A Novel Method for Digital Orthophoto Generation from Top View Constrained Dense Matching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled “A Novel Method for Digital Orthophoto Generation from Top-view Constrained Dense Matching” (Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2073587) presents a new method for digital orthophoto generation based on top-view constrained dense matching. My main concerns about the manuscript are:
1. Demonstrating one of the result of the developed method (Fig. 1) in “Introduction” section is not proper. Please give results in the results section.
2. Please add scale bar and north arrow to the figures that include aerial images.
3. In Figure 17 the images in (c) and (d) has different rotation from (a) and (b) which leads confusion.
4. Some of the figures are too big in the manuscript, these figures can be scaled down and the related figures can be aggregated. Figure 15 and 16 should be aggregated (as similar Figures 17 or 18). Similarly, the Figures 6, 7, and 8 can be given in same figure by giving sub titles (a), (b) and (c). In addition, Figure 21 and 22 can be aggregated by explaining the relations in Figure caption.
5. I think a discussion part should be added to the manuscript, to discuss the findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your novel manuscript about "A Novel Method for Digital Orthophoto Generation from Top-view Constrained Dense Matching".
The paper is generally well-written but requires a few more explanations as well as some restructuring. Overall, language and style are ok but I would still advice to review it once more to improve clarity of some statements.
Below, I list my comments.
1-The problem with the abstract is not identifying the contribution of the authors. The authors should indicate the problems with current methods if they exist and your contributions in this research.
2-Line 12: How reasonable? It is better to indicate it. You may mention the metrics used in the evaluation.
3-The authors are advised to change the first paragraph in the introduction by adding information about the significance and value of the research on digital orthophoto generation algorithms.
4-The summary of the four contributions at the end of the introduction is not appropriate. Please review the major contributions of this study.
5-Suggest describing the algorithm by using a flow chart in the method section.
6-Line 204,211,240: how are TMs , NT and Nocc selected? Trial and error?
7- I believe there are two reasons for the superior performance that have not been addressed. First, the method was designed specifically for these examples. Second, parameters have been hand-tuned to get best results. This draws into question the conclusion that the comparison proves superior performance of the new method. Please address this and take it into account in your analysis and discussion.
8-The authors are advised to add a discussion section in the manuscript. Presently, it only contains an analysis of experimental results. The point of discussion is that you compare it to previous research and describe the implications and scientific contribution of this study. It is expected to also insert a substantial number of references.
9-In the conclusion section, this part is not really a conclusion but more of a technical detail.
Thanks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfied all the reviewers' requirements.
