An Image Planar Positioning Method Base on Fusion of Dual-View Airborne SAR Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Summary:
This is a meaningful work.
Positioning of airborne SAR imagery either relies on the use of reliable reference points to determine the relative position of the image, or requires the precise motion information of the aircraft and the characteristics of the SAR data collection system as input to determine the absolute position of the image. However, the accuracy of these positioning methods is low. In order to solve the disadvantages of the accuracy of traditional positioning methods, this paper introduces an airborne SAR image planar positioning approach based on the premise that the systematic positioning error of the dual-view airborne SAR images are relatively consistent. Through simulation experiments and analysis, the approach of this paper proposed has advantages over previous techniques. The experimental process is very detailed, although some minor problems and some experimental results need to be supplemented.
The paper can be improved in the following aspects:
Detailed comments:
1、In line 17, why does the method of this paper proposed need to be base on consistent with the systematic positioning error of the dual-view airborne SAR images? If it is not necessary, please supplement the experiment. If it is necessary, please explain the reason.
2、Lines 204 to 206 and line 227, it is suggested to simulate a traditional method, which can reflect the authenticity of the data in Table 2. To better demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method in achieving high-precision plane positioning of airborne SAR images.
3、In line 315, it is suggested to put the proposed method of this paper proposed behind the table and bold the data.
4、Lines 421 to 429, why does this paper not examine the impact of inconsistent position measurement errors of the aircraft on two distinct courses on the proposed algorithm? Please explain the reasons in this paper.
The authors are recommended to revise this manuscript and resubmit.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our item-to-item response to your comments is listed in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The notation of Eq. (2) is unusual. The derivation of H promised in Appendix A does not inserted. The Eq. (A2) is trivial consequence of (A1) but (A3) is the the same as (2). So origin of (2) remains unclear.
Please pay attention to spacing after commas in the text as well as other punktuation marks. The flow chart of positioning (Fig. 1) might be more readable (larger letters) - after all there is a lot of free space on the page.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our item-to-item response to your comments is listed in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper the authors suggested planar positioning method SAR image planar positioning
The paper is very well written and structured; my major concern is with what the authors are trying to show us and whether or not this can actually be used in practise.
For example in page 3, the authors’ claim is the following:
“this paper presents a new idea to derive the absolute
geographic position of an arbitrary pixel. The idea requires only the dual-view airborne
SAR images in the same observation area and at least a homologue point (Hp) in two
SAR images as input.”
What do the authors mean by that? Are the images captured in separate temporal times or taken in stereoscopy.
Unfortunately I cannot see as expected any geometry used throughout the entire article; all I see are arbitrary configurations, not even the preparation of a model.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our item-to-item response to your comments is listed in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript has been received. The parts of the manuscript that needs to be modified have been completed. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the manuscript at present. Therefore, I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Remote Sensing.
Reviewer 3 Report
I'd like to thank the authors for the improved version of the manuscript.
