> 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.
