Passive 3D Imaging Method Based on Photonics Integrated Interference Computational Imaging System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
What is the difference between a paper and existing knowledge technology? The author did not make it clear in the introduction. The author should provide innovative points and reflect the distinctive features of the study. In the early stage, it was explained through theory, but the experimental part only used simulation for processing, lacking the feasibility and reliability of real data. Formula 10 seems to have a problem and needs to be checked. 5. What are the limitations of technology? Dependencies between algorithm performance and parameters should be derived and performance analysis provided. 6. The progressiveness of the paper should be compared with the relevant cutting-edge research in recent years.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper discusses the conditions for reconstructing clear images from the mutual intensity collected by the photonics integrated interference imaging system at the limited working distance, and proposes a single exposure passive 3D imaging method.
1. The main wavelengths discussed in this paper are 600 nm and 800 nm. If it is a passive imaging application, what is the impact of wavelength, especially in the case of a wide band range?
2. The coordinate axes of some figures in the paper need to be standardized.
3. Add some objective indicators and use the same indicators to evaluate all your data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The current simulation technology is not sufficient to support conclusions based on analysis, and it is recommended to supplement experiments and data analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper discusses a new method useful for the determination of distances based on 3D imaging technology.
A new method is proposed and presented by the authors. The method claims to be new and convenient to use.
Details on the past findings in the field and the benefit of the proposed method are presented in the paper. The reported solution is supported by the presentation of some examples.
However, there are some issues that should be addressed by the authors:
Please review the statement in the Abstract: “This paper presents a novel passive 3D imaging method based on interference imaging.”
Please review the enumeration listed in line 30, as only two items are indicated.
Please detail past findings in this field as indicated in ref 10-17 (line 55).
Please detail the statement listed in lines 104-106: “The "checkerboard" imager has more convenient equipment installation than the radial imager and hexagonal imager”.
Please detail Section 2 “Materials and methods”. For a better understanding it is preferrable to detail each component.
A diagram presenting the implementation of the theoretical model should be included in this section. This diagram can be used to understand better the algorithm proposed by the authors.
An image of the experimental equipment is preferred for Section 3.2. Experimental results.
Section 4 “Discussion” should be used to detail the results presented in Section 3.
A supplemental section, “Conclusion” should be added to discuss the finding of the paper.
There is a limited number of references. A critical discussion is welcomed to outline the findings of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper proposed here is very interesting and, despite the very high sophistication of the device proposed, is nevertheless easy to understand. This is a very significant innovation for possible mapping tools, although it requires apparently considerable computation capabilities, and I warmly welcome this work.
My only (very limited...) concern is with the introduction, which seems to ignore somewhat the 3D methodologies used in geomatics today. These are considerably simpler, efficient and easy to use than supposed here (l. 40-44), and especially than the device proposed : The whole Earth since one century, plus the Moon and several planets have been mapped with these tools, and really there is no urgent request to improve that today. And as another quite marginal remark, I do not understand the meaning of "traditional diffraction imaging" (l. 37). With photogrammetric tools we are generally far from diffraction limits, thus this wording, quite uncommon in geomatics, is a bit strange. Could you justify it ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
The article is well written and presents an interesting topic. I have one remark. In equation 1, the quantities I and Q appear. Are the photocurrents I and Q averaged over I1 and I2 (Q1 and Q2)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
ALL my concerns have been fixed
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors addressed all the issues raised during the first round of review.
The paper can be accepted for publication.
