> > Why is ECW the only choice? Wouldn't moving to another vendor > implementation of wavelet compression put users at risk again? > > Why not JPEG200 (JP2), which is based on an ISO standard? Leica/Erdas is > supporting JP2 and Mapping Science has put out GeoJP2. >
Good points, but I think ECW is still a really open way to go. ERMapper's making source code available is a very strong, confident move that shows they are not afraid of opening ECW to developers, source code and all. Plus, their support for JP2 within the SDK shows they are not afraid of giving people an open choice of whatever they want to use in a "can't lose" proposition. It's hard to think up a better alternative than having your cake and eating it too.
Could it be that in the future JP2 will emerge as a preferred standard? Well, maybe. But until then there is lots of image work to be done that needs very robust, highly evolved, highly reliable code and if you are a developer who needs to guarantee to his customers an advanced, proven solution that is today well supported throughout the industry and already integrated with image web servers, it makes sense to go with ECW, which has a rock-solid code base. If that is displaced in the future by something else, fine - we can all use it to our advantage.
By the way, I don't have any financial interest in this other than wanting to see a good, open format for our users and wanting to avoid the engineering expense of re-inventing the wheel.
Cheers,
Dimitri
_______________________________________________ gislist mailing list gislist@lists.geocomm.com http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________ This list is brought to you by The GeoCommunity http://www.geocomm.com/
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids http://www.geobids.com
|