Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find my comments in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is an interesting presentation of the accurate B2B registration as a key factor in producing scientific data form a whisk-broom camera.

However, some additional clarifications are needed, as follows:

• Please explain the used abbreviations (e.q. BBR is not explained, and not all readers must know that you mean Band-to-Band Registration) 
• What is the main aim of this manuscript?

Sincerely

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Images from meteorological satellite systems are important for monitoring phenomena occurring on and around the earth. Improving the quality of images is certainly useful. The article shows how the spectral bands of the Chinese FY-1C/D system can be geometrically better matched. I found the article interesting and timely even though the system has been in operation for many years. 

In my opinion, the article is not written well. To me, it is unreadable in many places. This is due to poor editing and inconsistent terminology. A big influence on poor readability is the content of Table 1. If in the first column one would write B1, B2, etc., and then add a column indicating the spectral group (VIS, NIR, SWIR, MWIR, LWIR) it would be easier to read subsection 2.1. 

The most critical comment I have is on chapter 3. As the authors write band matchnig is crucial for the proposed method. The phase correlation method was used. The method in general has been known for a long time. But I do not know the use of the method for matching images of such low resolution (1 km in nadir). Is this the first use? If so, a more detailed description of the procedure is needed. Citing a literature item [17] is not sufficient. The paper [17] describes an application to improve the geometry of SPOT images, which have a much higher resolution than FY.  Issues such: as whether the translation vector was successfully determined for all matchnig windows, what were the differences of the vector components between adjacent windows, whether outlier observations were discarded or only suppressed, should be explained. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors' effort to improve the article. In my opinion, the article is publishable.