> Also, they compare ECW to Photoshop -- ???

Not really; I think they ment to compare their 'ER Mapper' product to
Photoshop, and ER Mapper seems to be some kind of GIS-tool, allowing to
handle very large bitmaps and doing orthorectification and stuff.
It's still a silly comparison though, since ER Mapper and Photoshop are
aimed at very different target audiences.

> Could be worth a look, though, especially if it's as open as they say

They certainly claim that it's an open standard, but they also talk about a
'patent-pending Enhanced Compressed Wavelet (ECW) technology'. We need to be
careful to avoid another LZW fiasco, as another poster said.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to