Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
JNG

JPEG Network Graphics

image/x-jng
VS

Portable Graymap

image/x-portable-graymap
PGM

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

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature JNG PGM
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading Yes ✕ No
HDR Support ✕ No Yes
EXIF Metadata Yes ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
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 →
Portable Graymap
image/x-portable-graymap
Extension
.pgm
Container Netpbm
Compression Uncompressed
Algorithm
None
Color Depth 8-bit (Grayscale), 16-bit (Grayscale)
Developed by Jef Poskanzer (Netpbm Project)
Released 1988
Magic Bytes
50 32 (ASCII) or 50 35 (Binary)
Full PGM reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser JNG PGM
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
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  • Completely obsolete today, having been superseded by natively supported, superior formats like WebP, AVIF, and HEIC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
PGM

PGM Strengths

  • Extremely simple format allows custom parsers to be written from scratch in minimal time
  • Supports 16-bit precision, making it highly valuable for scientific, medical, and height-map data where 8-bit precision is insufficient
  • ASCII encoding ('P2') allows manual editing and visual inspection of pixel values directly within a text editor
Limitations
  • Strictly limited to grayscale; cannot display color
  • Lack of compression results in massive file sizes, making it entirely impractical for web delivery or consumer storage
  • Does not support alpha transparency or modern metadata structures

When to choose which format

JNG
Use JNG when…
  • Embedded frames in MNG animations
  • Historical web graphics requiring lossy compression with transparency
PGM
Use PGM when…
  • Computer Vision and Machine Learning Pre-processing
  • Scientific and Medical Image Processing
  • Unix/Linux Command-Line Image Pipelines

More comparisons

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