Research on the Optimization Method of Visual Sensor Calibration Combining Convex Lens Imaging with the Bionic Algorithm of Wolf Pack Predation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a method to fulfill Cu pillar height measurement. The idea is to combine the bright-field and dark-field imaging to measure the Cu pillar and its substrate simultaneously. The method is clear and matched with this journal. There are suggestions for the authors:
(1) It is better to use another letters in Equation(18) instead of using u and v for distances, due to the u and v have been used for image coordinates.
(2) At line 230, a body P is better to say an object P. In Fig.5 capital X* is not matched with x at line 236.
(3) The authors need to recheck the data, such as in Table 1 and 2, apparently, u0 and v0 of right camera can not be near zero, the rotation matrix can not be with a dimension of 2×3. And, it is also necessary to mind the significant digits, which are different as shown in Table 1, 3-5 and in the whole manuscript.
(4) It is said in Step 2 that the initial parameters are calculated by Zhang’s method, whose average reprojection error is 0.288 as shown in Table 5. And the authors claimed that the pre-calibration value is 0.498 at Line 351. Then the reviewers are confused how the initial parameters are calculated. The authors are recommended to explain this.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a Visual Sensor Calibration method. However, from the narrative of the entire text, it can be seen that the previous chapters that the paper focuses on describing are all some existing basic knowledge (Section 2). Therefore, it appears that only the Wolf Pack Predication algorithm is being applied to the calibration process. I haven't seen any fundamental innovation in this field. Here are some suggestions.
- The paper should include a section discussing the limitations of the proposed method. Acknowledging potential shortcomings and suggesting areas for future research can add depth to the manuscript and provide a balanced view of the work.
- While the paper discusses the potential applications of the proposed method, it lacks specific examples or case studies demonstrating the method's effectiveness in real-world scenarios. Including such examples could help readers understand the practical implications of the research. - The paper reports average reprojection errors for different methods. To strengthen the conclusions, it would be helpful to include additional statistical metrics such as standard deviation, confidence intervals, or perform a statistical test to validate the significance of the differences observed. - The paper mentions the use of a binocular camera system and a checkerboard calibration board for experiments. However, more details on the experimental setup, such as the camera specifications and the conditions under which the images were captured, would enhance the reproducibility of the study. Comments on the Quality of English Language While the paper is generally well-written, a thorough proofreading pass is recommended to correct any grammatical errors.Author Response
Upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors proposed an optimization method to improve the accuracy of camera calibration, which combines Convex Lens Imaging with the bionic algorithm of Wolf Pack Predation. Mathematical analysis and approach look fine, but the experimental demonstration is not sufficient. There are quite a few points to be figured out.
1. Introduction. Authors should summarize and analyze the current state of research related to this topic, and need to emphasize the novelty and advantages of the proposed idea.
2. The author sets the optimization range of internal parameters to [ ax, ay, u0, v0 ]±100, how to determine the internal parameter range? Please explain it.
3. In Table 1 and Table 2, are the camera calibration parameters accurate? The principal point coordinates of the right cameras are too small, the rotation matrix, and the translation matrix is a 2×2 matrix?
4. The experimental results show that the CLI-WPP algorithm has a significant effect on reducing the re-projection error, but the reduction of the re-projection error does not always directly reflect the overall improvement of the calibration accuracy. Therefore, the author should combine more evaluation indicators, such as the error of external parameters, to comprehensively evaluate the practical application effect of the CLI-WPP algorithm in camera calibration.
5. The limitations of the proposed method and the prospect of future work should be given in Conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors should improve their language in the manuscript, and English spell check is required.
Author Response
Upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has already replied to my question.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript has been revised based on review's comment. I think the manuscript can be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe author has carefully corrected errors in the language, and the quality of English language is better than before.
