Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Study on the Solar Radiation Pressure Modeling in GPS Precise Orbit Determination
Previous Article in Journal
Characterizing Small-Town Development Using Very High Resolution Imagery within Remote Rural Settings of Mozambique
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Improved Version of the Generalized Laplacian Pyramid Algorithm for Pansharpening

Remote Sens. 2021, 13(17), 3386; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13173386
by Paolo Addesso 1,*, Rocco Restaino 1 and Gemine Vivone 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Reviewer 5: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(17), 3386; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13173386
Submission received: 6 July 2021 / Revised: 11 August 2021 / Accepted: 20 August 2021 / Published: 26 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Remote Sensing Image Processing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposed a pansharpening method based on modified GLP. The experiment demonstrates the effectiveness. To improve the manuscript, the following questions need to be considered:

  1. Deep learning pansharpening methods should be mentioned.
  2. A flowchart of the algorithm should be given.
  3. The running time should be given in Table 1.
  4. PSNR index should be calculated for assessment.

Author Response

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "An improved version of the generalized Laplacian pyramid algorithm for pansharpening" adopted a slight generalization of the linear approach that consists in estimating the best polynomial approximation of the optimal relationship between the details extracted from the PAN image and those missing in the MS image.

The authors demonstrated a good knowledge of the problem and of the related literature. The introduction section includes all significant related information, sufficiently highlighting the importance of the topic and the novelty of this work. All parts of the methodology are described in a comprehensive manner. The results are valuable and are properly discussed.

Nonetheless, still some reviews should be performed.

Line 99-104: Is this description really necessary? 

According to Instructions for Authors, Research manuscripts should comprise: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.

 

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a paper concerning pansharpening, i.e. using a high resolution panchromatic image to acquire a high resolution hyperspectral image.

First of all I want the Authors to look at this publication:

Hyperspectral Image Super-resolution via Deep Spatio-spectral Convolutional Neural Networks
Jin-Fan Hu, Ting-Zhu Huang, Liang-Jian Deng, Tai-Xiang Jiang, Gemine Vivone, Jocelyn Chanussot
(https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14400)
How can their effort be compared with this paper?

Alsp what are the applications of pan-sharpenning a Hyperspectral Image. What are you trying to improve apart from the visual appearence?

This paper lacks applications and proper motivation for keeping the reader interested. While I have no doubpt their effort is quite hard. I do not think this work is yet suitable for immediate publication.

Please kindly show a low resolution of a Hyperspectral Image and a High resolution panchromatic image and blend them together showing it in the very start of the paper. 

Also please show clearly the innovation compared to previous works. It is not clearly shown.

 

 

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Manuscript ID: remotesensing-1309940

Manuscript Title: An improved version of the generalized Laplacian pyramid algorithm for pansharpening 

The paper is very well-established and the results are almost satisfactory. I have a couple of issues as follows:

1) Page 5, Line 181: What did you set for the range of w's?It has to be mentioned.

2) It is a good idea to test the performance of the method by changing the M to higher values (the order of polynomial expansion). For example, add results of M=3 and M=4.

3) The processing time for each method (including M=3 and M=4 mentioned in item (2) above) must be a part of experimental results in a separate table.

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all comments. Also, the authors did a good job on replying to other reviewer's comments. Overall, the quality of this manuscript is significantly improved from the previous version. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Ok by me with a note: Although I spoke about hyperspectral please consider that there are deep learning works on the specific topic for multispectral images kindly have a look for future works.

Reviewer 5 Report

No more comments. 

Back to TopTop