Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
FITS

Flexible Image Transport System

image/fits
VS

JPEG XL

image/jxl
JXL

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

JXL wins on browser support

Feature Support

Feature FITS JXL
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No Yes
Animation Support ✕ No Yes
Progressive Loading ✕ No Yes
HDR Support Yes Yes
EXIF Metadata ✕ No Yes
ICC Color Profile ✕ No Yes
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 →
JPEG XL
image/jxl
Extension
.jxl
Container ISOBMFF / JPEG XL Codestream
Compression Lossy (VarDCT) / Lossless (Modular)
Algorithm
VarDCT (Variable block-size DCT)Modular (Predictive coding for lossless)
Color Depth 8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit (Float)
Developed by Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG)
Released 2021
Magic Bytes
FF 0A (Codestream) / 00 00 00 0C 4A 58 4C 20 0D 0A 87 0A (Container)
Full JXL reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser FITS JXL
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕
✓ 17+
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
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
JXL

JXL Strengths

  • Capable of losslessly recompressing legacy JPEG files, saving ~20% space while retaining perfect byte-for-byte restorability
  • Highly superior progressive decoding (Saliency-driven), allowing recognizable images to load extremely fast on slow connections
  • Outperforms WebP and competes favorably with AVIF, especially at high-fidelity settings and for complex textures/photography
  • Royalty-free with an open-source reference implementation (libjxl)
Limitations
  • Google's removal of JXL support from Chrome severely hindered its adoption as a universal web standard
  • Lack of hardware decoding chips compared to video-derived codecs like AVIF (AV1)
  • File parsing logic is complex due to the split between raw codestreams and ISOBMFF containers

When to choose which format

FITS
Use FITS when…
  • Astronomy & Astrophysics
  • Space Telescope Data (Hubble, JWST)
  • Scientific Data Archiving
  • Spectroscopy
JXL
Use JXL when…
  • High-End Web Delivery (via Safari/Polyfills)
  • HDR Photography
  • Legacy JPEG Archiving
  • Digital Art & Image Storage

More comparisons

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