Two-Dimensional Shape Analysis of Complex Geometry Based on Photogrammetric Models of Iconostases
, Ratko Obradović 1, Ivana Vasiljević 1,*, Nebojša Ralević 1 and Vesna Stojaković 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposes a useful method to trace the shape of the iconostasis mode with irregular shape.
Comments:
1) In most figures, the numbers on the color bars are too small to read. It is better to make it visible by increasing the number of digits and reducing the number of graduations.
2) The operator * in an equation should be “×" if it is multiplication. "*" is often considered to have other meanings.
3) Eq. (5) is unclear. I think the operator % often means the remainder of the division.
If it means 20% of "(pixel number (width) * GDS", it is better to write it correctly as a mathematical formula.
4) The yellow outline in Figs. 13 (b) and (c) is confusing and should be deleted.
5) Minor typo:
l. 838: A (El (S) is correctly A (El (S)).
6) The function "()" is written in italics in the text, so it is better to correct it.
Ex) l. 770: R (S), l. 773: El (S), etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find my comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors describe a method that aims to numerically describe the visually obvious stylistic features of the forms of the main parts of the iconostasis, as well as those that are less obvious. However, I can't find in the paper new elements compared to what is present in the literature. This aspect is reflected in the outdated and not (always) appropriate citations referenced by the authors. In addition, the current form of the paper seems closer to a technical note than a scientific paper. For this reason, I suggest the authors make a strong revision of the paper taking into account current developments in cultural heritage digitization.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall comments
The recent version of the manuscript is slightly improved over the previous one. Some aspects regarding the innovative methodological aspects proposed by the authors can be better clarified. One aspect that requires further effort by the authors concerns the (incorrect) use of references. Very often, the authors have cited obsolete articles; in other words, the use of updated references is desirable to highlight the contribution of the work done in the scientific panorama. In other parts of the manuscript, however, the references are duplicated and make it difficult to read the paper. Below, you can found some minor revisions.
Minor comments
Line 45 I suggest to replace the verb ‘seen’ by ‘appreciated’
Line 47 it is necessary to rewritten better the sentence ‘In the context of church heritage, iconostasis represents a unique element that can be seen only in the Eastern Orthodox church heritage’ because it is not clear
Line 93 It is necessary to specify the acronym of CAD
Line 162 I suggest to leave only the reference n.18. because it is quite recent and delete the others. The next sentence begins with the adverb 'recently' but in fact the bibliographic reference is rather obsolete (more than 10 years). Therefore, I suggest deleting this last sentence
Line 165 Here, I suggest adding a reference that discusses TLS surveying in churches or cultural heritage sites, such as, doi.org/10.3390/app10155377
Line 186 I suggest to delete the sentence ‘Compared … ‘
Line 204 I suggest adding more recent references near the word GIS, such as: doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.05.006; doi.org/10.3390/app11052101
Line 205 I suggest to delete the reference n.34 because the paper does not discuss about H-BIM
Line 211 Please check if the interval of the reference 34-47 is correct; could it be 44-47?
Line 250 I suggest to remove the references already mentioned in order to improve the reading fluency
Line 252-258 I suggest to remove the references already mentioned
Line 413-417 I suggest to remove the references already mentioned in order to improve the reading fluency
Line 477 I suggest to remove the references already mentioned (see line 345)
Line 549 The authors can show the difference between the real distance and the distance obtained on the model
Line 679 I suggest to remove the references already mentioned
Line 1262 In the reference 44, 45, 46 and 47 appear a strange sentence ‘Copernicus Publications: Göttingen, Germany, 1994’. Please check
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The effort of the authors in improving the manuscript was remarkable and appreciable. I am pleased that the authors have followed my suggestions. Therefore, I have no further suggestions or recommendations.
