Talk:Digital image correlation and tracking

This article reads like a scientific paper, not an encyclopedia article. The information is good, but I think it should be reworked to achieve a more appropriate tone.Btwied (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could also benefit from more links to other articles, and an introduction that mentions the many other applications of digital image correlation.Btwied (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Btwied. This page does not provide succinct information about DIC, rather, it dwells upon the background and usage more than required. --128.2.48.153 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article is a shambles, half the text is irrelevant, lots is clearly lifted straight from a journal article and the rest is poorly written. Am in the process of re-writing. Steve456 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am modifying the claims of priority. The University of South Carolina did not invent digital image correlation. It is true, as far as I know, that _in the field of mechanics_ _academic publications_ in this area did not appear until the 1980s, but the concept of digital image correlation, being a rather obvious idea, goes back farther that that (cf. US Pat 3997795 (1975), http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3997795.html). This is common mistake in articles like this, where a contributor extrapolates priority in one limited area to the whole scope of human knowledge. Tarchon (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that sutton has nearly all refs here? Just sayin...129.215.5.255 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Figures 4,5,6,7 and 8? The article has only 3 Figures while in the text the author addresses up to Figure 8! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matinmanesh (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]