Free webp to jpg
Image MIME Reference
MODI

Microsoft Document Imaging

image/vnd.ms-modi
VS

Extended Image File Format

image/vnd.xiff
XIFF

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

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature MODI XIFF
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
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 →
Extended Image File Format
image/vnd.xiff
Extension
.xif
Container TIFF-based Proprietary Container
Compression CCITT Group 3 / Group 4 / LZW / Uncompressed
Algorithm
CCITT Group 4LZWNone
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome), 8-bit (Grayscale), 24-bit (RGB)
Developed by Keyfile Corporation
Released 1994
Magic Bytes
49 49 2A 00 or 4D 4D 00 2A
Full XIFF reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser MODI XIFF
Chrome Chrome
Firefox Firefox
Safari Safari
Edge Edge
IE IE (Legacy)
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
XIFF

XIFF Strengths

  • Pioneered early enterprise document workflow integration by binding administrative routing data directly to the document image file
  • Leveraged efficient fax compression standards to keep storage requirements low on 1990s server infrastructure
Limitations
  • Completely proprietary and obsolete; Keyfile Corporation's software ecosystem no longer exists
  • Causes widespread MIME type identification conflicts due to sharing the exact same binary header signature as standard TIFF files
  • Zero support in modern operating systems or web browsers

When to choose which format

MODI
Use MODI when…
  • Legacy Scanned Document Archival
  • Microsoft Office XP/2003/2007 Workflows
  • Embedded OCR Text Storage
XIFF
Use XIFF when…
  • Keyfile Enterprise Document Management
  • Legacy Corporate Workflow Archival
  • Scanned Multi-page Document Routing
Share this comparison