Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
DICOM-RLE

DICOM Run-Length Encoding

image/dicom-rle
VS

DjVu Document

image/vnd.djvu
DjVu

A complete technical comparison of DICOM Run-Length Encoding and DjVu Document — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature DICOM-RLE DjVu
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No Yes
Animation Support Yes ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No Yes
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
DICOM Run-Length Encoding
image/dicom-rle
Extension
.dcm.dicom
Container DICOM (PS3.10)
Compression Lossless (RLE)
Algorithm
Run-Length Encoding (RLE)
Color Depth 8-bit, 16-bit, 24-bit
Developed by National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) / ACR
Released 1993
Magic Bytes
44 49 43 4D (at byte offset 128)
Full DICOM-RLE reference →
DjVu Document
image/vnd.djvu
Extension
.djvu.djv
Container Interchange File Format (IFF)
Compression JB2 (Bi-tonal Text) / IW44 (Wavelet Background) / BZZ (General Data/Text)
Algorithm
JB2IW44BZZ
Color Depth 1-bit (Foreground Text), 24-bit (Background)
Developed by AT&T Labs (Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Patrick Haffner, Paul G. Howard)
Released 1996
Magic Bytes
41 54 26 54 46 4F 52 4D
Full DjVu reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser DICOM-RLE DjVu
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
DICOM-RLE

DICOM-RLE Strengths

  • Guarantees lossless preservation of critical medical data necessary for diagnostics
  • Extremely robust metadata structure containing patient information, modality, and spatial geometry
  • Faster to encode and decode than complex compression schemes like JPEG 2000
Limitations
  • RLE compression offers very low compression ratios compared to modern codecs like JPEG-LS or JPEG 2000
  • Zero support in web browsers or standard consumer image viewers
  • Strict data privacy regulations (HIPAA/GDPR) make handling DICOM files complex due to embedded PHI
DjVu

DjVu Strengths

  • Unmatched compression ratios for high-resolution scanned documents (often 5 to 10 times smaller than equivalent JPEG/TIFF-based PDFs)
  • Separates text layers cleanly from backgrounds, allowing for highly legible text even at low file sizes
  • Embedded OCR (Optical Character Recognition) text layers allow for fast searching
Limitations
  • Lacks native support in modern operating systems and web browsers, requiring third-party software
  • Largely superseded by PDF/A and modern PDF compression standards in standard corporate workflows
  • Not suitable for vector graphics or born-digital documents (like Word exports), where standard PDF is far superior

When to choose which format

DICOM-RLE
Use DICOM-RLE when…
  • Medical Imaging
  • Ultrasound
  • X-Rays / CT / MRI
  • PACS Archives
DjVu
Use DjVu when…
  • Scanned Books and Manuals
  • Digital Libraries (e.g., Internet Archive)
  • Historical Document Archiving

More comparisons

DICOM-RLE vs ACES → DjVu vs ACES → DICOM-RLE vs APNG → DjVu vs APNG → DICOM-RLE vs AVCI → DjVu vs AVCI → DICOM-RLE vs AVCS → DjVu vs AVCS → DICOM-RLE vs AVIF → DjVu vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison