Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents an interesting methodological application, relevant with TSL instrumentation. However, the attached images are not exhaustive, the defining quality is rather poor; it is required to attach 300dpi versions of the results obtained both with regard to the processing of the point clouds and the virtual tour. Virtual tours that are on the agenda an interesting topic of investigation is unclear from the paper how they were actually structured and the final result.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all we would like to thank your kind comments, which have been really useful to improve the quality and understandability of the document. We will provide a response to them in the following paragraphs:

“This manuscript presents an interesting methodological application, relevant with TSL instrumentation. However, the attached images are not exhaustive, the defining quality is rather poor; it is required to attach 300dpi versions of the results obtained both with regard to the processing of the point clouds and the virtual tour.”

Regarding the exhaustiveness of the images, we have included new figures that are aimed at increasing the representativeness of the selection. Figure 4.b (page 10, line 345) provides an idea of the location of the Gate within the inner complex.  Figure 6 (page 13, line 422 ) has been substituted with another one with a better quality. The definition of Figure 7 has been improved (Page 14, line 433). Figure 8 (page 15, line 472) has been modified with three different details, including an imagen of the point-cloud with the cameras and spline that are required to set the itinerary, and frames from videos obtained from the point-cloud and the meshed model, at a similar location. All these images satisfy the 300-dpi minimum criteria.  

“Virtual tours that are on the agenda an interesting topic of investigation is unclear from the paper how they were actually structured and the final result.”

Considering the virtual itineraries (pages 14-15, lines 454-473), a better explanation of these result has been offered. The main criteria that were considered for the development of the videos have been included (rotations of elements of interest, itineraries restricted to a visitor’s point of view, and non-restricted walkthroughs).

We expect that these changes, along with those related by the other reviewer’s suggestions meet your expectations.

Once again, thank you for your kind contribution to the improvement of this paper.

Kind regards,

The Corresponding Author.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is suggested to improve the intruduction with a state of art more focused on the application of TLS survey to other context similar to the case study, as the theory on TLS in this way is too much general and wider approached. Considerations on the strategy for survey and the quality of data regarding the different applications is also expected.

2.2.2. and 2.2.3. are too much general and absolutely not innovative, it would be better to explain this contents regarding the considerations on the specific  case study. Or, however, to explain the relation of the theory with the application in the case study, increasing the references.

In 3.4.2. it seems not good to insert a Youtube link, if necessary it can be moved in the bibliography

The goal of the interactive application of 3D model for the specific case study is not clear. As previously, the discussion is to much general, it doesn't present references to the specific case study and neighter to other references. It is suggested to define better discussion and conclusions, considering the specific contribute to research supported by the authors within their work.

It is suggested to consult a wider bibliography on the use of TLS in the virtualisation and promotion of Cultural Heritage, as Bertocci, Parrinello, Pancani, Paris, Gomez Blanco, Remondino, Gaiani, Balzani.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all we would like to thank your kind comments and the suggestion of new references to improve the state of art introduction, which have helped us to improve the quality and comprehensibility of the document. In the following lines, we will provide a response to your comments.

“It is suggested to improve the introduction with a state of art more focused on the application of TLS survey to other context similar to the case study, as the theory on TLS in this way is too much general and wider approached. Considerations on the strategy for survey and the quality of data regarding the different applications is also expected.”

Regarding the state of art, it has been updated to particularize it to the field of the application of TLS to cultural sites (Please, see pages 2 and 3, lines 76-104) with new references. The suggested bibliography has been consulted, and 14 works developed by these experts have been included to improve the introduction.

The three main aspects on which the strategy for survey are listed in Section 2.2.2, and considerations about the quality have been included in Section 2.2.3 (page 6, 256-259), although this topic is also considered in the discussion section (page 16, lines 511-515) and conclusions (lines pages 18, 572-574)

“2.2.2. and 2.2.3. are too much general and absolutely not innovative, it would be better to explain this contents regarding the considerations on the specific  case study. Or, however, to explain the relation of the theory with the application in the case study, increasing the references.”

Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. have been modified (Page 4, 166-168, 123-175; Page 5, lines 183-184, 198-200; Page 6, 231-235, 256-259), presenting some of the particularities of sites as the one presented, with remarkable spatial constrictions, and considerations about the quality of the model.

“The goal of the interactive application of 3D model for the specific case study is not clear. As previously, the discussion is too much general, it doesn't present references to the specific case study and neither to other references. It is suggested to define better discussion and conclusions, considering the specific contribute to research supported by the authors within their work.”

The goal of the interactive application, mainly dissemination, has been mentioned (page 16, lines 487-490). Both discussion and conclusions have been rewritten (pages 16-18; lines 508-585) for a more particular analysis with relation to the case that is presented and our contribution.

“In 3.4.2. it seems not good to insert a Youtube link, if necessary it can be moved in the bibliography”

As suggested, the youtube link has been removed from the text (page 14, line 463), and included as a reference (Page 21, line 726).

“It is suggested to consult a wider bibliography on the use of TLS in the virtualisation and promotion of Cultural Heritage, as Bertocci, Parrinello, Pancani, Paris, Gomez Blanco, Remondino, Gaiani, Balzani.”

As mentioned, the suggested bibliography has been consulted and applied.

We expect that these modifications meet your expectations.

Once again, we would like to show our appreciation you for your kind contribution to the improvement of this paper.

Kind regards,

The Corresponding Author.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors studied the performance of the 3D model using the Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS) of Caliphal Gate of Ceuta, which is one of the most famous historical heritage in Spain. This extensive study is well defined and focuses on the topic. However, the manuscript included some major remarks. It can be accepted for publication but needs some corrections:

1) The main objective of this work must be clearly presented in the abstract and conclusion sections.

2) Abbreviations and acronyms should be defined the first time that they are used in the paper (e.g. R.G.B, RTK...etc).

3) The authors referred to “invasive techniques” and “museographic purposes” in lines 539 and 547 respectively in the conclusion section. However, not all of these phrases mentioned this in the main paper.

4) The conclusion section must be summarized and present it in specific points to be easier to read and understand.

5) References are not recent. Much more references, newer and more relevant should be included.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all we would like to thank your kind comments, which have helped us to improve the quality of the work. We will provide an answer to your comments in the following lines.

“1) The main objective of this work must be clearly presented in the abstract and conclusion sections.”

As suggested, the main objective of this work have been included in the abstract (Page 1, lines 19-23) and conclusion section (Page 18, 581-585).

“2) Abbreviations and acronyms should be defined the first time that they are used in the paper (e.g. R.G.B, RTK...etc).”

The definitions have been included for “TLS” (Page 2, line 56), “R.G.B.” (Page 2, line 68), “BIM” (Page 2, line 77), “GIS” (Page 2, line 95), “GPS” (Page 3, line 107) , “RTK” (Page 3, line 109), “ERGNSS” and “EPN” (Page 11, 362 and 363).

“3) The authors referred to “invasive techniques” and “museographic purposes” in lines 539 and 547 respectively in the conclusion section. However, not all of these phrases mentioned this in the main paper.”

Since the conclusions sections has been modified to improve its understandability, there are no references left about these two ideas, although they are now explained in Page 4, line 166-168 (non-invasive techniques), and page 16, 488-491 (with the potential application of the interactive application in museums).

“4) The conclusion section must be summarized and present it in specific points to be easier to read and understand.”

The conclusions sections (Page 18, lines 569-587) has been rearranged to ease its lecture.

“5) References are not recent. Much more references, newer and more relevant should be included.”

New references have been added ([24]-[37], [41]) to update and particularize the context of this application of TLS.

We expect that these changes meet your expectation.

Once again, thank you for your contribution to the improvement of this work.

Kind regards,

The Corresponding Author.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have fulfilled the comments. I accept the article in the new form presented. I believe that in its current form the article will be in compliance with the focus of the 'Applied Sciences' journal.