Methodology of Creating and Sustainable Applying of Stereoscopic Recording in the Industrial Engineering Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the paper is interesting and comprehensible.
Some comments about the paper:
1. I do not understand the meaning of “sustainable” in the title: what is it related to?
2. Please review the English language in the article, both as regards the grammar and the appropriate choice of some terms and for the syntactic construction of some sentences.
3. Figures 2 to 8 need to be improved to make them more intelligible, both by improving the graphical aspect and rearranging the connections.
4. It is not clear what the actual core of the article is. Sometimes it seems to be the proposed algorithm for stereoscopic recording, sometimes it seems to be the tool applied in the industrial context.
5. To better explain some aspects of the algorithm for stereoscopic recording, the presence of one or more figures that illustrate the parameters that are referred to in the various formulas would be required, and also to better understand Table 1.
6. At the first point of the discussion, from line 495, it is said that "the study showed that stereoscopic recording and visualization can make it easier ....". It is not clear how this statement has been demonstrated: there does not seem to have been an experimental campaign, except a summary description (few acquisitions analyzed without a described procedure and without quantitative results).
7. Figure 10 is not clear. What is labeled on the ordinate axis? Are the "imprecisions" from line 400 to 403 quantifiable, at least as an order of magnitude?
Author Response
Dear Mr. / Mrs. Reviewer
Thank you very much for the inspiring comments on our article. We hope that the modified version of the article will satisfy all your expectations. In view of the necessity to incorporate the comments of other reviewers into the article, the following changes have been made to the article:
1. Modified and expanded abstract.
2. Complemented and modified Introduction.
3. Edited figures as instructed by reviewers.
4. Added part of the article about used devices and source of parameters from devices for calculation.
5. Completed of the section describing the application of suggestion system.
6. Check and edit the English language.
The word sustainability in an article has two meanings in the context of the article. The first meanings are the pursuit of sustainable working conditions of employment by improving the execution of selected ergonomic analyses. The second meanings are the sustainability of the application of the proposed stereoscopic record system, which was one of the indirect parameters for the design of the system in question. The word sustainability in the title is partly synonymous of word usability of the system in specific conditions of industrial practice.
The objective of the initial verification was to identify the potential of the application of stereoscopy on the basis of the assessment of experts from SES, O.Z. In the context of experimental use, the experts identified this technology as beneficial for their practical work. The precise quantification of such an impact requires long-term research and could be a very good continuation of the research presented.
The main objective of the measurements carried out was the verification and validation of derivative computational relationships. The aim was not to achieve the most accurate measurements and their subsequent improvement. For this reason, the authors focused only on identifying possible causes of deviations. Based on the accuracy of the methods used and the measuring instruments, this quantification could be inferred. However, we do not know whether this is necessary for a view of the measurement objective.
In view of the adjustments made, the list of literature was also modified.
Kind regards,
collective of Author's
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present the development of an interesting methodology for applying Stereoscopy on industrial-workplace optimization. With regard to their paper I would like the following observations:
The abstract section should follow the structure suggested by this Journal, i.e. the abstract should be an objective representation of main sections of the article (background, methods, results and conclusion).
Several typos should be revised throughout the paper. I will just mention a few of them: in line 24 “cause” should be replaced by “caused”; in line 27 “...by the utility model, utility model number...” should be replaced by “...by the utility model number...”; in line 28 “stabile” should be replaced by “stable”; and some sentences like “The emphasis is aimed on use stereoscopic in...” (line 21) should be better expressed; in line 32 the authors violate Journal’s rule for reference numbers to be placed before punctuation; and many more.
Abbreviations should be defined following a standard format, e.g. in line 61 the abbreviation is placed between parentheses: “depth-fused 3D (DFD)” while in line 407 is not: “ZIMS (Zilina’s Intelligent Production System)”.
In introduction section, the authors should clarify the main aim of their paper and highlight the main conclusions. Moreover, current state of research field should be reviewed and related to authors’ article; unfortunately two thirds of the references are more than 10 years old.
On the other hand, the authors should justify some of their statements, e.g. in lines 45-46 they state “...effective use of workspace in industrial environment limits possibilities to use commercially accessible 3D camera systems significantly”.
The authors should also revise some figure issues like: lines and arrows, unwanted coloured underlines, blurred equations and axes, format of figure references...
I also encourage the authors to improve the readability of their paper by: replacing double-quoted terms with bold font; using “Three” instead of “3” in line 114; referencing equations by adding the term “Equation” to the equation number... Moreover, they should avoid to specify (source: author) in every table and figure; otherwise they should detail which author or authors are the source.
The authors should clarify many questions of section 2.1.2: which technology is assumed for monitor, TV and projector (autosteroscopy, 3D glasses...)?; why are those “D” values selected for the watching devices?; are they considering additional factors for observer’s distance (myopia, astigmatism...)?...
Equation 1 should be validated.
In line 247 lmax should be replaced with lopt.
The authors should indicate the model of the cameras used in their experiments.
