AR-Based 3D Virtual Reconstruction of Brick Details
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been revised and resubmitted.
The title has been refined.
The research direction toward interaction in AR platforms has been clarified (can documentation and verification of final AR result be achieved in a proper estimation of relative location in simulation? Is AR an open domain in the data documentation and verification to be explored from a remote site? Can AR be conducted in video conferencing to support the documentation of communicated result in 3D? Does AR only provide rough estimation of relative location in simulation? Does it only provide screen 2D shots of location to refer the interacted result?).
The introduction (and sub-sections) has been improved.
The workflow has been clarified through the new image 2.
State of the art on photogrammetry should be added.
The question concerning the assessment of accuracy requirements or model verification has been faced by adding a new paragraph (4.4 Verification of remote collaboration by tolerance).
“Current semantic web platforms or collaborative digital environments within BIM systems are still not considered within the paper to compare the proposed procedure (possible added value of creating AR collaborative workspaces in addition to work remotely or to set up efficient video conferences for data sharing). It is commented by author responses that by creating AR collaborative workspaces, it is possible to work remotely by efficient video conferencing for data sharing through a smartphone-based AR and working environment. It seems that the exchange of data takes precedence over the need to handle highly accurate 3D models.”
This issue has been partially covered in section 4.
Numerical and graphical results to discuss and compare models have been added.
The main purpose of inspection or analysis of brick warehouses was to discover how the restoration was made to each of them, selecting a few details to start with. This point should be discussed in more detail, by adding a critical assessment of results, also in order to avoid over-simplifications.
This is issue is not fully addressed, apart from a brief note (lines 515-525).
Paragraph 4.5 has question marks in the title.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you for the reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
As the is written in two colors, the overall impression is that the text is not yet finished.
The figures should be enlarged as well as the tables. They are barely visible in the written text.
I am missing a more detailed explanation of how the data were taken and how the models were reconstructed.The article seems to be ONLY focused in AR
May I suggest that in figure 2 use a code color to identify stages of the workflow with the adjacent image?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you for the reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This par per presents a comparison of augmented reality methods for reconstructing buildings in 3D view and comparing architectural features.
The idea is sound and could be of use for the community. The research is targeting historical buildings but remains only methodological. However, the methodology is not very clearly presented until the last section (4 - Discussion) of the paper. Some applied exemples would help the reader. I would suggest the authors to add a demonstration video, or YouTube.com link, in supplementary materials.
Introduction
This section presents a state of the art of AR uses in historical architechture, but the research question is not presented. It would be useful to state it briefly at the end of the section.
L70 - 76. Repetition. Also, please add reference(s).
L140 - 147 Repetition
Discussion
L411-413 « An interdependent relationship was 411 established between architecture construction knowledge, structural and visual details, 412 and AR interactions. » This is not supported by the previous sections.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you for the reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is much improved. Congratulations. I have only detected a few minor errors:
Instead of:
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
it is more advisable to use
unmanned aerial systems (UASs),
UAV refers to the drone, while UAS refers to the drone plus the sensor.
L. 201: Instead of
We analyzed 8 brick
use
We analyzed eight brick
Numbers less than ten are usually written with letters and not with digits, unless they are measurements.
The caption of figure 5 (p. 10) should be on the same page (p. 9) as the figure.
The headers of the paragrapgh should be on the same page of the text. For example,
(l. 433) 4.3. An open domain of application
or
(l. 475) 5. Conclusion.
Please, check that there are no more
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you for the prompt reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
after reading this manuscript, I am not convinced of the appropriateness of publishing it in the journal Remote Sensing. The article has a low scientific contribution without necessary amount of real results.
Authors use the method of photogrammetry as a tool for creating spatial models of historical objects based on reconstruction using augmented reality.
However, not enough attention is paid to photogrammetry in the article.
The introduction section does not provide any basis on this topic.
Core section of the article does not contain a description of the application of photogrammetric procedures in the field, details of photogrammetric processing, quality and characteristics of 3D models, scaling of models and georeferencing, etc.
Manuscript does not contain enough measurable results to analyze.
I consider this as the main shortcoming of the manuscript.
I encourage the authors to adjust settings of their research to perform new experiments and measurements that would elevate this article to a level acceptable for publication in the reputable scientific journal Remote Sensing.
Therefore, In its current state, I can not recommend this paper for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been revised and resubmitted. The focus is the documentation of the relative location of 3D objects after being interacted with in an AR environment, using traditional photogrammetry modeling method, to study of brick details cross different warehouses.
The State of the Art and background research are shortly but comprehensively presented. Just one reference has been added compared to the previous version.
The statement “The documentation of brick details in augmented reality (AR) can be challenging when parties on both ends of video conference require the relative locations in 3D, instead of 2D screen shots” seems to direct the research towards a somewhat weak target, compared to issues to be considered approaching 3D modeling and digital environment reconstructions for cultural heritage.
