Neural Radiance Fields-Based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines Using Progressive Motion Sequence Images
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors“Neural Radiance Fields-based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines using Progressive Motion Sequence Images” by Yujie Zeng et al.
I went through the paper very carefully and thoroughly. Authors addressed the fuzzy reconstruction effect on distant objects in unbounded scenes and the difficulty in feature matching caused by the thin structure of power lines in images, this paper proposes a novel image-based method for reconstructing power transmission lines (PTLs). They proposed the method involves using a vision acquisition system carried by a developed Flying-walking Power Line Inspection Robot (FPLIR) to construct datasets of progressive motion sequences of PTLs, consisting of close-distance and continuous images along the ground wire.
1-The paper contains interesting sciences in PMSI. The impact of the paper on Power Transmission Lines is going be good. Also, the quality of the research work presented in the paper is also good. .
2-In general, ideas are well explained and understandable but, some tenses, linkers and grammar structures must be checked.
3-The authors should give the thickness and number of layers of all layers that they calculated. Are these parameters obtained from an optimization process?
4. Authors should obtain the novelty of this manuscript compared to published results?
5. The authors should argue about the relevance of the temperature dependence of the coating.
6. The Introduction does not provide sufficient background. The introduction does not explain the major contributions and novelty of this work. The significance of the proposed solution has not been summed up.
7- The constructive discussions are missing. As mentioned earlier, authors must make a comparative analysis with other similar solutions and back up their claims on how the proposed solution can be considered as high performing compared to others.
8- Many papers published in harvesting energy based on photonic and phononic crystals, if authors can compare between that and harvesting energy based on metasurface may be very useful to readers ?
9-How their results will be affected if they include energy loss in layers.
10- The novelty of this work should be stated explicitly in the text of the manuscript so that readers can get it easily.
11- Authors should be explained the distribution of electric fields with this structure as well as the equations related. May be useful.
12- It seems that the results are in doubt and need more explanation and discussion?
13- Authors should explain one or two applications to their work.
14- All figures, symbols, equations units should be improved.
15- It seems the title need revision by authors to become more informative.
16- Are every term and structure in the proposed design should be clearly and correctly presented not to mislead the reader.
17- Fig. 1 looks busy; perhaps the authors might make it simpler
18- It seems Table (4) needs more evidence
19-Finally, I recommend that the paper should be revised taking care of the above comments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language“Neural Radiance Fields-based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines using Progressive Motion Sequence Images” by Yujie Zeng et al.
I went through the paper very carefully and thoroughly. Authors addressed the fuzzy reconstruction effect on distant objects in unbounded scenes and the difficulty in feature matching caused by the thin structure of power lines in images, this paper proposes a novel image-based method for reconstructing power transmission lines (PTLs). They proposed the method involves using a vision acquisition system carried by a developed Flying-walking Power Line Inspection Robot (FPLIR) to construct datasets of progressive motion sequences of PTLs, consisting of close-distance and continuous images along the ground wire.
1-The paper contains interesting sciences in PMSI. The impact of the paper on Power Transmission Lines is going be good. Also, the quality of the research work presented in the paper is also good. .
2-In general, ideas are well explained and understandable but, some tenses, linkers and grammar structures must be checked.
3-The authors should give the thickness and number of layers of all layers that they calculated. Are these parameters obtained from an optimization process?
4. Authors should obtain the novelty of this manuscript compared to published results?
5. The authors should argue about the relevance of the temperature dependence of the coating.
6. The Introduction does not provide sufficient background. The introduction does not explain the major contributions and novelty of this work. The significance of the proposed solution has not been summed up.
7- The constructive discussions are missing. As mentioned earlier, authors must make a comparative analysis with other similar solutions and back up their claims on how the proposed solution can be considered as high performing compared to others.
8- Many papers published in harvesting energy based on photonic and phononic crystals, if authors can compare between that and harvesting energy based on metasurface may be very useful to readers ?
9-How their results will be affected if they include energy loss in layers.
10- The novelty of this work should be stated explicitly in the text of the manuscript so that readers can get it easily.
11- Authors should be explained the distribution of electric fields with this structure as well as the equations related. May be useful.
12- It seems that the results are in doubt and need more explanation and discussion?
13- Authors should explain one or two applications to their work.
14- All figures, symbols, equations units should be improved.
15- It seems the title need revision by authors to become more informative.
16- Are every term and structure in the proposed design should be clearly and correctly presented not to mislead the reader.
