A New Sensor System for Accurate 3D Surface Measurements and Modeling of Underwater Objects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a new underwater 3D scanning device with high accuracy at high moving velocity, which has great research significance and practical value. Some suggestions still need to be given：

1）There are several inconsistencies between the descriptions of the figures and the text, such as 2D in line 345 and 3D in line 360, 0.7 m/s in line 352 and 0.2m/s in line 369. Please check and make corrections.

2）It is recommended to describe the experimental conditions in Section 3.3 in detail, such as the distance to pipeline.

3）The highest moving velocity in the experimental data is 0.7m/s. How can it be proved that the velocity of the sensor is up to 1m/s?

4）Lines 406-409 in the Discussion Section describe the advantages of the presented 3D scanning device compared with the existing devices, and it is suggested to list some data to make the conclusions more convincing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the constructive hints and remarks.

I revised the manuscript according to the following issues:

• Language revision by a native speaker
• Resolution of the contradictions concerning velocities and 2D/3D formulation
• Completion of the experimental conditions in Section 3.3
• Inclusion of a statement concerning achievability of 1 m/s sensor velocity
• Insertion of a new table (Tab. 4) including data concerning measurement distance, measurement volume, and exposure time in comparison to former setups in cited papers
• Insertion of one paragraph in section 1 including the suggested references by reviewer #3

Additionally, I changed figs. 1, 2, and 3 because I used them in a different paper (Proceedings Oldenburger 3D-Tage 2022, in print) and I inserted a sentence concerning planned tests of the UWS in a compression chamber, in order to simulate application in 1000 m depth before the real offshore tests in section 4.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors obtained a new structured-light-based underwater 3D sensor mark  a milestone in the development of such sensor systems concerning the achievable measurement accuracy.

The results are consistent with what was proposed in the introduction. The article presents a good methodology, quite descriptive and illustrative

Author Response

I revised the manuscript according to the following issues:

• Language revision by a native speaker
• Resolution of the contradictions concerning velocities and 2D/3D formulation
• Completion of the experimental conditions in Section 3.3
• Inclusion of a statement concerning achievability of 1 m/s sensor velocity
• Insertion of a new table (Tab. 4) including data concerning measurement distance, measurement volume, and exposure time in comparison to former setups in cited papers
• Insertion of one paragraph in section 1 including the suggested references by reviewer #3

Additionally, I changed figs. 1, 2, and 3 because I used them in a different paper (Proceedings Oldenburger 3D-Tage 2022, in print) and I inserted a sentence concerning planned tests of the UWS in a compression chamber, in order to simulate application in 1000 m depth before the real offshore tests in section 4.

Reviewer 3 Report

I can say that the paper is extremely interesting and well done. It is clear in all its parts, clear in the definition of the aim that is reached through a positive series of experiments. These then follow a description of the experimental instrumentation and experimental set up which give strenght to the paper.

In my opinion the paper could be already published in this form. Anyway, the Collegues and the Editor can see that my overall evaluation of the paper is not the best, this is because my impression is that the Authors could have expanded every single sub-paragraph, which, in my opinion, almost always appears under-dimensioned compared to the overall value of the research. More tests as well as a more detailed explanation of single sub-parts of the measurement system (for example the calibrations) as well as a more didactic explanation of the implemented algorithms would make the paper more complete. 

Obviously, I fully realize that implementing other tests could be extremely long and incompatible with the timing of a scientific article as well as expanding sub-sections to make the paper more didactic goes against the professional nature of the same. Therefore, I leave the authors the freedom to decide if and how to intervene on the individual sections. I can suggest increasing the bibliographic references. In this regard, I agree to suggest three papers, two scientific and the Editorial which mentions them, which could be happily inserted in the introduction

 

1) Catalucci, S., Marsili, R., Moretti, M., Rossi, G. Point cloud processing techniques and image analysis comparisons for boat shapes measurements (2018) Acta IMEKO, 7 (2), pp. 39-44. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85050259228&doi=10.21014%2facta_imeko.v7i2.543&partnerID=40&md5=eb505463d3b3e04acbe26884852e64db DOI: 10.21014/acta_imeko.v7i2.543
2) Gaglianone, G., Crognale, J., Esposito, C. Investigating submerged morphologies by means of the low-budget “GeoDive” method (high resolution for detailed 3D reconstruction and related measurements) (2018) Acta IMEKO, 7 (2), pp. 50-59. Cited 2 times. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85050262454&doi=10.21014%2facta_imeko.v7i2.546&partnerID=40&md5=adaf401d9e66343cfac46c1702897f13 DOI: 10.21014/acta_imeko.v7i2.546
3) Leccese, F. Editorial to selected papers from the 1st IMEKO TC19 Workshop on METROLOGY FOR THE SEA (2018) Acta IMEKO, 7 (2), pp. 1-2. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85050262162&doi=10.21014%2facta_imeko.v7i2.611&partnerID=40&md5=34b4117ca1ae71c5ab17a5116ef87f65 DOI: 10.21014/acta_imeko.v7i2.611

Author Response

Thank you very much for the constructive hints and remarks.

I revised the manuscript according to the following issues:

• Language revision by a native speaker
• Resolution of the contradictions concerning velocities and 2D/3D formulation
• Completion of the experimental conditions in Section 3.3
• Inclusion of a statement concerning achievability of 1 m/s sensor velocity
• Insertion of a new table (Tab. 4) including data concerning measurement distance, measurement volume, and exposure time in comparison to former setups in cited papers
• Insertion of one paragraph in section 1 including the suggested references by reviewer #3

Additionally, I changed figs. 1, 2, and 3 because I used them in a different paper (Proceedings Oldenburger 3D-Tage 2022, in print) and I inserted a sentence concerning planned tests of the UWS in a compression chamber, in order to simulate application in 1000 m depth before the real offshore tests in section 4.

Dear reviewer #3, according to your desired expansion of every single sub-paragraph concerning more didactic explanation of the implemented algorithms, you are, unfortunately, right. It is very few time for finding felicitous wordings, because I should finish my revision within five days. However, I refer to the cited papers ([39,40,46] of the original and [42,43,49] of the revised version), where some of the algorithms are explained more detailed.