Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
IEF

Image Exchange Format

image/ief
VS

JPEG Network Graphics

image/x-jng
JNG

A complete technical comparison of Image Exchange Format and JPEG Network Graphics — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature IEF JNG
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No Yes
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No Yes
HDR Support ✕ No ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No Yes
ICC Color Profile ✕ No Yes
Image Exchange Format
image/ief
Extension
.ief
Container TIFF Class B (TIFF-B)
Compression Lossless (MH, MR, MMR) / Uncompressed
Algorithm
MHMRMMRUncompressed
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome)
Developed by IETF Network Fax Working Group
Released 1992
Magic Bytes
49 49 2A 00 (Little-endian) / 4D 4D 00 2A (Big-endian)
Full IEF reference →
JPEG Network Graphics
image/x-jng
Extension
.jng
Container PNG-style Chunk Structure (JHDR, JDAT, IDAT, IEND)
Compression Lossy (JPEG/DCT for color) / Lossless (Deflate for alpha mask)
Algorithm
JPEG (Discrete Cosine Transform)Deflate (LZ77)
Color Depth 8-bit, 12-bit, 24-bit (RGB), 32-bit (RGBA)
Developed by MNG Development Group (Glenn Randers-Pehrson et al.)
Released 2001
Magic Bytes
8B 4A 4E 47 0D 0A 1A 0A
Full JNG reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser IEF JNG
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
IEF

IEF Strengths

  • Provided a standard method for exchanging bi-level fax images during the early days of the Internet
  • Supported multi-page documents
  • Leveraged the highly resilient and well-documented TIFF container
Limitations
  • Completely obsolete and unsupported in modern computing environments
  • Strictly limited to 1-bit monochrome data, lacking color or grayscale capabilities
  • Magic bytes overlap completely with standard TIFF, making specific filetype detection difficult without parsing internal tags
JNG

JNG Strengths

  • Solved a massive technical hurdle in the early 2000s by combining high-compression lossy photographic data with crisp, 8-bit alpha transparency
  • Utilized the highly robust, extensible chunk-based architecture of the PNG format
  • Provided an excellent, bandwidth-saving alternative to massive 32-bit transparent PNGs for web design
Limitations
  • Failed to achieve critical mass; browser vendors largely abandoned the MNG/JNG standard due to implementation complexity
  • Completely obsolete today, having been superseded by natively supported, superior formats like WebP, AVIF, and HEIC
  • Decoding requires a hybrid engine that can parse PNG chunks while simultaneously decoding a JPEG stream and a Deflate stream, complicating software support

When to choose which format

IEF
Use IEF when…
  • Legacy Fax Transmissions
  • Early Internet Gateways
  • Archival
JNG
Use JNG when…
  • Embedded frames in MNG animations
  • Historical web graphics requiring lossy compression with transparency

More comparisons

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