Design of Polarization Spectroscopy Integrated Imaging System

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your input is highly meaningful to us, and we have also made revisions to the article based on your suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files. We mark the revised positions in red font.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Cite more sudies which are state of the art

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, according to your suggestion, we have added recent relevant literature and deleted some old or not particularly relevant literature, detailed in Lines 527-559.

Comments 2: Try finding some quantitative criterion for results comparison between the current work and the state of the art. For instance, compare the resulted SNR of the final synthesized image and the one presented in the state of the art. Otherwise, it is hard to assess the real impact on the detection of the current study, which in turn might hinder further investments in such a study.

Response 2: Agree. We have added the theoretical analysis of the SNR as you requested，detailed in Lines 240-304.

Comments 3: Most of the figures quality is unacceptable for it is impossible discerning the text Figures 7-20. The figures also have to be centralized as well as some equations.

Response 3：Thank you very much for your suggestions. It was our mistake. According to your suggestion, we have revised all the figures and equations as you mentioned.

Comments 4: Figure 19 requres explanation- it is uncomprehendable. The authors may consider placing a general picture and zooming on some areas by its side.

Response 4：Thank you for your suggestions. We have modified Figure 19 according to your suggestions, as well as Figure 20, detailed in Lines 390-395.

Comments 5: Calibration process is undisclosed whereas it better be elaborated.

Response 5：Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the Calibration process as you suggested, detailed in Lines 333-359.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback, we will continue to work hard.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear editor and reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully revised all the suggestions for modifications and marked them out.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your input is highly meaningful to us, and we have also made revisions to the article based on your suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files. We have marked the revised positions in red font.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 

It would be helpful expand the introduction part with other researches in this field, I have the impression that this problem is very small to solve it.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added this part of content，detailed in Lines 79-85.

Comments 2: Please increase the size of the pictures with spot diagram, MTF, spectral images from UAV, moreover, please put the RMS value separately in Table or something.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected the image as you suggested,

as shown in Figure4，5，9，10，11，25，26，27，30，31. We have also added RMS tables, as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Comments 3: Please check the manuscript on the typos.

Response 3：Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have made revisions based on your recommendations. 

Comments 4: Did you consider the value of aberrations of the system and optical elements? As I see, you only investigated the intensities at various wavelengths.

Response 4：Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your feedback, We have added tolerance analysis for the system and various optical components，detailed in Lines 222-239. Thank you very much for your opinion.

Comments 5: Considering the quality of obtaine images from the UAV did you investigate the impact of the atmospheric turbulence and scattering effects that will be considerable over the marine surface?

Response 5：Thank you for your feedback. We have found through research that atmospheric turbulence and scattering do have an impact on experimental results. Therefore, our experiment was conducted under sunny and stable lighting conditions with wind speeds below level 4, avoiding the influence of shadows and strong reflectors, and avoiding light reflection interference from surrounding targets. As you said, we will conduct further research on how to correct the effects of atmospheric turbulence and scattering in the future. Thank you very much for your opinion.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback, we will continue to work hard.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear editor and reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully revised all the suggestions for modifications and marked them out.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your input is highly meaningful to us, and we have also made revisions to the article based on your suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 

The labels and curves on some figures are absolutely not recognizable: Figs. 4, 5, 8c, 9, 13.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have corrected all the images you mentioned based on your suggestion.

Comments 2: There is no description of the software or method for calculation. Is it ZEMAX?

Response 2: Thank you for your input. The software we are using is indeed ZEMAX.

Comments 3: There is no description of lenses and prism-grating; however, this information is important. For example, if the period of grating is small enough the grating could affect the polarization state.

Response 3：Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added descriptions of the parameters for the prism and grating, detailed in Lines 186-187.

Comments 4: Is Fig. 2 created by the authors or it was taken from other sources?

Response 4：Thank you for your feedback. We have modified Figure 2, and now Figure 2 iscreated by the authors, detailed in Line 121.

Comments 5: How was the area scanning performed? Is the slit on Fig. 1 movable?

Response 5：Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a description of the scanning process and created a diagram illustrating the scanning direction, as shown in Figure 24, detailed in Lines 377-382.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback, we will continue to work hard.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear editor and reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully revised all the suggestions for modifications and marked them out.