Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

This paper is prepared in reasonable format and scientific format and design of experiments and explanation of the results are adequately explained. There are few modifications needed to improve the quality of the paper for future consideration as suggested below:

1) section 2.3-page 3-line 106: "which is the require ROI", do you mean "required"?

2) section 3.3-page 7-line210: do you expect to have data out of this triangle? this can happen due to gray region, similar to the near of lines a1a2 and b1b2, where there are some data outside.

3) section 3.4-page8-figure10: using a higher quality image and larger font is recommended

4) section 3.6-page10-line267: can you define a quantitative range?

Author Response

1) section 2.3-page 3-line 106: "which is the require ROI", do you mean "required"?

Yes, I mean “required”. I have modified it in the manuscript.

2) section 3.3-page 7-line210: do you expect to have data out of this triangle? this can happen due to gray region, similar to the near of lines a1a2 and b1b2, where there are some data outside.

The important thing in this system is the measurement of the length of the “tip”, and the data outside the lines do not help to estimate the actual length of the tip. Therefore, the data outside of the lines a1a2 and b1b2 is not restored.

3) section 3.4-page8-figure10: using a higher quality image and larger font is recommended

Thank you for your opinion. Manuscript is updated accordingly.

4) section 3.6-page10-line267: can you define a quantitative range?

Yes, this rotated angle measurement range is 0 ͦ – 90 ͦ degree (have mentioned now in the manuscript).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very useful work with wider theoretical and practical interest. The methodical and complete analysis has led to appreciable results that can be directly applied to resolving vital issues. I look forward to the next steps of your research.

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion. Sooner or later, we will publish our ongoing research.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The research is of good quality however, there are some minor corrections required in the manuscript -

Line 30 - (towards the end of the line) "in particular" rather than "Particular" Line 34 to 37 - "However, when the the ..... material damage." Break this sentence in two parts rather than one complex sentence and insert more references to cite and support inaccurate cutting of the object and material damage. Similarly, Lines 38 to 41. "For this reason......actively under way." Break this complicated sentence into two simple sentences in he following manner.

" For this reason, the development of an automation inspection system based on the machine vision system is actively under way. The machine vision system acquires images using camera and then quantitatively judges the degrees of abrasion and warping/breakage of the cutting blade (insert citation here to support this)".

 

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion.

Manuscript is updated accordingly. 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper indicates the experimental results and discussion with the Proposed curvature based binarization method and the conventional Otsu method, and indicates the superiority of the proposed method over the conventional Otsu method. This paper is overall good. My comments are as follows,  

Chapter 2 is Section I. Chapter 3 is section II. They are confusing. Please remove of the terms of sections I and II. Please add legends of Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 5(e). In Table 1, please consider significant digit.

Author Response

Chapter 2 is Section I. Chapter 3 is section II. They are confusing. Please remove of the terms of sections I and II. Please add legends of Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 5(e). In Table 1, please consider significant digit.

For the opinions about the sections and figures, the manuscript is updated accordingly. However,  significant digit cannot be considered because of the lower fractional values of standard deviation in Table 1.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf