Free webp to jpg
Image MIME Reference
PTI

PTI Image (Personal/Vanity Tree)

image/prs.pti
VS

WebP Image

image/webp
WebP

A complete technical comparison of PTI Image (Personal/Vanity Tree) and WebP Image — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

WebP wins on browser support

Feature Support

Feature PTI WebP
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No Yes
Animation Support ✕ No Yes
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support ✕ No ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No Yes
ICC Color Profile ✕ No Yes
PTI Image (Personal/Vanity Tree)
image/prs.pti
Extension
.pti
Container Proprietary
Compression Unknown / Proprietary
Algorithm
Unknown
Color Depth Unknown
Developed by Jürn Laun
Released 1999
Magic Bytes
Unknown
Full PTI reference →
WebP Image
image/webp
Extension
.webp
Container RIFF
Compression Lossy / Lossless
Algorithm
VP8VP8L
Color Depth 8-bit
Developed by Google
Released 2010
Magic Bytes
52 49 46 46 XX XX XX XX 57 45 42 50
Full WebP reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser PTI WebP
Chrome Chrome
✓ 32+
Firefox Firefox
✓ 65+
Safari Safari
✓ 14+
Edge Edge
✓ 18+
IE IE (Legacy)
PTI

PTI Strengths

  • Provided a registered MIME type namespace for a specific application's proprietary image format without conflicting with standard web types
Limitations
  • Completely undocumented and unsupported in modern ecosystems
  • Zero web browser compatibility
  • Falls into the 'vanity' tree, making it irrelevant for standard cross-platform data exchange
WebP

WebP Strengths

  • Superior lossy compression — 25–35% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality
  • Supports both animation and full alpha transparency
  • Lossless mode available with smaller file sizes than PNG
Limitations
  • Slower encoding than JPEG, especially for lossless
  • Not supported in Internet Explorer or very old browsers

When to choose which format

PTI
Use PTI when…
  • Legacy Application Specific Workflows
  • Proprietary Image Storage
WebP
Use WebP when…
  • Websites
  • Ecommerce
  • Mobile Apps
  • CMS Images
Share this comparison