Next Article in Journal
Research Progress of Automated Visual Surface Defect Detection for Industrial Metal Planar Materials
Previous Article in Journal
A Tactile Method for Rice Plant Recognition Based on Machine Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 20
Issue 18
10.3390/s20185138
Review Report
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Letter
Peer-Review Record

CMOS Depth Image Sensor with Offset Pixel Aperture Using a Back-Side Illumination Structure for Improving Disparity

Sensors 2020, 20(18), 5138; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20185138
by Jimin Lee 1, Sang-Hwan Kim 1, Hyeunwoo Kwen 1, Juneyoung Jang 1, Seunghyuk Chang 2, JongHo Park 2, Sang-Jin Lee 2 and Jang-Kyoo Shin 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2020, 20(18), 5138; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20185138
Submission received: 10 August 2020 / Revised: 4 September 2020 / Accepted: 7 September 2020 / Published: 9 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, authors present a CMOS depth image sensor with offset pixel aperture (OPA) using a back-side illumination structure for improving disparity. In general terms, this work is very interesting, it is well written, structured and it is clear about the significance and its novelty; however, I strongly encourage authors to consider the following two recommendations:

1. The paper should include more information about its contribution and its relationship with the state-of-the-art methods.

2. In addition, I recommend to include a related work section.

Author Response

Please see Attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments below. In particular some revision of the conclusions and the language seems to be beneficial for the paper before publishing.

  • more details on sensors that are characterized such as resolution, sensitivity (quantum efficiency) etc
  • point out some trade off between effective resolution and disparity resolution (references)
  • provide some explanations about the depth extraction
    • how is disparity converted into depth
    • the reader might expect a graph that shows distance versus distance for example
    • how does the sensor perform beyond the +/- 14cm distance range as shown in the paper with regard to disparity / depth extraction
  • when comparing FSI with BSI I am wondering about pixel SNR trade off versus disparity resolution
    • how is SNR related to depth resolution?
    • if not part of the study, please point to appropriate references
  • conclusion to be revised and supported by data
    • most part of the conclusion is a summary right now, please add conclusions on the impact for next investigations, challenges to solve. what are the drawbacks of the BSI sensor that have to be addressed in an improved version?
    • support conclusions on for example low power by providing data for the particular sensors that are compared
  • please revise the English language

 

Author Response

Please see Attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see Attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All the issues concerned are addressed appropriately. It is recommended to be published as it is.

Back to TopTop