Free webp to jpg
Image MIME Reference
DICOM-RLE

DICOM Run-Length Encoding

image/dicom-rle
VS

High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Codestream

image/jphc
HTJ2K-Codestream

A complete technical comparison of DICOM Run-Length Encoding 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 DICOM-RLE HTJ2K-Codestream
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No Yes
Animation Support Yes ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No Yes
HDR Support Yes Yes
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 →
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
Full HTJ2K-Codestream reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser DICOM-RLE HTJ2K-Codestream
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
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

DICOM-RLE
Use DICOM-RLE when…
  • Medical Imaging
  • Ultrasound
  • X-Rays / CT / MRI
  • PACS Archives
HTJ2K-Codestream
Use HTJ2K-Codestream when…
  • Medical Imaging Pipelines
  • Geospatial Data Streaming
  • Digital Cinema
  • Embedded Systems
Share this comparison