The introduction has been improved by adding some additional specifications, although method and novelty remain not totally clear and convincing.
3D print colour models cannot cover the discussion / assessment of accuracy requirements or model verification.
Current semantic web platforms or collaborative digital environments within BIM systems are still not considered within the paper to compare the proposed procedure (possible added value of creating AR collaborative workspaces in addition to work remotely or to set up efficient video conferences for data sharing). It is commented by author responses that by creating AR collaborative workspaces, it is possible to work remotely by efficient video conferencing for data sharing through a smartphone-based AR and working environment. It seems that the exchange of data takes precedence over the need to handle highly accurate 3D models.
The main purpose of inspection or analysis of brick warehouses was to discover how the restoration was made to each of them, selecting a few details to start with. This point should be discussed in more detail, by adding a critical assessment of results, also in order to avoid over-simplifications.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article describes the use of photogrammetry to digitise old industrial buildings. 3D models and AR representations are then used via video conferencing to discuss comparisons between different buildings.
The topic is very interesting and very usable nowadays. It seems to be a solid research where a lot of 3D digital and AR models have been created for comparison.
However in my opinion it is not described in a clear way. It is difficult to follow the thread of the article and see what the authors really wanted to achieve. Information could almost be removed and the text could be simplified to make it more understandable.
It talks about the generation of 146 3D AR database models but then mentions 8 buildings and at the end compares two. It is not clear where all this information is, where these 146 models come from or what exactly they represent.
In the summary it talks about interactive interaction of the models, but I understand that they only compare each other but do not have interaction per se.
This study aimed to compare brick details in AR and to reconstruct the interacted result in correct relative location. This sentence in the abstract is then not fully detailed. It is not clear what is reconstructed from the interacted result.
Line 34 talks about Qing Dynasty, please add exact dates for foreigners.
Figure 1c describes that they are AR models, but the AR is not visible in the image. There are better examples in pictures 6 and 10.
line 69, integrate the short sentences well.
Point 1.1: The whole text is unclear, The sentence: "This study aimed to provide a method to document relative location of two models after being manipulated in an AR platform, based on framed imagery or streamed videos in conferencing or broadcasting." It is confusing. Are you talking about documenting their location or comparing the brick details in AR of the buildings? These terms need to be clarified throughout the text.
Terms such as HBIM appear throughout the text without explanation, even though it is a specialist journal, I think the terms used should be briefly explained.
Line 135, unify the references
Line 171, does not detail what is described in figure 2. Figure 2 is not clear.
It talks several times about a first and second reconstructed model, but does not explain how they differ or what or how is fixed from one to the other.
Are you talking about documenting their location or comparing the brick details in AR of the buildings? These terms need to be clarified throughout the text.
Terms such as HBIM appear throughout the text without explanation, even though it is a specialist journal, I think the terms used should be briefly explained.
Line 135, unify the references
Line 171, does not detail what is described in figure 2. Figure 2 is not clear.
It talks several times about a first and second reconstructed model, but does not explain how they differ or what is fixed from one to the other.
It uses the term metaverse which I don't think is appropriate in this case.
What does colour 3D printing bring to an online verification process in a teleworking scenario? It is interesting that it can be done but I think it is outside the context or the line of research described in the article.
Line 194, talks about many photogrammetry programs, it should be explained why so many are used, if there is a difference, etc.
Line 201, The 3D database was managed in the laboratory. This sentence is not very concise and does not contribute.
Point 2.2, add some images here to explain the comparison.
Line 212, 213, that sentence is very ambiguous and not well understood.
Line 230, that would be the result
It talks about many different technologies or devices: video conferencing (Skype®), screen sharing (Skype®), and broadcasting (YouTube®) ,...collaboration between office, home, and laboratory settings. AR, rapid prototyping (RP) smartphone , etc.
It is not clear how many people interact, at what time with which technologies. How many computers or screens are needed at the same time to make all this information available....
Results: This exclusive process contributed to the discovery that brick construction represented a systematic application of materials.
If that is the main result, the text should focus on this area.
Pictures 3 and 5 have too much information and are pixelated, select the most relevant pictures.
Point 2.3: The procedure is not clearly understood.
Point 3.2. I think the article should focus on this result and arrange the text to reach this conclusion. The other explanations are not clear.
In general in the text there are too many comparisons and different technologies. I don't understand the point of having it on Skype, YouTube, video, AR, 3D viewer, etc... why 3D printing if it is for video conferencing?
Where is the comparison of which technology works and which is better?
The pictures are not understandable. There are strange phrases that I think are not well translated,
It is necessary to simplify and explain everything better.
In general, it is interesting to have 3D models to compare online and see the differences in the constructions, it is a good resource but it is not explained adequately in the text. Why the QR codes, if they are all online, I don't know what is the point? you have to connect to a computer and a mobile phone at the same time?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
