Image MIME Reference
CMU-Raster
CMU Window Manager Raster
image/x-cmu-raster
VS
High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Codestream
image/jphc
HTJ2K-Codestream
A complete technical comparison of CMU Window Manager Raster 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 | CMU-Raster | 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 |
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
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 | CMU-Raster | HTJ2K-Codestream |
|---|---|---|
Chrome
|
✕ | ✕ |
Firefox
|
✕ | ✕ |
Safari
|
✕ | ✕ |
Edge
|
✕ | ✕ |
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
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
CMU-Raster
Use CMU-Raster when…
- Historical UNIX / Andrew Project Archival
- Legacy Academic Computing Research
HTJ2K-Codestream
Use HTJ2K-Codestream when…
- Medical Imaging Pipelines
- Geospatial Data Streaming
- Digital Cinema
- Embedded Systems