Talk:Line integral convolution

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

"Line Integral Convolution (LIC) is a Scientific Visualization technique proposed (?) by Brian Cabral and Leith Leedom"

This seems to be an advert for the creators, almost certainly written by them (see wording "we are [doing x,y,z]"), about something which apparently doesn't yet exist! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article while I was learning for one of my CS courses at ETH Zurich. I am sorry that it's such a poor article, but even this would have helped me somehow understand the topic. It's one of my first articles, so please forgive me that I used "we" a lot, I will try to not do that in the future. As you already found out on the deletion page, Line Integral Convolution is quite an important technique and heavily cited in Scientific Visualization. The reason why you probably think this product does not exist is, that is really isn't a product but a technique. The exact output will depend on the implementation of this technique. That said, I would be very happy If you could help in pointing out what is bad at this article, so I could understand how to do it better. Tobo (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a major overhaul, hopefully not losing anything good. My remaining quibble is the diagram showing the animation process: that could be clearer, but I am not much of a diagram person. Anders Sandberg (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]