Image MIME Reference
CMU-Raster
CMU Window Manager Raster
image/x-cmu-raster
VS
Microsoft Document Imaging
image/vnd.ms-modi
MODI
A complete technical comparison of CMU Window Manager Raster and Microsoft Document Imaging — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.
Equal browser support
Feature Support
| Feature | CMU-Raster | MODI |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency (Alpha) | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Animation Support | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Progressive Loading | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| HDR Support | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| 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
Microsoft Document Imaging
image/vnd.ms-modi
Extension
.mdi
Container
TIFF Variant
Compression
LZW / Proprietary MS Compression
Algorithm
LZW (Modified)
Color Depth
1-bit (Monochrome), 8-bit (Grayscale), 24-bit (RGB)
Developed by
Microsoft Corporation
Released
2001
Magic Bytes
49 49 2A 00
Browser Support Comparison
| Browser | CMU-Raster | MODI |
|---|---|---|
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
MODI
MODI Strengths
- Historically provided an excellent all-in-one scanned document format with built-in OCR and annotations before PDF editing became universally accessible
- Tightly integrated with Microsoft Office and SharePoint workflows in the early 2000s
Limitations
- Completely proprietary and obsolete; Microsoft abandoned it in favor of standard TIFF and PDF
- Causes widespread identification conflicts since its file signature is identical to a standard TIFF
- Extremely difficult to open on modern operating systems without relying on third-party conversion utilities
When to choose which format
CMU-Raster
Use CMU-Raster when…
- Historical UNIX / Andrew Project Archival
- Legacy Academic Computing Research
MODI
Use MODI when…
- Legacy Scanned Document Archival
- Microsoft Office XP/2003/2007 Workflows
- Embedded OCR Text Storage