A Fast Iterative Procedure for Adjacency Effects Correction on Remote Sensed Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article shows an atmospheric correction procedure using MODTRAN.

In my opinion it's a good paper so I suggest a minor revision.

1.  Acronyms should first be written in full. (e.g. RMS on page 10 line 382)

2. Add average spectra described on page 14 line 416-430. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a minor and simple although effective technique for the correction of remote sensed data. In terms of contribution, it seems that the authors could propose an automatic criterion for halting the iterative process. 

In terms of organization, the paper is coherently presented. Although, Figure 1 could be presented early so that the reader clearly understands the paper's aim. I suggest revising the third paragraph of Section 1 since for me it was a bit cumbersome.  

The notation could be improved, but the authors mention following others in that matter. 

After eq. (4),  <x>_f is not exactly the convolution operator as mathematically defined. 

Before eq (7), I would suggest that "can be written" was replaced "have average".

The phrase "it is an acceptable hypothesis ..." is not supported by the results. Actually, the results show that the reflectance change with the wavelength. 

This leads to the presented algorithm. In the algorithm, I have some questions on adapting the algorithm to a "general distribution for weighting", this seems an important aspect. Since the results consider \lambda dependent reflectances, instead of averages over the wavelength. Maybe, the presentation should be in terms of wavelength-dependent reflectances instead of averaged one. Maybe this is just a notation problem and the reference to the wavelength is missing in the equations. However, this seems an important aspect for presentation improvement. 

In terms of results, please let the reader know what (xx,xx) stand for in the figures' legends. 

In Section 4.2 a more throughout comparison among the measured and obtained reflectances would foster confidence in the model. This is suggested to be good in the first paragraph on page 16, but only shown for to cases. In this sense, Figure 11 could also provide the departing reflectance so that we can evaluate how fast it converges. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

14/04/2021

Dear authors,

 

In the manuscript A fast iterative procedure for adjacency effects correction on remote sensed data, you describe and proposes a simple, iterative atmospheric correction procedure based on the 13 MODTRAN®5 radiative transfer code. This method iteratively applies the model adopted by Verhoef in order to correct the surrounding pixel contribution, assuming that the direct radiative transfer model provided by MODTRAN® 5.3.2 output is representative of the actual atmospheric conditions.

General comments

The theme is actual and interesting across a circle of experts in the remote sensing domain. The manuscript is good written but there are certain flaws. The initial part of the Introduction looks more like a book chapter than a state of the art for the area you are dealing with in the manuscript. You need to do a better job of state of the art for the area. In general, a lot of references are missing in the Introduction, also in some places in the rest of the manuscript where you describe certain terms. You need to highlight novelties in your work, in Abstract and Introduction.

The contents of the Materials and Methods chapter and the Results chapter are mixed. This should be clarified and descriptions of some of the device or terms, you use in further text, should be added (like PRIMUS, MTF, FWHM).

The Conclusion chapter is too general. Conclusion should be a detailed final interpretation of all the results obtained in the research.

Please, read all comments and act on them.

Specific comments (are in the manuscript)

• Line 13-21 - You did not state the knowledge you gained by conducting experiments and research in Abstract.
• Line 25-33 - In these lines of Introduction, you state a lot of facts but do not specify references to them. Please, provide references to these facts.
• Line 40-51 – Same as previous comment. Again, you state a lot of facts but do not specify references to them. Please, provide references to these facts.
• Line 96-102 - An abbreviated part of this text should be listed in the Abstract. In this way, you highlight the novelties in your work.
• Line 275-287 - This text does not fall under the Results It should be moved to the Materials and Methods chapter. Describe the PRIMUS system briefly there.
• Line 283 - Define MTF term when you first use it.
• Line 315 - Define FWHM term in text before you first use it in image description.
• Line 584-599 - The Conclusion chapter is too general. Support the statements in it with your specific results.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

26/04/2021

Dear authors,

 

In the manuscript A fast iterative procedure for adjacency effects correction on remote sensed data, you describe and proposes a simple, iterative atmospheric correction procedure based on the 13 MODTRAN®5 radiative transfer code. This method iteratively applies the model adopted by Verhoef in order to correct the surrounding pixel contribution, assuming that the direct radiative transfer model provided by MODTRAN® 5.3.2 output is representative of the actual atmospheric conditions.

Thank you for all your answers, comments, and acceptance of suggestions for the purpose of improving the manuscript. As far as I am concerned, you have done a good job, explained all possible doubts and I have no more major comments or remarks on your manuscript. I recommend the editors to accept your manuscript in present form.

 

Best regards