Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
ACES

ACES Image Container File

image/aces
VS

Extended Image File Format

image/vnd.xiff
XIFF

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

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature ACES XIFF
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
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 →
Extended Image File Format
image/vnd.xiff
Extension
.xif
Container TIFF-based Proprietary Container
Compression CCITT Group 3 / Group 4 / LZW / Uncompressed
Algorithm
CCITT Group 4LZWNone
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome), 8-bit (Grayscale), 24-bit (RGB)
Developed by Keyfile Corporation
Released 1994
Magic Bytes
49 49 2A 00 or 4D 4D 00 2A
Full XIFF reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser ACES XIFF
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
XIFF

XIFF Strengths

  • Pioneered early enterprise document workflow integration by binding administrative routing data directly to the document image file
  • Leveraged efficient fax compression standards to keep storage requirements low on 1990s server infrastructure
Limitations
  • Completely proprietary and obsolete; Keyfile Corporation's software ecosystem no longer exists
  • Causes widespread MIME type identification conflicts due to sharing the exact same binary header signature as standard TIFF files
  • Zero support in modern operating systems or web browsers

When to choose which format

ACES
Use ACES when…
  • Visual Effects (VFX)
  • Digital Intermediate (DI)
  • Color Grading
  • Archival
XIFF
Use XIFF when…
  • Keyfile Enterprise Document Management
  • Legacy Corporate Workflow Archival
  • Scanned Multi-page Document Routing

More comparisons

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