Free webp to jpg
EN
Image MIME Reference
PWG-Raster

PWG Raster Format

image/pwg-raster
VS

GIMP Image Format

image/x-xcf
XCF

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

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature PWG-Raster XCF
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No Yes
Animation Support ✕ No Yes
Progressive Loading ✕ No ✕ No
HDR Support ✕ No Yes
EXIF Metadata ✕ No Yes
ICC Color Profile ✕ No Yes
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 →
GIMP Image Format
image/x-xcf
Extension
.xcf
Container GIMP Hierarchical Chunk Container
Compression None / RLE (Run-Length Encoding) / Zlib / Deflate (In newer GIMP versions)
Algorithm
NoneRLEZlib
Color Depth 8-bit per channel, 16-bit per channel, 32-bit floating point
Developed by Spencer Kimball, Peter Mattis, and the GIMP Development Team
Released 1995
Magic Bytes
67 69 6D 70 20 78 63 66
Full XCF reference →

Browser Support Comparison

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

XCF Strengths

  • Preserves all non-destructive editing elements, layer hierarchies, masks, and alpha channels across GIMP sessions
  • Open and thoroughly documented specification within the open-source community, allowing third-party tools like Krita and ImageMagick to read project files
  • Reliable magic byte header prevents misidentification
Limitations
  • Massive file sizes because raw, unflattened layer bitmaps and masks are stored directly within the project archive
  • Completely proprietary to the GIMP ecosystem for deep editing; cannot be natively rendered or parsed by web browsers
  • Third-party software supporting XCF may occasionally struggle to render complex text layer adjustments or advanced layer blend modes identically to GIMP

When to choose which format

PWG-Raster
Use PWG-Raster when…
  • Driverless Network Printing (IPP Everywhere)
  • Apple AirPrint and Mopria Print Service Pipelines
  • CUPS (Common UNIX Printing System) Spooling
XCF
Use XCF when…
  • GIMP Native Project Archival
  • Layered Photo Editing and Graphic Design
  • Intermediary Asset Preparation for Export

More comparisons

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