17- Fig. 1 looks busy; perhaps the authors might make it simpler
18- It seems Table (4) needs more evidence
19-Finally, I recommend that the paper should be revised taking care of the above comments.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript entitled “Neural Radiance Fields-based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines using Progressive Motion Sequence Images” (Manuscript ID: sensors-2681942). These comments are helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. We have carefully studied the comments and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Revisions in the manuscript are marked with the “Track Changes” function. The responses to the comments of reviewers and editors are as follows (see responses to reviewer #1-19 for details).
Thank you for your consideration again.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xinyan Qin
Email: Qinxy@shzu.edu.cn
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
19th-November-2023
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the manuscript have done many important work on 3D reconstruction of the power transmission lines with motion sequence images, and I think that it has significant value for power line inspection and its development in digital twins. However, I think that the manuscript is not well written, and it is much like a technical report. So, I give some advices for its revision as the following:
1) The content of the abstract should be more concise and highlight the innovation.
2) The content in line 70~90 should be deleted, as it is the same with the conclusion part. It is not proper in the introduction section. Figure 1 was not metioned and described in section 1.
3) I think the content in section 2 should be put in the "Introduction" section. Actually, it belongs to the "Introduction" section, or else, the content in the "Introduction" section is so short and empty.
4) For the Table 1 and Table 2, it is not proper to put literatures in them. In the main text, the content in the tables should also be described in details with corresponding references.
5)Fig.11 is not clear, I suggest to put fewer pictures in it.
6)Fig.21~23 and Table 7 should be described in details in section 5.3, and even in section 6, there is little description and discussion on them.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is good.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript entitled “Neural Radiance Fields-based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines using Progressive Motion Sequence Images” (Manuscript ID: sensors-2681942). These comments are helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. We have carefully studied the comments and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Revisions in the manuscript are marked with the “Track Changes” function. The responses to the comments of reviewers and editors are as follows (see responses to reviewer #1-6 for details).
Thank you for your consideration again.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xinyan Qin
Email: Qinxy@shzu.edu.cn
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
19th-November-2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present work presents a new method for reconstructing power line cables based on images captured in sequence from a small distance along the cable. The images are captured from different points and angles along the cable and used to compose a final image compared with a Benkmark image to provide reconstruction quality metrics and compare with similar techniques in the literature.
The paper text is clear and properly constructed. Some minor details must be improved to present the implementation methods better. Also, some important points must be clarified to the readers, allowing them to understand the applied methodology. These points are presented next.
The paper claims to provide a 3D image reconstruction, but the technique offers a 2D image as output. Please clarify this.
The authors write "using a vision acquisition system carried by a developed Flying-walking Power Line Inspection Robot (FPLIR)". Besides that, there is no information or experiment presented showing the UAV landing on the power line cable. The vehicle is put manually on the power line, apparently. Could you explain it better?
The main objective of the method needs to be clarified. Is the algorithm's final output a 3D point cloud similar to the LIDAR methods?
Is the objective of this method to reconstruct small-size defects present on the cables? Which level of detail of the cable image reconstruction does the algorithm provide?
The dataset collected in this work is public? If this is the case, I suggest including the access link in the paper.
How does the algorithm work with the tower, insulators, and other components of the power line structure? Is it capable of reconstructing this component or only the cables?
Signaling balls, external objects, and other interferents present on the cable affect the algorithm's performance. This is not discussed in the paper. Please include it.
The light variation during the image capture is not discussed in the text. I suggest including this parameter in the results.
The text does not present information about how long it takes for the algorithm to reconstruct a cable segment. The experiment presents the time of capture, FPS, but it needs to be clarified the time required to rebuild a complete cable segment. Please clarify.
I appreciate the opportunity to review this work. Best regards.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript entitled “Neural Radiance Fields-based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines using Progressive Motion Sequence Images” (Manuscript ID: sensors-2681942). These comments are helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. We have carefully studied the comments and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Revisions in the manuscript are marked with the “Track Changes” function. The responses to the comments of reviewers and editors are as follows (see responses to reviewer #1-9 for details).
Thank you for your consideration again.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xinyan Qin
Email: Qinxy@shzu.edu.cn
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
19th-November-2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well written, just one suggestion to add the main highlights/Contribution to the work.
Regards.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript entitled “Neural Radiance Fields-based 3D Reconstruction of Power Transmission Lines using Progressive Motion Sequence Images” (Manuscript ID: sensors-2681942). These comments are helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. We have carefully studied the comments and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Revisions in the manuscript are marked with the “Track Changes” function. The responses to the comments of reviewers and editors are as follows (see responses to reviewer #1 for details).
Thank you for your consideration again.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding author: Xinyan Qin
Email: Qinxy@shzu.edu.cn
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
19th-November-2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccepted in present form
