Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
AVCI

AVC Image (HEIF Container)

image/avci
VS

Flexible Image Transport System

image/fits
FITS

A complete technical comparison of AVC Image (HEIF Container) 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 AVCI FITS
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support Yes Yes
EXIF Metadata Yes ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
AVC Image (HEIF Container)
image/avci
Extension
.avci.hif
Container HEIF / ISOBMFF (ISO/IEC 14496-12)
Compression Lossy / Lossless
Algorithm
AVC (Advanced Video Coding / H.264)
Color Depth 8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit
Developed by Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) / ISO/IEC JTC 1
Released 2015
Magic Bytes
XX XX XX XX 66 74 79 70 61 76 63 69
Full AVCI 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 AVCI FITS
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
AVCI

AVCI Strengths

  • Shares the robust, flexible HEIF container architecture that allows for rich metadata, HDR, and depth maps.
  • Backed by the highly ubiquitous AVC (H.264) codec, which is widely supported in hardware decoding.
  • Supports rectangular cropping and rotation metadata without needing to re-encode the pixel data.
Limitations
  • No native support within web browsers for HTML rendering.
  • Inferior compression efficiency when compared to newer container formats like HEIC (HEVC) or AVIF (AV1).
  • Easily confused with HEIC and AVIF, which use the same base ISOBMFF container.
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

AVCI
Use AVCI when…
  • Digital Photography
  • Camera Capture
  • Archival Storage
FITS
Use FITS when…
  • Astronomy & Astrophysics
  • Space Telescope Data (Hubble, JWST)
  • Scientific Data Archiving
  • Spectroscopy

More comparisons

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