Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The abbreviation CRI is usually referred to the ‘Color Rendering Index’ and not to the ‘Chromatic Reproduction Index’. The authors should double-check if this abbreviation is correct.
• The authors have checked punctuation and misprints in the manuscript and made appropriate corrections where necessary. For example, in line 69 the word ‘lightning’ should be corrected to ‘lighting’.
• Figures 2-4 need to be presented in better resolution and size. In addition, the font size in the table of figure 8 should be increased.
• The authors analyze some stadiums' lighting systems and their adjustment to the new requirements of the television networks. The technical contribution of the current work is not clear. The authors do not clearly clarify their contributions into the manuscript. It is necessary that the authors clearly discuss how their work provides a contribution beyond alternative studies.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

We sincerely appreciate your comments and hope that the changes made to the document will be appreciated by the reviewer.

Then we will try to answer the questions made by the reviewer one by one. In addition we will introduce in the original manuscript the changes in red color

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

 

General comments

The abbreviation CRI is usually referred to the ‘Color Rendering Index’ and not to the ‘Chromatic Reproduction Index’. The authors should double-check if this abbreviation is correct...

Thank you very much for your interesting comments. Indeed, we agree with the reviewer and we have clarified this correct consideration in the manuscript. Thank you.

Page 1 Line 24.

Page 3 Line 118.

Page 4 Line 171.

The authors have checked punctuation and misprints in the manuscript and made appropriate corrections where necessary. For example, in line 69 the word ‘lightning’ should be corrected to ‘lighting’.

It was indeed a mistake. We have clarified the correct word in the text.

Page 2 Line 76

Figures 2-4 need to be presented in better resolution and size. In addition, the font size in the table of figure 8 should be increased..

We again appreciate the comment to the reviewer. We have improved the resolution of figures 2-4 indicated, and we have also modified the font size of the table in figure 8 as indicated. Thank you very much

Page 6 Line 211

Page 7 Line 233

The authors analyze some stadiums' lighting systems and their adjustment to the new requirements of the television networks. The technical contribution of the current work is not clear. The authors do not clearly clarify their contributions into the manuscript. It is necessary that the authors clearly discuss how their work provides a contribution beyond alternative studies.

Thank you very much again for your constructive feedback. We have proceeded to clearly justify the contribution of our work. For this, we have revised and rewritten the Discussion section again trying to clarify the real contribution of the lighting work and its impact in relation to sports TV broadcasts.

Page 14 Line 395

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript Rami et al. described a work on LED installations in a big size area. Although the current manuscript reads well however there are several issues that must be improved before this manuscript can be considered for publication. 1-I have attached here pic. 1 for their reference. As one can see from this pic. display applications with respect to the required brightness and the one that we should you for score board especially in a stadium requires high luminance LED. I would like to see in their revision which LED should be used in the stadium. Can we use OLED, or QLED? There are several recent articles on OLED or QLED that demonstrated high luminance. For example for QLED, these are some good example of high luminance articles: a-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-020-0714-5 b-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0526-z c-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-018-0312-y And for OLED, these are some references with high luminance: a-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0415-5 b-https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201704961 c-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-018-0112-9 2-I would like to also see in their revise manuscript similar table to Table 1 in attached file. They could summarize for both OLED and QLED or other type of LEDs. 3-Funding: “This research received no external funding; however, in this work” Perhaps there is something missing here. 4-The references must be updated. For example, we are now in the middle of August 2020. But there are only 2 references from 2020.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General comments

The submitted manuscript Rami et al. described a work on LED installations in a big size area. Although the current manuscript reads well however there are several issues that must be improved before this manuscript can be considered for publication

Thank you very much for your comments.

We sincerely appreciate your comments and hope that the changes made to the document will be appreciated by the reviewer.

Then we will try to answer the questions made by the reviewer one by one. In addition, we will introduce in the original manuscript the changes in red colour.

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

Additionally:

1-I have attached here pic. 1 for their reference. As one can see from this pic. display applications with respect to the required brightness and the one that we should you for score board especially in a stadium requires high luminance LED. I would like to see in their revision which LED should be used in the stadium. Can we use OLED, or QLED? There are several recent articles on OLED or QLED that demonstrated high luminance. For example for QLED, these are some good example of high luminance articles: a-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-020-0714-5 b-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0526-z c-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-018-0312-y And for OLED, these are some references with high luminance: a-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0415-5 b-https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201704961 c-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-018-0112-9

Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you very much again for your constructive feedback. Unfortunately, the pic that indicates us has not arrived attached. However, we consider the bibliographic references that you have indicated to us to be very accurate and we have introduced them into the manuscript. We fully agree with their indications and we have proceeded to discuss the convenience of using OLED or LED technologies for the applied case study. Thank you very much.

Page 2 Line 57

2-I would like to also see in their revise manuscript similar table to Table 1 in attached file. They could summarize for both OLED and QLED or other type of LEDs.

Thank you again for your comments. We consider that after the information added in line 57 it is not necessary to include a table similar to table 1.

Page 2 Line 57

3-Funding: “This research received no external funding; however, in this work” Perhaps there is something missing here.

Thank you very much. We have clarified the funding point and cut the end of the sentence. Thank you very much.

Page 15 Line 455

4-The references must be updated. For example, we are now in the middle of August 2020. But there are only 2 references from 2020.

