Free webp to jpg
Image MIME Reference
HTJ2K-(JPH)

High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Image

image/jph
VS

Microsoft Document Imaging

image/vnd.ms-modi
MODI

A complete technical comparison of High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Image and Microsoft Document Imaging — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature HTJ2K-(JPH) MODI
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading Yes ✕ No
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
EXIF Metadata Yes ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
High-Throughput JPEG 2000 Image
image/jph
Extension
.jph
Container JPH (ISO/IEC 15444-15)
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
00 00 00 0C 6A 50 20 20 0D 0A 87 0A ... 66 74 79 70 6A 70 68 20
Full HTJ2K-(JPH) reference →
Microsoft Document Imaging
image/vnd.ms-modi
Extension
.mdi
Container TIFF Variant
Compression LZW / Proprietary MS Compression
Algorithm
LZW (Modified)
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome), 8-bit (Grayscale), 24-bit (RGB)
Developed by Microsoft Corporation
Released 2001
Magic Bytes
49 49 2A 00
Full MODI reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser HTJ2K-(JPH) MODI
Chrome Chrome
Firefox Firefox
Safari Safari
Edge Edge
IE IE (Legacy)
HTJ2K-(JPH)

HTJ2K-(JPH) Strengths

  • Delivers orders of magnitude faster encoding and decoding than standard JPEG 2000 by utilizing a new, parallelizable block coder
  • Supports mathematically lossless and lossy compression within the same codestream architecture
  • Allows for resolution scalability, progressive decoding, and region-of-interest extraction without needing to decode the entire image
Limitations
  • Zero native web browser support, requiring specialized libraries, API conversions, or WebAssembly (like OpenJPH.js) for web deployment
  • Lack of broad consumer awareness, keeping it confined to professional, medical, and scientific workflows
  • Requires more advanced software ecosystems to decode than ubiquitous formats like JPEG or WebP
MODI

MODI Strengths

  • Historically provided an excellent all-in-one scanned document format with built-in OCR and annotations before PDF editing became universally accessible
  • Tightly integrated with Microsoft Office and SharePoint workflows in the early 2000s
Limitations
  • Completely proprietary and obsolete; Microsoft abandoned it in favor of standard TIFF and PDF
  • Causes widespread identification conflicts since its file signature is identical to a standard TIFF
  • Extremely difficult to open on modern operating systems without relying on third-party conversion utilities

When to choose which format

HTJ2K-(JPH)
Use HTJ2K-(JPH) when…
  • Medical Imaging (DICOM)
  • Geospatial Data
  • Digital Cinema
  • Professional Archiving
MODI
Use MODI when…
  • Legacy Scanned Document Archival
  • Microsoft Office XP/2003/2007 Workflows
  • Embedded OCR Text Storage
Share this comparison