Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement Using Image Fusion with Rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet Domain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-2103646
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain
Authors: C Rama Mohan 1, *, S Kiran 2 and Vasudeva 3
Respected Sir,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revised draft of our manuscript titled “Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to provide your valuable feedback for our manuscript. We are grateful for in-depth comments on our work. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by reviewer. We are herewith highlighting the changes within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript namely, Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy 3 Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain has a good focus on methodology and experimental procedures. It is well organised and written.
However, there are few corrections need to be addressed.
· The acronyms should be given in detail form when it is presented in first time. There are several terms that presented suddenly without any detailed form throughout the manuscript.
Eg:GLCM, MIF, NSST, YIQ, GMRF, GRF, MR………
Authors should carefully replace the acronyms with their detailed form when they come first time.
· The sentence starts from lines 62-66 is inappropriate for this paragraph.
· Introduction section should be restructured to reflect the research.
· Spelling errors and typos should be carefully addressed.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-2103646
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain
Authors: C Rama Mohan 1, *, S Kiran 2 and Vasudeva 3
Respected Sir,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revised draft of our manuscript titled “Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to provide your valuable feedback for our manuscript. We are grateful for in-depth comments on our work. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by reviewer. We are herewith highlighting the changes within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have several concerns on this paper:
- On the Table 2, there are five baselines was given, but three of them are from the author of the reviewing paper. So it's a lack of objectivity in the comparison in the experiments. Please add some recently method as baselines to do comparision.
- On the Table 2, the baselines: Moushmi e al [18] and Li et al [20] are lack of numerous results in term RMSE and PSNR, please consider to replace them with others to show the results while doing the benchmark.
- Starting from Table 3, PA-DCPCNN is showed as baseline but it wasn't mentioned as baseline in Table 2. Please consider add PA-DCPCNN as baseline in Table 2
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-2103646
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain
Authors: C Rama Mohan 1, *, S Kiran 2 and Vasudeva 3
Respected Sir,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revised draft of our manuscript titled “Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to provide your valuable feedback for our manuscript. We are grateful for in-depth comments on our work. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by reviewer. We are herewith highlighting the changes within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Introduction: Recheck all the acronyms used in this paper. The first introduction of the acronyms shall be provided by their full name. For example, Grey Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), MIF, SPZM, LTFS etc. State your problem statement and the objective of your study clearly at the end of the introduction. The literature review on multi-focus problems, the existing texture energy methods, (as stated in the title of the paper), and the gap that exists between the existing and proposed fusion methods are lacking.
Referencing: Please check the referencing system. Usually, we did not put the first name, only the last name of the author. After the author's name add in a number of the reference eg/ Ganasala et al. [14]. The listing appears in the sequence of the list of references.
Table: Please maintain the font size in the table to look uniform across all
Line64- rephrase the sentence
Line 95-109- Please put the caption table here and introduce this as a Table in para before.
Line 66- ‘This’ refers to which method? In general, avoid starting a sentence with ‘This’. There is no strong connection between sentences and leads confusion to for readers
Line 70- Again usage of this and not referring to any methods.
Line 123: Hear LL or here, LL?
Line 225- subheading 2.4- Perhaps the writer could rephrase this para by introducing the methods of evaluation using only the words “quantitative” and “qualitative” measures for easier understanding. If only quantitative measures were used, then you can combine subheading 2.4 and 2.5.
Line 232-233- did u use both quantitative methods in this paper? If so, please put a statement there.
Line 261- State the analysis parameters in the methodology section. Not in the result section. Furthermore, there is no introduction about the parameters for evaluation.
Subchapter 3.1 – 3.9- Lack of critical discussion of the results when the author compares the existing literature method and the proposed method. The author only bold the results in the Table and stated outcome is superior or inferior to the other works of literature. What is the actual subjective final image that readers should focus on when comparing all 4 images presented in Figure 3 to figure 8? Which parameters influenced the most? How can you conclude the quantitative measure that reflected the output? Perhaps all this discussion can be discussed at the end of the comparison of all the multi-focus images.
The title of the subheading 3.1-3.9 can be improved to a better title that specified the output of the results. For example Comparison of clock image fusion with the literature.(can be modified to a clearer and good title)
Line 501- will be evaluated?
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-2103646
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain
Authors: C Rama Mohan 1, *, S Kiran 2 and Vasudeva 3
Respected Sir,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revised draft of our manuscript titled “Improved Procedure for Multi-Focus Image Quality Enhancement using Image Fusion with rules of Texture Energy Measures in the Hybrid Wavelet domain”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to provide your valuable feedback for our manuscript. We are grateful for in-depth comments on our work. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by reviewer. We are herewith highlighting the changes within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
