A New Approach toward Corner Detection for Use in Point Cloud Registration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1-There should be numeric results in the abstract.

2-The keywords should be minimum five. There can be added ‘RGB-D Camera’ as a keyword.

3-It is implying that the article verified the proposed method using low-accuracy point cloud data from the RGB-D camera. But there is no explanation for the accuracy levels of RGB-D cameras. Also, there should be some information about the RGB-D cameras and general properties. For this aim the authors can cite the following papers and more.

 

-Li, J., Gao, W., Wu, Y., Liu, Y., & Shen, Y. (2022). High-quality indoor scene 3D reconstruction with RGB-D cameras: A brief review. Computational Visual Media, 8(3), 369-393.

-Zhu, X. F., Xu, T., & Wu, X. J. (2022). Visual Object Tracking on Multi-modal RGB-D Videos: A Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.09207.

 

-Beyaz, A. (2022). Accuracy Detection of Intel® Realsense D455 Depth Camera for Agricultural Applications, XIII International Scientific Agricultural Symposium “Agrosym 2022”, p.185

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and attached the response to your comments.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Many places seen units are not kept. Kindly look into this matter.
2. Table 1. Nomenclature and description of parameters and variables should be kept before the introduction. So that reader can directly see from there.
3. Gaps of the earlier study and this study and highlight the motivation of this work in the introduction section
4. Many old references cited in the MS may be completely removed and add new ones
5- meaning of a, b, c........in figure9?add
6. Ensure that your manuscript is well edited for English language and technical expressions
7. All references according to the journal format.
8. Many useless full stops, the comma should be deleted and given in the appropriate format.
9. Some spelling mistakes are also seen, kindly rectify the same.
10. Same references are cited many times. Hence, I will provide you a good set of references for your needful use. Kindly use this reference.
11. Please improve Figure 1 TO 12. add legend to all figures
12. Kindly count the sentences of the Highlights, it should be according to the journal guidelines.
13.More articles should be discussed, especially among the international literature.

14. What are the original, novelty, or unique ideas behind this research as compared to previous research/other reported work? Why it is worth knowing?

15. he abstract does not satisfy with publication standard as shown below;

Does the abstract summarize the paper's objectives, main thrust and major conclusions? Please consider whether or not the Abstract conveys clearly the purpose of the study, provides a balanced and accurate depiction of the key findings, and addresses the implications of the work for spatial information Science. Could a person read the abstract and get a clear sense of what the article will be about? Will the key words enable other professionals to locate the work with the search engines commonly used by academic libraries? What about the conclusion? Does the manuscript give a sense of revisiting the main ideas briefly? Does it give the reader a feeling that all of the ideas have been tied together?

16. Check if you have included enough details on statistics (number of replicates, statistical tests performed, presentation of average and standard deviation or error values, both in tables and graphs), and complete it if needed.

please, see my comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and attached the response to your comments.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The tropic of this manuscript addresses a point cloud registration method based on corner detection. This tropic follows the special issue: Special Issue "New Perspectives on 3D Point Cloud". I review this manuscript and provide following comment for authors.

1.      I am not sure whether this manuscript provides a new approach to this field? If it is, I suggest adding some key words in Title, such as “new approach”.

2.      Whole chapters not follow a normal format. If possible, it should use Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. Therefore, whole chapters should be organized again.

3.      Abstract pointed out that “However, the proposed method failed to register point clouds acquired by multi-beams LiDAR, e.g. 16-beam LiDAR, which is also the primary focus of future research.”, It means that this manuscript is not so significant?

4.      This manuscript should add Introduction that content background information, significance and the study purpose.

5.      From Figures of the Results, I still could not clearly understand the contribution of this paper.

6.      I suggest that Results and Discussions should be separated.

7.      Moreover, Discussions and Conclusion are weakness, these chapters should be improved.

Over all, in current stage, I think it is not suitable for publication in the Remote Sens after revised.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and attached the response to your comments.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I mantain my previous recommendation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your professional comments on this manuscript, and we have revised the manuscript according to your comments.

 

Sincere gratitude to you from all authors.

 

Yours sincerely

Wei Wang

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf