Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
CMU-Raster

CMU Window Manager Raster

image/x-cmu-raster
VS

Fujifilm RAW Image

image/x-fuji-raf
Fuji-RAF

A complete technical comparison of CMU Window Manager Raster and Fujifilm RAW Image — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature CMU-Raster Fuji-RAF
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support ✕ No Yes
EXIF Metadata ✕ No Yes
ICC Color Profile ✕ No Yes
CMU Window Manager Raster
image/x-cmu-raster
Extension
.ras
Container CMU Window Manager Bitmap
Compression Uncompressed
Algorithm
None
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome), 8-bit (Indexed/Grayscale)
Developed by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
Released 1980s
Magic Bytes
F1 00 40 BB
Full CMU-Raster reference →
Fujifilm RAW Image
image/x-fuji-raf
Extension
.raf
Container Proprietary RAF Container
Compression Uncompressed / Lossless Compressed / Lossy Compressed (Modern firmware)
Algorithm
NoneProprietary LosslessProprietary Lossy
Color Depth 14-bit (Per Channel - X-Series), 16-bit (Per Channel - GFX Series)
Developed by Fujifilm Corporation
Released 2000
Magic Bytes
46 55 4A 49 46 49 4C 4D 43 43 44 2D 52 41 57 20
Full Fuji-RAF reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser CMU-Raster Fuji-RAF
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
CMU-Raster

CMU-Raster Strengths

  • Incredibly simple, uncompressed binary structure that was easy for early, memory-constrained UNIX workstations to parse and render
Limitations
  • Completely obsolete and unsupported outside of niche historical command-line tools like Netpbm
  • The shared '.ras' file extension causes frequent file misidentification and system conflicts
  • Lacks all modern imaging features, including metadata, compression, and alpha channel transparency
Fuji-RAF

Fuji-RAF Strengths

  • Retains absolute maximum sensor data, enabling massive shadow recovery and highlight protection compared to compressed in-camera JPEGs
  • Stores proprietary Fujifilm Film Simulation metadata (like Classic Chrome or Acros), allowing editors to perfectly replicate in-camera aesthetics
  • Very distinct and reliable magic header makes programmatic file detection foolproof
Limitations
  • Proprietary format requires continuous updates to third-party software (like Lightroom) whenever Fujifilm releases a new camera
  • The X-Trans sensor matrix requires highly specialized demosaicing algorithms that are extremely computationally expensive, leading to slower import and rendering times
  • Completely unsupported in standard web browsers and basic operating system image viewers

When to choose which format

CMU-Raster
Use CMU-Raster when…
  • Historical UNIX / Andrew Project Archival
  • Legacy Academic Computing Research
Fuji-RAF
Use Fuji-RAF when…
  • Professional Digital Photography
  • Fujifilm X-Trans Sensor Image Archival
  • High Dynamic Range (HDR) Post-Processing

More comparisons

CMU-Raster vs ACES → Fuji-RAF vs ACES → CMU-Raster vs APNG → Fuji-RAF vs APNG → CMU-Raster vs AVCI → Fuji-RAF vs AVCI → CMU-Raster vs AVCS → Fuji-RAF vs AVCS → CMU-Raster vs AVIF → Fuji-RAF vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison