Photogrammetric Precise Surveying Based on the Adjusted 3D Control Linear Network Deployed on a Measured Object

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

applsci-1644629-peer-review-v1

 

The manuscript “Photogrammetric Precise Surveying Based on the Adjusted 3D Control Linear Network Deployed on a Measured Object” addresses an interesting topic, which adhere to Applied Sciences journal policies, but the overall presentation, results as well as the novelty need improvements.

 

The manuscript tackles an interesting topic, related to precise surveying based on close range photogrammetry, and based on the manuscript the field experience of the authors as land surveyors and photogrammetry is genuine. Improvements recommended:

 

• Additional improvement to the M&M part, the tape and software used; why only 2 images were chosen in the case study (the photogrammetric 3D model does not have the back side)
• Improvements at the Introduction chapter, as there is quite allot of repetition between the ideas
• The results are not fully presented. The values of the dimensions measured versus the dimensions derived form photogrammetry could be presented in some tables
• Also, the photogrammetric 3D model is never presented in a figure
• “The authors used the self-developed software …” it would be interesting to present this software and why you did not choose the more popular software solutions on the market
• R151 “points P (XP, XP, XP) and Q (XQ, XQ, XQ)” I think you mean P (XP, YP, ZP) and Q (XQ, YQ, ZQ)
• The overall novelty and importance should be expanded/improved. While the formulas presented are complex, they are commonly used from student level Photogrammetry classes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, an inexpensive stereo vision system using a commercially available camera is used to capture images of objects for which distances between feature points are available, and a method is proposed for obtaining 3D position information in real space at arbitrary locations from the images obtained.

About the Results
The measurement error of 1 mm by the proposed method is as good as that by a ruler, but it is not as good as that by a ruler.
The number of tests is one, which we consider insufficient to support the validity of the method.
We believe that the results of measurement on multiple images taken of the same object are necessary.

Expression in the body
It is very difficult to understand the contents of the paper due to the fluctuating fonts and typefaces of variables used in the text, figures and tables. Please unify fonts and typefaces.

In addition to the above, please improve the following.

Line 114
> h is the object's approximate height.
It is not clear from where h represents the distance on Fig. 1.
It would be better to specify the height from the floor to the top of the desk.

Line 151
> P (XP, XP, XP) and Q (XQ, XQ, XQ)
Line 185
>projected point P; Y0, Y0, Z0 are
Please correct what appears to be a typographical error.
This is all I have noticed, but please check for other similar errors and correct them.

Line 238
> points A and B on the object are equal to zero. 
Please add a unit to zero.

Line 245
> equal to 1 mm. 245
A measurement error of 1 mm between line CDs is approximately 0.11% of the actual distance.
Wouldn't this method increase the error as the actual distance increases?
Therefore, please consider whether it is appropriate to express errors as percentages rather than absolute values.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed some of the reviewers' reservations. The changes to the article are beneficial.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for responding to my questions and for revising the paper.
I understand the main points to be discussed in this paper.

I have no additional comments.