golomb-Rice Coding
Color Depth 8-bit, 12-bit, 16-bit (Per Channel)
Developed by Joint Photographic Experts Group (ISO/ITU-T) & HP Labs
Released 1999
Magic Bytes
FF D8 FF F7
Full JPEG-LS reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser ACES JPEG-LS
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
JPEG-LS

JPEG-LS Strengths

  • Provides state-of-the-art lossless compression ratios for continuous-tone images, often outperforming Lossless JPEG and JPEG 2000
  • Extremely fast and computationally inexpensive to encode/decode, requiring no complex floating-point math or DCTs
  • Highly resilient in constrained hardware environments, making it ideal for medical equipment and deep-space probes (e.g., Mars rovers)
Limitations
  • Zero native support in web browsers or standard consumer operating systems
  • Lacks the advanced resolution scalability and progressive decoding features found in JPEG 2000
  • Primarily relegated to niche enterprise sectors (healthcare/DICOM and aerospace) rather than consumer adoption

When to choose which format

ACES
Use ACES when…
  • Visual Effects (VFX)
  • Digital Intermediate (DI)
  • Color Grading
  • Archival
JPEG-LS
Use JPEG-LS when…
  • Medical Imaging (DICOM Encapsulation)
  • Space and Planetary Imaging (NASA/ESA)
  • Industrial Machine Vision
  • Scientific Archival Storage

More comparisons

ACES vs APNG → JPEG-LS vs APNG → ACES vs AVCI → JPEG-LS vs AVCI → ACES vs AVCS → JPEG-LS vs AVCS → ACES vs AVIF → JPEG-LS vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison