Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
JPM

JPEG 2000 Compound Image File Format

image/jpm
VS

North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax

image/naplps
NAPLPS

A complete technical comparison of JPEG 2000 Compound Image File Format 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 JPM NAPLPS
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No Yes
Progressive Loading Yes Yes
HDR Support ✕ No ✕ No
EXIF Metadata Yes ✕ No
ICC Color Profile Yes ✕ No
JPEG 2000 Compound Image File Format
image/jpm
Extension
.jpm.jpgm
Container ISOBMFF / JPM (ISO/IEC 15444-6)
Compression Lossy / Lossless / Mixed Raster Content (MRC)
Algorithm
JPEG 2000JBIG2JPEGMMR
Color Depth 1-bit (Text/Masks), 8-bit, 16-bit, 24-bit
Developed by Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG)
Released 2003
Magic Bytes
00 00 00 0C 6A 50 20 20 0D 0A 87 0A ... 66 74 79 70 6A 70 6D 20
Full JPM 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 JPM NAPLPS
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
JPM

JPM Strengths

  • Highly optimized for scanned documents, drastically reducing file sizes without sacrificing the readability of text or the quality of embedded photos
  • Supports multi-page documents within a single file
  • Object-based architecture allows for complex layout representation and independent extraction of elements
Limitations
  • Failed to achieve widespread adoption, largely being overshadowed by PDF/A and DjVu
  • Zero native web browser compatibility
  • Requires complex, specialized software to properly encode and decode the multi-layered MRC structure
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

JPM
Use JPM when…
  • Scanned Document Archiving
  • Mixed Raster Content (MRC) Imaging
  • Digital Libraries
NAPLPS
Use NAPLPS when…
  • 1980s Videotex Services
  • Prodigy Online Service Graphics
  • Historical BBS Terminal Graphics
  • Legacy Teletext Broadcasts

More comparisons

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