Figure 10 should be clarified. Its abscissas axis should be indicated. Line 393 should be deleted. Likewise, line 450 should also be deleted.
For the sake of Journal’s aims, the authors should have deepened the sustainability issues of their investigation. They should have further detailed the ergonomic hazards that their stereoscopic-recording methodology is able to detect.
Author Response
Dear Mr. / Mrs. Reviewer
Thank you very much for the inspiring comments on our article. We hope that the modified version of the article will satisfy all your expectations. In view of the necessity to incorporate the comments of other reviewers into the article, the following changes have been made to the article:
1. Modified and expanded abstract.
2. Complemented and modified Introduction.
3. Edited figures as instructed by reviewers.
4. Added part of the article about used devices and source of parameters from devices for calculation.
5. Completed of the section describing the application of suggestion system.
6. Check and edit the English language.
The reason for a higher number of older citations is the structure of basic starting points of research. It consists mainly of the biological principles of spatial vision of human and the principles of the creation of video footage, particular from the field of optics. All of this knowledge has been known for a long time and the authors have tried to refer the literature from primary sources of this information. The second reason is that research in the area of stereoscopy had a large expansion at the beginning of the 20th century when it produced a large number of commercial products for domestic use. However, Since their usefulness in the home environment has not been confirmed, a slight decline in the technologies in question has begun.
The Parameter "D" was chosen as a parameter based on the personal experience of the authors. However, this Is only a very indicative recommendation that the methodology of the methodologies does not restrict or limit, and may not be observed at all. Failure to comply with this recommendation has no effect on the calculation. It Is only an indicative aid for a user who has no personal experience. We have not considered further recommendations because of their low objectivity to the large individual differences between the various observers. The choice of the display device is the choice of the user, the methodology presented shall take account of its key parameters and adapt them to the parameters of the camera system settings.
All equation was part of verification and validation processed within the chapter 3.1.1.
In view of the adjustments made, the list of literature was also modified.
Kind regards,
collective of Author's
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors introduced new perspective for stereoscopy tool and verified the usage in the result sections. However, authors need to emphasize their novelty in detail in the abstract section.
1. Please use small capital of "Industrial Engineering and Mechanical Engineering" in the abstract. I am wondering there is a reason to use large capital letter for that word.
2. Please do not use reference in the abstract so it is better to represent the information in the introduction if possible.
3. Authors need to emphasize novelty of the proposed concept in detail in the abstract section.
4. Please provide more clear Figure 10 because the Figure quality is not clear.
5. I am wondering if authors try to use large angle differences between two identical cameras and obtain the measured parameters and deviations in Table 1. Since two identical cameras use same angles as shown in Figure 9, authors may try to provide different performances.
Author Response
Dear Mr. / Mrs. Reviewer
Thank you very much for the inspiring comments on our article. We hope that the modified version of the article will satisfy all your expectations. In view of the necessity to incorporate the comments of other reviewers into the article, the following changes have been made to the article:
1. Modified and expanded abstract.
2. Complemented and modified Introduction.
3. Edited figures as instructed by reviewers.
4. Added part of the article about used devices and source of parameters from devices for calculation.
5. Completed of the section describing the application of suggestion system.
6. Check and edit the English language.
The authors did not consider and used large angular differences on the ground that when creating a stereoscopic record for the needs presented, it did not appear as necessary. However, we think the proposed methods of setting could have great use when stereoscopic records are used to measure distances and spatial layout in production. In this case, it would be possible to be based on the application of the principle in the field of geodesy.
In view of the adjustments made, the list of literature was also modified.
Kind regards,
collective of Author's
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is not only interesting, but it is very useful for the practice.
I have only some requests and questions:
Page 5, lines 180-181: „…the distance should be two or three times of a diagonal of display device.” is written. Please, refer to publication(s) where these data are available.
Page 13, 2.1.7 sub-chapter: Are these recommendations based on the authors’ experience or they come from the literature review? If these recommendations are own recommendations, please emphasize them.
page 16, line 406: „SES” abbreviation is written, please give the meaning of this abbreviation.
page 19, lines 492-493: Please, refer to the mentioned ergonomic analyses e.g. OWAS, RULA etc.
An overall remark: Emphasize a bit more the relevance of your research to the topic of sustainability.
To sum it up, the paper is good, it deals with a very practical issue. The used methods and results are written well.
Author Response
Dear Mr. / Mrs. Reviewer
Thank you very much for the inspiring comments on our article. We hope that the modified version of the article will satisfy all your expectations. In view of the necessity to incorporate the comments of other reviewers into the article, the following changes have been made to the article:
1. Modified and expanded abstract.
2. Complemented and modified Introduction.
3. Edited figures as instructed by reviewers.
4. Added part of the article about used devices and source of parameters from devices for calculation.
5. Completed of the section describing the application of suggestion system.
6. Check and edit the English language.
In view of the adjustments made, the list of literature was also modified.
Kind regards,
collective of Author's
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors answered all the questions so the manuscript can be accepted without further revision.
