Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
ACES

ACES Image Container File

image/aces
VS

PWG Raster Format

image/pwg-raster
PWG-Raster

A complete technical comparison of ACES Image Container File and PWG Raster Format — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature ACES PWG-Raster
Transparency (Alpha) Yes ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No ✕ No
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support Yes ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No ✕ No
ACES Image Container File
image/aces
Extension
.exr
Container OpenEXR (SMPTE ST 2065-4)
Compression Lossless / Uncompressed
Algorithm
PIZZIPRLEB44Uncompressed
Color Depth 16-bit (Half-float), 32-bit (Float)
Developed by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) / SMPTE
Released 2013
Magic Bytes
76 2F 31 01
Full ACES reference →
PWG Raster Format
image/pwg-raster
Extension
.pwg.ras
Container CUPS Raster v2 Container
Compression PackBits (Run-Length Encoding)
Algorithm
PackBits (Apple RLE variant)
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome/K), 8-bit (Grayscale), 24-bit (sRGB / Adobe RGB), 32-bit (CMYK)
Developed by IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group (PWG)
Released 2011
Magic Bytes
52 61 53 32
Full PWG-Raster reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser ACES PWG-Raster
Chrome Chrome
✕ ✕
Firefox Firefox
✕ ✕
Safari Safari
✕ ✕
Edge Edge
✕ ✕
IE IE (Legacy)
✕ ✕
ACES

ACES Strengths

  • Industry standard for high-end visual effects, compositing, and color grading
  • Supports 16-bit half-float data, accurately capturing immense dynamic range without clipping
  • Standardized by SMPTE (ST 2065-4) to guarantee universal color interoperability across different post-production facilities
Limitations
  • Considerably larger file sizes than conventional consumer image formats
  • Completely unsupported in web browsers and most standard desktop viewers
  • Requires specialized compositing or color grading software to interpret and view the scene-linear data correctly
PWG-Raster

PWG-Raster Strengths

  • The undisputed global standard for modern, driverless printing environments, eliminating the nightmare of installing manufacturer-specific print drivers
  • Extremely lightweight to decode on embedded hardware, requiring minimal RAM buffers on the printer side
  • Strict color space and resolution rules guarantee that the printed output will successfully process without syntax errors
Limitations
  • Generates massive file sizes and network payloads compared to vector-based formats like PDF or PostScript, as every page is fully rasterized at 300+ DPI before transmission
  • No support for native rendering in web browsers, image viewers, or graphic design software without specialized CUPS developer tools
  • Cannot store complex metadata, vector text, or layers

When to choose which format

ACES
Use ACES when…
  • Visual Effects (VFX)
  • Digital Intermediate (DI)
  • Color Grading
  • Archival
PWG-Raster
Use PWG-Raster when…
  • Driverless Network Printing (IPP Everywhere)
  • Apple AirPrint and Mopria Print Service Pipelines
  • CUPS (Common UNIX Printing System) Spooling

More comparisons

ACES vs APNG → PWG-Raster vs APNG → ACES vs AVCI → PWG-Raster vs AVCI → ACES vs AVCS → PWG-Raster vs AVCS → ACES vs AVIF → PWG-Raster vs AVIF → All comparisons →
Share this comparison