Free webp to jpg
Image MIME Reference
IEF

Image Exchange Format

image/ief
VS

Microsoft Document Imaging

image/vnd.ms-modi
MODI

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

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature IEF MODI
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support ✕ No ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No ✕ No
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 →
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 IEF MODI
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
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

IEF
Use IEF when…
  • Legacy Fax Transmissions
  • Early Internet Gateways
  • Archival
MODI
Use MODI when…
  • Legacy Scanned Document Archival
  • Microsoft Office XP/2003/2007 Workflows
  • Embedded OCR Text Storage
Share this comparison