Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
FITS

Flexible Image Transport System

image/fits
VS

North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax

image/naplps
NAPLPS

A complete technical comparison of Flexible Image Transport System and North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature FITS NAPLPS
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No Yes
Progressive Loading ✕ No Yes
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No ✕ No
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 →
North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax
image/naplps
Extension
.nap.naplps
Container NAPLPS Byte Stream
Compression Uncompressed (Tokenized ASCII Commands)
Algorithm
None (Coordinate encoding)
Color Depth 16-color palette (Indexed from larger color spaces)
Developed by ANSI / CSA (Based on Canadian CRC's Telidon)
Released 1983
Magic Bytes
1B (Variable / ESC sequences)
Full NAPLPS reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser FITS NAPLPS
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
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
NAPLPS

NAPLPS Strengths

  • Extremely bandwidth-efficient, enabling colorful graphical interfaces over early 300 baud dial-up connections
  • Resolution-independent vector scaling allowed the exact same file to be displayed accurately on varied early PC monitors and television sets
Limitations
  • Completely obsolete and unsupported by modern web technologies
  • Relies heavily on stateful parsing and terminal emulators rather than straightforward file decoding
  • Easily misidentified by MIME sniffers as plain text or generic binary streams due to the lack of a standardized file header

When to choose which format

FITS
Use FITS when…
  • Astronomy & Astrophysics
  • Space Telescope Data (Hubble, JWST)
  • Scientific Data Archiving
  • Spectroscopy
NAPLPS
Use NAPLPS when…
  • 1980s Videotex Services
  • Prodigy Online Service Graphics
  • Historical BBS Terminal Graphics
  • Legacy Teletext Broadcasts

More comparisons

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