Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
ACES

ACES Image Container File

image/aces
VS

Flexible Image Transport System

image/fits
FITS

A complete technical comparison of ACES Image Container File and Flexible Image Transport System — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature ACES FITS
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support Yes Yes
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No ✕ No
ACES Image Container File
image/aces
Extension
.exr
Container OpenEXR (SMPTE ST 2065-4)
Compression Lossless / Uncompressed
Algorithm
PIZZIPRLEB44Uncompressed
Color Depth 16-bit (Half-float), 32-bit (Float)
Developed by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) / SMPTE
Released 2013
Magic Bytes
76 2F 31 01
Full ACES reference →
Flexible Image Transport System
image/fits
Extension
.fits.fit.fts
Container FITS
Compression Uncompressed / Tile Compressed (Rice, GZIP)
Algorithm
UncompressedRiceGZIPHcompress
Color Depth 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit (Float/Double)
Developed by IAU FITS Working Group / NASA
Released 1981
Magic Bytes
53 49 4D 50 4C 45 20 20 3D 20
Full FITS reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser ACES FITS
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
ACES

ACES Strengths

  • Industry standard for high-end visual effects, compositing, and color grading
  • Supports 16-bit half-float data, accurately capturing immense dynamic range without clipping
  • Standardized by SMPTE (ST 2065-4) to guarantee universal color interoperability across different post-production facilities
Limitations
  • Considerably larger file sizes than conventional consumer image formats
  • Completely unsupported in web browsers and most standard desktop viewers
  • Requires specialized compositing or color grading software to interpret and view the scene-linear data correctly
FITS

FITS Strengths

  • The undisputed global standard for archiving and sharing astronomical data
  • Self-documenting: Headers are written in plain ASCII, ensuring data is readable decades later regardless of software
  • Supports incredibly high dynamic range, N-dimensional arrays, and complex binary tables
Limitations
  • No support in standard consumer software or web browsers
  • Uncompressed raw FITS files from modern telescopes can be excessively large
  • Does not use standard metadata models like EXIF or XMP, requiring specialized parsers

When to choose which format

ACES
Use ACES when…
  • Visual Effects (VFX)
  • Digital Intermediate (DI)
  • Color Grading
  • Archival
FITS
Use FITS when…
  • Astronomy & Astrophysics
  • Space Telescope Data (Hubble, JWST)
  • Scientific Data Archiving
  • Spectroscopy

More comparisons

ACES vs APNG → FITS vs APNG → ACES vs AVCI → FITS vs AVCI → ACES vs AVCS → FITS vs AVCS → ACES vs AVIF → FITS vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison