Image MIME Reference
BTIF
Bank Telecommunications Image Format
image/prs.btif
VS
High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Codestream
image/jphc
HTJ2K-Codestream
A complete technical comparison of Bank Telecommunications Image Format and High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Codestream — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.
Equal browser support
Feature Support
| Feature | BTIF | HTJ2K-Codestream |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency (Alpha) | ✕ No | Yes |
| Animation Support | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Progressive Loading | ✕ No | Yes |
| HDR Support | ✕ No | Yes |
| EXIF Metadata | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| ICC Color Profile | ✕ No | ✕ No |
Bank Telecommunications Image Format
image/prs.btif
Extension
.btif.btf
Container
Proprietary Check Image Container
Compression
Lossy (JPEG-based) / Lossless (TIFF-based)
Algorithm
JPEGTIFF-variant
Color Depth
1-bit (B&W), 8-bit (Grayscale)
Developed by
NationsBank (Bank of America) / Ben Simon
Released
1998
Magic Bytes
Unknown (Proprietary container)
High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Codestream
image/jphc
Extension
.jhc
Container
None (Raw Codestream)
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
FF 4F FF 51
Browser Support Comparison
| Browser | BTIF | HTJ2K-Codestream |
|---|---|---|
Chrome
|
✕ | ✕ |
Firefox
|
✕ | ✕ |
Safari
|
✕ | ✕ |
Edge
|
✕ | ✕ |
IE (Legacy)
|
✕ | ✕ |
BTIF
BTIF Strengths
- Allowed early digital archiving and web-based transmission of cleared bank checks
- Encapsulated both image data and ASCII transaction metadata in a single file
Limitations
- Completely proprietary and obsolete format
- Lacks native support in modern operating systems and image viewers
- Requires legacy plugins or specialized bio-format readers (like ImageC) to decode
HTJ2K-Codestream
HTJ2K-Codestream Strengths
- Extremely fast encoding and decoding capabilities due to the parallelizable block coder
- Minimal file overhead since it lacks container headers and metadata
- Ideal for streaming applications or embedded systems where parsing a full container is unnecessary
Limitations
- Lacks standard metadata support (like EXIF, XMP, or ICC color profiles) since there is no container structure
- Zero native web browser compatibility
- Difficult to distinguish from standard JPEG 2000 codestreams without deeply parsing the internal marker segments
When to choose which format
BTIF
Use BTIF when…
- Bank Check Archiving (Legacy)
- Financial Transaction Records
HTJ2K-Codestream
Use HTJ2K-Codestream when…
- Medical Imaging Pipelines
- Geospatial Data Streaming
- Digital Cinema
- Embedded Systems