Talk:Digital image correlation and tracking

Comments
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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


 * Yeah, given that someone later removed my changes and my 1975 reference that proved USC does not have priority, I'd say someone who has a conflict of interest vis-a-vis Sutton's group is editing. I've now added a ref to a 1975 journal article that is literally titled "An Improved Method of Digital Image Correlation" so if that someone wants to keep claiming that they invented Digital Image Correlation in 1983, there is going to be an issue. Tarchon (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Rewrite needed to credit some better sources
The focus on the South Carolina work in the 80s in no doubt an artifact of the guy who created the article. But the relevant theory was pretty well known, deployed, and written up a decade earlier, at least, as in this paper and others. The 1975 patent is not particularly useful point in the history either. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another good ref, which refers to a couple more in support of digital correlation being the most common method for image alignment. These: Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P. E. Anuta, "Spatial registration of multispectral and multitemporal digital imagery using fast Fourier transform techniques," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron., vol. GE-8, pp. 353-368, Oct. 1970.
 * J. A. Leese, C. S. Novak. and B. B. Clark, "An automated technique for obtaining cloud motion from geosynchronous satellite data using cross-correlation," J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 10, pp. 110-132, Feb. 1971.

Something fishy with first formula
Firstly, why "one minus..." on the right-hand side? The definition I am familiar with is just the big fractional expression.

Secondly, why the subscripts i and j under r ? These are counting subscripts over pixels in the array subsets or patches in the two images, and the summations eliminate these indices.

If anyone agrees, feel free to edit the formula.

BTW these techniques are and were used extensively in aerial photogrammetry, ever since that went digital.

213.55.105.108 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I really couldn't figure out where they were coming from so I replaced it with a more standard expression. Tarchon (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)