We agree with the reviewer and we have proceeded to carry out a thorough review of the bibliography trying to update it and enhance it with current references from this year 2020. Thank you very much.

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is reasonably well written and deals with an important topic. The methods adopted to carry out the study are adequate and  seem robust. The paper would benefit from having the following comments addressed:

With regards to methods, before going into details what research was carried out, there need to be a clear statement as to was is being done (the audit, the simulations..) and what is the purpose of each of these two methods.

The purpose of the individual case studies in Section 3 is not clear and in most cases the results of the simulations are only presented in general terms as schemes consisting of groups of luminaires, but no discussion of whether or not the simulation yielded designs that have all or part of the lighting criteria.

One of the case studies deals with non televised sports events, it is not clear why it was included.

The conclusion section would need to draw on the discussion of results for the various case studies, which is lacking at present.

The energy efficiency implications ought to be articulated further.

Some of the text (see underlined words) would benefit from some vocabulary/grammar attention. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General comments

The paper is reasonably well written and deals with an important topic. The methods adopted to carry out the study are adequate and  seem robust. The paper would benefit from having the following comments addressed:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We sincerely appreciate your comments and hope that the changes made to the document will be appreciated by the reviewer.

Then we will try to answer the questions made by the reviewer one by one. In addition we will introduce in the original manuscript the changes in red color

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

Additionally:

1- With regards to methods, before going into details what research was carried out, there need to be a clear statement as to was is being done (the audit, the simulations..) and what is the purpose of each of these two methods.

Thank you very much for your comment. We have introduced in section 2 Material and Methods a clearer statement of the intentions and objectives of our work, linking them at the end with the Conclusions of the study. I hope they serve as clarification for the reviewer and readers. Thank you very much.

Page 2 Line 81

2- The purpose of the individual case studies in Section 3 is not clear and in most cases the results of the simulations are only presented in general terms as schemes consisting of groups of luminaires, but no discussion of whether or not the simulation yielded designs that have all or part of the lighting criteria.

Thank you very much. We have reviewed Section 3 trying to clearly explain the purpose of the individual studies. In the conclusions (section 4), we have reinforced the discussion of the cases clarifying the criteria established in a more critical way. Thank you very much

Page 7 Line 256

3- One of the case studies deals with non-televised sports events, it is not clear why it was included.

We have tried to explain this case and the justification for its inclusion in this document.

The first case study is presented as the scenario with less demanding lighting requirements. In particular, it is demonstrated that in installations where non-televised matches will be played, no attention is paid to vertical illuminance (the most determining and difficult parameter to achieve in the TBR), so each luminaire or group of luminaires directs their emission to the nearest surface to minimize lighting losses and comply with horizontal illuminance.

Thank you very much

4- The conclusion section would need to draw on the discussion of results for the various case studies, which is lacking at present.

We agree with the reviewer and we have proceeded to carry out a thorough review of Discussion and Conclusions Point. Thank you very much.

Page 14, line 395

5- The energy efficiency implications ought to be articulated further.

Thank you very much again for your comment. Indicate that although energy efficiency is not the object of study. Thank you very much.

6- Some of the text (see underlined words) would benefit from some vocabulary/grammar attention.

Thank you very much again for your comment. We have proceeded to a revision of the grammar and vocabulary of the manuscript. Thank you very much.

Page 1, lines 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24

Page 2, lines 76, 77, 81 and 85.

Page 4, lines 146, 149, 155, 158, 159, 167, 168 and 171.

Page 7, lines 235, 236, 238, 243, 253 and 255.

In response to comment:

Not clear why on the left there are only 14 stadia yet on the right there are 20 stadia. If there are 20 LaLiga stadia, what is the situation with the other 6 prior to December 2017 or during the audit?

As can be seen in figure 4, there are 20 football stadiums in the left figure and in the right figure.

Page 8, lines 261, 269, 284, 287, 297, 298 and 301.

Page 9, lines 307 and 308.

In response to comment:

1. a) The authors did not show the existing lighting conditions prior to simulation

The lighting conditions prior to simulation are described in figure 2.

1. b) What is the conclusion of this study? Does the simulated design meet all or part of the requirements? Not clear.

All the simulations carried out comply with the applicable regulatory requirements.

Page 10, line 317.

Page 11, line 334.

In response to comment:

Once again, it is not clear what was the purpose of the study, and what are its conclusions?

For instance, was the lighting system not meeting the requirements, and the study suggested a way forward to meet them? Did the study achieve a successful design?

Before the LaLiga audit, none of the case studies presented met the required regulatory requirements (In the case of the TBR regulation, only 5% of Spanish stadiums met them, Figure 4).

The objective and the conclusions are detailed in section 4, in which an introductory paragraph has been added detailing more clearly the purpose of the simulations and the results.

Page 12, line 360 and 361.

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read a revised manuscript. I would like to suggest the authors to include all recently published reference articles suggested in my previous comment in their revised manuscript.

Author Response

I have read a revised manuscript. I would like to suggest the authors to include all recently published reference articles suggested in my previous comment in their revised manuscript.

Response:

Thank you very much for your comments. We have included the references suggested by the reviewer on page 2 lines 58 to 64.

Thank you very much for your help and constructive comments.

We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his interesting comments that we have included in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf