An RGB Pseudo-Colorization Method for Filtering of Multi-Source Graphical Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Conclusions in this article, could be augmented majored in terms of the effectiveness of the proposed method and verified in experimental results, and the comparison of experimental results could be shows that the proposed model is superior to various kinds of the obtained values of the modified ???? in the sense  that the proposed pseudo-colorization method based on the quadratic function and the values of the weights  (a, b and g ) give better results than the exponential.

In tables 1a and 1b. Parameters of the exponential function ?(?) and the quadratic function ?(?) f, Comparison of experimental effects; could be more detailed because the data are very small and the tables are very well and corrected; N/A is not defined in the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for providing the detailed and constructive review for our paper which allowed to increase a scientific level of this paper. We tried to reply for each point mentioned in the review. Our corrections were highlighted in manuscript by blue and red colours. We hope that the new version of our manuscript looks better and meets your requirements.

Here we’d like to reply for each point mentioned in the review:

1. The Conclusions in this article, could be augmented majored in terms of the effectiveness of the proposed method and verified in experimental results, and the comparison of experimental results could be shows that the proposed model is superior to various kinds of the obtained values of the modified ???? in the sense that the proposed pseudo-colorization method based on the quadratic function and the values of the weights  (a, b and g ) give better results than the exponential.

Thank you for your suggestion. Of course you are right.

Conclusions was majored in terms of the effectiveness of the proposed method.

As mentioned, the analyzes carried out were based on six images with different graphic structures. Modified SSIM values were calculated for each analyzed image (the entire image and its fragment) subjected to the pseudo-colorization process based on exponential and quadratic functions. The obtained  values clearly indicate the superiority of pseudo-colorization with a quadratic function over an exponential function (and thus the effectiveness of image filtration) for image fragments containing important data from the point of view of electromagnetic infiltration. The  values are 74.1662 and 90.7066 (Figure 9a), 53.6008 and 53.6008 (Figure 10a), 107.3398 and 110.7675 (Figure 11a), 90.6850 and 93.4778 (Figure 12a), 57.5672 and 63.0758 (Figure 13a) and 31.2217 and 32.1216 (Figure 14a), for the exponential and quadratic functions, respectively. The results of the analysis of whole images depend on the graphic content, which does not constitute information about the processed data. Most often, these are interferences related to the operation of graphic channels, i.e. they are signals correlated with signals related to data display parameters on graphic displays.

2. In tables 1a and 1b. Parameters of the exponential function ?(?) and the quadratic function ?(?) f, Comparison of experimental effects; could be more detailed because the data are very small and the tables are very well and corrected; N/A is not defined in the article.

We explained small values of parameter F and also N/A. These explanations are placed below each tables. Additionally we changed the number of these tables according to other reviewer’s requirements.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a study on the Filtering of multi-source graphic data. The manuscript has many remarkable issues that need to be fixed in terms of length, sections’ contents, etc.

 

1. Title and Abstract:

1.1 The title was not written properly. I suggest the authors modify the title and include the object, the domain, and the methodology of the study.

1.2 It should introduce the background, gap, methodology, results, and value of the research which are written in a messed way.

More than 12 lines are used to only describe the background and the research gap, and this is too long.

The methodology, results, and value of the research are less introduced in the abstract.

1.3 In addition, there are some academic writing errors such as “its task is”, “This may”, etc. It’s recommended to use indirect writing way instead.

I advise rewriting the abstract carefully.

 

2. Keywords are a lot; I suggest the authors include almost six keywords. Only choose the main keywords that can be selected from the title and the abstract.

 

3. Introduction

3.1 I suggest the authors exclude the literature review details and put them in the next section. The introduction section instead should include the significance of the study, the main existing issues the authors will solve, the proposed methodology in short, the main contributions, and the structure of the manuscript.

3.2 The authors shouldn’t list the citation in such a way [1-4]. It looks like only adding references without describing the values added by these researchers to this study.

3.2 Can you elaborate on the specific challenges or issues in the existing method for Filtering multi-source graphic data that prompted the need for a new approach?

3.3 I suggest the authors rename the next section “State of the art and practical solutions” into “Related work” list the main literature review and then provide a comprehensive discussion of the current state of research. Please provide additional insights.

3.4 The main contributions of the manuscript are not mentioned clearly.

3.5 It is recommended to add a paragraph describing the structure of the manuscript in the following sections.

 

4. Section 1 and Section 2 which deal with related reviews, should not be overly detailed that much. Please simplify the sections.

 

5. methodology 

5.1 The proposed methodology is not well introduced in section 4. Please check it and revise it.

5.2 variables in equations (1)-(15) weren’t described well and the variables weren’t interpreted clearly. Therefore, readers will find it very hard to follow the authors’ ideas. Please rewrite the description of the equations.

5.3 The content of Figure 4, should be redrawn as it becomes difficult to understand the meaning of such variables and details mentioned in the figure. I suggest the authors simplify the content of Figure 4 and write the description in the following text.

5.4  Could you provide more insight into the specific dataset used for experimentation? What were some of the key attributes and characteristics of this dataset?

 

6. Experiments and results

6.1 The title of the “Conditions of the carried out analysis” section is not perfect; I suggest changing it to “Experiment Settings” in terms of describing the details of the experiment.

6.2 Figures 9-14 and their captions should be revised. The figures are not clear and the length of the captions ‘content is long. Please simplify it.

6.3 In line 478, the authors mentioned that there are several methods utilized in their study, what are the benefits of using them? How are these methods used?

6.4 Tables are presented in a way that may make the readers feel confused. It is suggested to separate the tables and provide descriptions for the contents of the tables.

6.5 Table number should be Table 1, Table 2, etc., instead of Table 1. a, Table 1. b, etc.

6.6 Column names should be simplified. (see Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, etc.) 

6.7 Is there any comparison among your methodology and the state-of-the-art methods?

 

7. Conclusions

7.1 The conclusion hasn’t summarized the content of the manuscript well.

7.2 variables such as x1k, x2k,??, ??, CE, CK, etc. should not be written in this section.

7.3 What are some potential extensions or future research directions that could build upon this work to further enhance Filtering of multi-source graphic data or address related challenges?

I advise rewriting the Conclusions carefully.

 

8. References

There are many old references, such as ref 1, 2, 3, 27

 

9. English writing and grammar

The authors should check and considerably improve the writing of various parts of the text.

 

10. The length of the manuscript is long (35 pages). It is better to reduce the manuscript length without making many influences on the quality of the manuscript.

 

In summary, for the sake of making the article's content more understandable for readers, the article should be revised. Sections should be rewritten well to improve the content and the quality of the article.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should check and considerably improve the writing of various parts of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for providing the detailed and constructive review for our paper which allowed to increase a scientific level of this paper. We tried to reply for each point mentioned in the review. Our corrections were highlighted in manuscript by blue and red colours. We hope that the new version of our manuscript looks better and meets your requirements.

It is difficult to mention the changes introduced here. All changes are marked in blue and red in the article. If we can please look at these changes directly in the body of the article.

Here we’d like to reply for each point mentioned in the review:

1.Title and Abstract:

1.1. The title was not written properly. I suggest the authors modify the title and include the object, the domain, and the methodology of the study.

1.2. It should introduce the background, gap, methodology, results, and value of the research which are written in a messed way.

More than 12 lines are used to only describe the background and the research gap, and this is too long.

The methodology, results, and value of the research are less introduced in the abstract.

1.3. In addition, there are some academic writing errors such as “its task is”, “This may”, etc. It’s recommended to use indirect writing way instead.

I advise rewriting the abstract carefully.

We changed the title. Now the title sounds:

The RGB pseudo-colorization as a method of filtering of multi-source graphic data contained in an image reconstructed from leaked electromagnetic waves

You were right. The earlier title didn’t represent exactly the content of this paper.

Abstract. The part of our paper was rewritten. New version of the abstract includes details which apply to:

It is designed to draw the observer's attention to the important details of the analyzed image (e.g. disease changes in medical imaging).

The article proposes a method of filtering an image based on pseudo-colorization of its content, i.e. reproduction of an compromising emanation signal level in the RGB value of image pixel color components in accordance with a properly adopted function. The higher effectiveness of the method based on the use of a square function (compared to the interpretation function) was shown by conducting tests on many images, some of which are presented in the article.

2. Keywords are a lot; I suggest the authors include almost six keywords. Only choose the main keywords that can be selected from the title and the abstract.

Thank you. Of course the keywords are very numerous. Now we limited number of keywords to six.

3 Introduction

3.1 I suggest the authors exclude the literature review details and put them in the next section. The introduction section instead should include the significance of the study, the main existing issues the authors will solve, the proposed methodology in short, the main contributions, and the structure of the manuscript.

3.2 The authors shouldn’t list the citation in such a way [1-4]. It looks like only adding references without describing the values added by these researchers to this study.

3.2 Can you elaborate on the specific challenges or issues in the existing method for Filtering multi-source graphic data that prompted the need for a new approach?

3.3 I suggest the authors rename the next section “State of the art and practical solutions” into “Related work” list the main literature review and then provide a comprehensive discussion of the current state of research. Please provide additional insights.

3.4 The main contributions of the manuscript are not mentioned clearly.

3.5 It is recommended to add a paragraph describing the structure of the manuscript in the following sections.

We agree with your opinion. According to your suggestion, we revised the manuscript from the abstract to the conclusions. We changed the structure of our paper.

Introduction includes several corrections and we added description of structure of the paper.

4. Section 1 and Section 2 which deal with related reviews, should not be overly detailed that much. Please simplify the sections.

We corrected these sections according your remarks from 3.2 point. All references are mentioned separately. Therefore we had to completed the text of Introduction section. Taking into account above it is difficult to simplify the section now. That is why we left the section which was corrected according to point 3.2. Please understand us.

5. Methodology 

5.1 The proposed methodology is not well introduced in section 4. Please check it and revise it.

5.2 variables in equations (1)-(15) weren’t described well and the variables weren’t interpreted clearly. Therefore, readers will find it very hard to follow the authors’ ideas. Please rewrite the description of the equations.

5.3 The content of Figure 4, should be redrawn as it becomes difficult to understand the meaning of such variables and details mentioned in the figure. I suggest the authors simplify the content of Figure 4 and write the description in the following text.

5.4  Could you provide more insight into the specific dataset used for experimentation? What were some of the key attributes and characteristics of this dataset?

We have improved the explanation of the proposed methodology. Specifically, we added the following texts in the article to better explain our approach to the pseudo-colorization method.

As mentioned, compromising emanations signals resulting from the operation of imaging systems are generated by many mutually interfering sources. These signals, which are both video and control signals, radiate at similar frequencies and cover similar bands. For this reason, the use of classical signal filtering methods in the frequency domain may significantly distort the information content of the images reproduced from them. Therefore, it seems that it is more useful to use spatial filtration methods that enable the elimination of irrelevant or unnecessary elements of the reconstructed image that disturb the perception of the information contained in it. These methods are based on the analysis of the statistical properties of the image pixel set. However, classic contextual methods leave the final image in a color space corresponding to shades of gray, and therefore have a limited impact on the human sense of sight. It seems beneficial to transfer them to a color space built taking into account the properties of the human eye and thus highlight their important content.

The pseudo-colorization method proposed by the authors is used primarily in the area of obtaining graphic data reconstructed on the basis of recorded electromagnetic compromising emanations. This is an area in which the reproduced data in the form of images is accompanied by various types of interference, causing difficulties in reading or searching for important data. Nevertheless, the method can be used in other areas of image analysis where it is necessary to sharpen graphical information from many data. This includes, among others: medical images, images of the earth and others, which in their original form appear in shades of gray. The presented pseudo-colorization algorithm allows full manipulation of RGB color values. This means that, depending on the needs, certain pixel amplitude values can be exposed and others suppressed, and the image is transformed into the RGB color space, increasing the perception of the data contained in it. Available image colorization methods are based on pre-defined RGB color palettes (e.g. Hot, Radar, Spring [38]), for which it is only possible to change the width of the range of individual colors in a given palette. The analysis results presented in [38] showed that this solution is not effective when trying to increase the level of perceptibility of graphic data or filtering it.

Additionally we described algorithm (Figure 4) to better explain our method .

The algorithm presented in Figure 4 begins with determining the parameters of the exponential function, the effectiveness of which in the pseudo-coloring process was demonstrated in [38]. Parameters , , ,  and  for each RGB channel place three runs of the  function on the grayscale image pixel amplitude value axis (horizontal axis), which allow pseudo-colorization of the analyzed image by transforming the pixel amplitude values input image to color image. Since the problem considered in the article concerns the connection of pseudo-coloring with the filtration of graphic data contained in the image, a quadratic function was proposed as a function of transforming the amplitude values of image pixels in the gray scale into the RGB color space. For this function, parameters must also be determined as for the exponential function, determining its shape and position on the axis of the image pixel amplitude values on the gray scale. Since the character of the image after pseudo-coloring using the exponential function should be preserved (image coloring), the appropriate parameters of the quadratic function ( and ) should be related to the corresponding parameters of the exponential function ( and ,). Taking into account the shape of the quadratic function, the values of these parameters should not be equal (Figure 4), because the colors of the image will change significantly. The remaining parameters ,  and  of the quadratic transformation function should be equal to the parameter values as for the exponential function, i.e. ,  and . For the conditions adopted in this way, the next stage of the algorithm determines the value of the average deviation  for  in accordance with the relationship (13), i.e. for the case when  and  (Figure 4). This is the initial value to which the value of  calculated for () is compared. Increasing the m parameter by “1” increments reduces the range of the function, i.e.  and . Then the formula (16) is checked (the formula is placed in the text of manuscript). If formula (16) is not met, the average deviation is calculated iteratively until condition (16) is met. The value of m for which formula (16) is met clearly determines  and  and thus the width of the interval (the range of the quadratic function) . It should be noted that the process of determining the  value must be carried out three times, i.e. for each R, G and B channel separately.

Below equations (1)-(15) we better described variables. It is very important to understand our method and we thank you for your remark.

If you would allow us, we would leave Figure 4. A graphical representation is better for understanding the method, taking into account the additional description provided.

6. Experiments and results

6.1 The title of the “Conditions of the carried out analysis” section is not perfect; I suggest changing it to “Experiment Settings” in terms of describing the details of the experiment.

6.2 Figures 9-14 and their captions should be revised. The figures are not clear and the length of the captions ‘content is long. Please simplify it.

6.3 In line 478, the authors mentioned that there are several methods utilized in their study, what are the benefits of using them? How are these methods used?

6.4 Tables are presented in a way that may make the readers feel confused. It is suggested to separate the tables and provide descriptions for the contents of the tables.

6.5 Table number should be Table 1, Table 2, etc., instead of Table 1. a, Table 1. b, etc.

6.6 Column names should be simplified. (see Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, etc.) 

6.7 Is there any comparison among your methodology and the state-of-the-art methods?

Thank you for you suggestions. These suggestions are very important to increase the scientific level of this manuscript. We changed:

1. The title of section “Conditions of the carried out analyses”. Now the title of this section sounds “Experiment Settings”. Detailes of the experiment were described in this section.
2. The figures 9-14 were described in the text. All captions of these figures were revised.
3. Methods which are used to improve a quality of images and which were mentioned in this paper were explained.
4. The Table 2 (now Table 4) was redrawn and the reading of these tables is better.
5. Numbers of tables (1a, 1b and 1c) were corrected.
6. Column names were simplified.
7. Proposed method was compared to the method described in [38].

The pseudo-colorization method proposed by the authors is used primarily in the area of obtaining graphic data reconstructed on the basis of recorded electromagnetic compromising emanations. This is an area in which the reproduced data in the form of images is accompanied by various types of interference, causing difficulties in reading or searching for important data. Nevertheless, the method can be used in other areas of image analysis where it is necessary to sharpen graphical information from many data. This includes, among others: medical images, images of the earth and others, which in their original form appear in shades of gray. The presented pseudo-colorization algorithm allows full manipulation of RGB color values. This means that, depending on the needs, certain pixel amplitude values can be exposed and others suppressed, and the image is transformed into the RGB color space, increasing the perception of the data contained in it. Available image colorization methods are based on pre-defined RGB color palettes (e.g. Hot, Radar, Spring [38]), for which it is only possible to change the width of the range of individual colors in a given palette. The analysis results presented in [38] showed that this solution is not effective when trying to increase the level of perceptibility of graphic data or filtering it.

7. Conclusions

7.1 The conclusion hasn’t summarized the content of the manuscript well.

7.2 variables such as x1k, x2k,??, ??, CE, CK, etc. should not be written in this section.

7.3 What are some potential extensions or future research directions that could build upon this work to further enhance Filtering of multi-source graphic data or address related challenges?

I advise rewriting the Conclusions carefully.

Conclusions was rewritten.

All suggested variables were removed from the text.

We added the text below:

As mentioned, the analyzes carried out were based on six images with different graphic structures. Modified SSIM values were calculated for each analyzed image (the entire image and its fragment) subjected to the pseudo-colorization process based on exponential and quadratic functions. The obtained  values clearly indicate the superiority of pseudo-colorization with a quadratic function over an exponential function (and thus the effectiveness of image filtration) for image fragments containing important data from the point of view of electromagnetic infiltration. The  values are 74.1662 and 90.7066 (Figure 9a), 53.6008 and 53.6008 (Figure 10a), 107.3398 and 110.7675 (Figure 11a), 90.6850 and 93.4778 (Figure 12a), 57.5672 and 63.0758 (Figure 13a) and 31.2217 and 32.1216 (Figure 14a), for the exponential and quadratic functions, respectively. The results of the analysis of whole images depend on the graphic content, which does not constitute information about the processed data. Most often, these are interferences related to the operation of graphic channels, i.e. they are signals correlated with signals related to data display parameters on graphic displays.

Dear Reviewer. Conclusion includes future researches directions in last paragraph of this section.

8. References

There are many old references, such as ref 1, 2, 3, 27

We are aware that some of the literature references are items published quite a long time ago. We do not want to claim that they are canonical for a given area of knowledge, but in our opinion, reading them may be an interesting supplement to it. We hope that our article will arouse interest not only of specialists with deep and well-established knowledge of broadly understood aspects of information security, but also of people who are just discovering this area.

9. English writing and grammar

The authors should check and considerably improve the writing of various parts of the text.

In addition to the above comments, we conducted extensive editing of English language and style. We realize that, despite all our efforts, this article may not be language and style error-free. Therefore, the final version, after possible acceptance, will be corrected by the proofreading service in the MDPI.

10. The length of the manuscript is long (35 pages). It is better to reduce the manuscript length without making many influences on the quality of the manuscript.

Indeed, the volume of the article is quite large and we admit that we also considered limiting it. However, this size results from the inclusion of many tables containing the results of appropriate calculations and images, the presence of which, in our opinion, is important for understanding both the idea of the solution and its effectiveness.

If you allow us to keep the article this length, we will be very grateful.

In summary, for the sake of making the article's content more understandable for readers, the article should be revised. Sections should be rewritten well to improve the content and the quality of the article.

 

Thank you again for your remarks. We corrected paper and explained a lot of questions. We hope that our corrections, explanations and completions will meet your requirements.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is interesting because it deals with the improvement of images obtained by sensors with artificial coloring. In fact, through this method it is possible to observe more details of the image such as diseases. This article proposes an image filtering method based on the pseudo-coloring of its content by modeling the color of pixels using a quad-ratio function to describe RGB channel values. 

The article must be improved before being published:

- the introduction must include a single chapter, so that Chapter 2 should be incorporated into the introduction;

-It is not clear where the materials and methods begin (probably from Chapter 3). We ask you to divide the article into: Introduction, M&M, Results and discussion and Conclusions.

- Explain the proposed methodology better in M&M and whether it is better than the others used and, if so, why.

-The parts of the results and discussion have to be rewritten completely. The results are too meagre. Looks like a roundup of images without a description. Threads are missing. Asks you to rewrite both paragraphs.

-The conclusions are sufficient.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for providing the detailed and constructive review for our paper which allowed to increase a scientific level of this paper. We tried to reply for each point mentioned in the review. Our corrections were highlighted in manuscript by blue and red colours. We hope that the new version of our manuscript looks better and meets your requirements.

Here we’d like to reply for each point mentioned in the review.

1. The introduction must include a single chapter, so that Chapter 2 should be incorporated into the introduction; It is not clear where the materials and methods begin (probably from Chapter 3). We ask you to divide the article into: Introduction, M&M, Results and discussion and Conclusions.

We agree with your opinion. According to your suggestion, we revised the manuscript from the abstract to the conclusions. We changed the structure of our paper.

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Form of Graphic Filter

2.2. Experiment Settings

2.2.1. Test images and test system configuration

2.2.2. Measure and criterion for assessing image filtration

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Input Data of Analyses

3.2. Output Data of Analyses

4. Conclusions

2. Explain the proposed methodology better in M&M and whether it is better than the others used and, if so, why.

We have improved the explanation of the proposed methodology. Specifically, we added the following texts in the article to better explain our approach to the pseudo-colorization method.

As mentioned, compromising emanations signals resulting from the operation of imaging systems are generated by many mutually interfering sources. These signals, which are both video and control signals, radiate at similar frequencies and cover similar bands. For this reason, the use of classical signal filtering methods in the frequency domain may significantly distort the information content of the images reproduced from them. Therefore, it seems that it is more useful to use spatial filtration methods that enable the elimination of irrelevant or unnecessary elements of the reconstructed image that disturb the perception of the information contained in it. These methods are based on the analysis of the statistical properties of the image pixel set. However, classic contextual methods leave the final image in a color space corresponding to shades of gray, and therefore have a limited impact on the human sense of sight. It seems beneficial to transfer them to a color space built taking into account the properties of the human eye and thus highlight their important content.

The pseudo-colorization method proposed by the authors is used primarily in the area of obtaining graphic data reconstructed on the basis of recorded electromagnetic compromising emanations. This is an area in which the reproduced data in the form of images is accompanied by various types of interference, causing difficulties in reading or searching for important data. Nevertheless, the method can be used in other areas of image analysis where it is necessary to sharpen graphical information from many data. This includes, among others: medical images, images of the earth and others, which in their original form appear in shades of gray. The presented pseudo-colorization algorithm allows full manipulation of RGB color values. This means that, depending on the needs, certain pixel amplitude values can be exposed and others suppressed, and the image is transformed into the RGB color space, increasing the perception of the data contained in it. Available image colorization methods are based on pre-defined RGB color palettes (e.g. Hot, Radar, Spring [38]), for which it is only possible to change the width of the range of individual colors in a given palette. The analysis results presented in [38] showed that this solution is not effective when trying to increase the level of perceptibility of graphic data or filtering it.

3. The parts of the results and discussion have to be rewritten completely. The results are too meagre. Looks like a roundup of images without a description. Threads are missing. Asks you to rewrite both paragraphs.

We have tried to expand on the part of the manuscript that deals in particular with the results and discussions. We have described all analysed images and obtained results. Now we hope the part of this paper sounds better and it will be more intelligible for potential readers.

Below are exemplary texts which were placed in 3.2. Output Data Analyses chapter.

Figure 22 shows images corresponding to the image in Figure 9a after pseudo-coloring based on exponential and quadratic functions. The values of the  parameter for this image are included in Table 5. When performing visual analysis, it is difficult to assess which of the pseudo-coloring functions is more effective. Certainly, the use of each function results in obtaining an image with a higher level of perception and filtering out interference. The analyzed image is an example of an image in which the presence of graphics unrelated to information useful from the point of view of electromagnetic infiltration has a significant impact on the values of the  parameter, determining the superiority of the quadratic function over the exponential one. However, the appropriate limitation of the area of the analyzed image (Figure 15) shows that the choice of the quadratic function is correct and the difference in the value of the  parameter is greater than 16.

The next analyzed image was the one shown in Figure 10a. Similarly to the image in Figure 9a, it was subjected to the transformations listed in Table 6. As a result of pseudo-coloring, the images shown in Figure 24 were obtained.  values calculated for both the entire image and its fragment are higher for the quadratic function than for the exponential function. It should also be noted that for the image fragment the values obtained (for both the quadratic and exponential functions) are more than twice as large. This proves the higher structural similarity of the image to the pattern.

4. The conclusions are sufficient.

Thank you for the opinion.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a study for filtering multi-source graphic data. The manuscript still has some issues that need to be fixed in terms of length, academic writing, and content as well.

 

1. Title

The title is written in an imperfect way. It is longer than usual and not precise. The authors need to use minimum and more accurate words when giving a title for the manuscript such as” An RGB pseudo-colorization method for filtering multi-source graphical data”.

 

2. Abstract:

The abstract is still not written well. There is a need to focus on introducing the background, gap, methodology, results, and value of the research.

I advise rewriting the abstract carefully.

 

3. Introduction

Some issues should be considered in this section.

3.1 The main existing issues the authors will solve, the proposed methodology, in short, the main contributions.

3.2 Can the authors simplify the content of this section; it is more than five pages.

 

4. Materials and Methods

4.1 The methodology is not clearly described, and the novelty needs to be presented in a better way.

4.2 Figure 8 (a-l), and other figures, can be put together to reduce the space they take (using tools such as Office Visio), and its caption’s content can be simplified as well.

 

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 As mentioned in 4.2, Figure 21 (a-n) can be put together and their captions should be reduced.

5.2 content of Tables 5-8 should be simplified by deleting duplicated content such as “FFT transformation and high-pass filtering with window size 20x20”->  ” FFT transformation in 20x20 window size”.

 

7. Conclusions

7.1 The conclusion still needs to be revised, by summarizing the manuscript content within several paragraphs.

I advise rewriting the Conclusions carefully.

 

8. English writing and grammar

The authors should check and considerably improve the writing of various parts of the text.

 

To sum up, the manuscript has been modified but the manuscript length is still long (37 pages). It is better to reduce the manuscript length without making many influences on the quality of the manuscript. Manuscript sections should be rewritten well to improve the content and the quality of the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should check and considerably improve the writing of various parts of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for providing the detailed and constructive review for our paper which allowed to increase a scientific level of this paper. We tried again to reply for each point mentioned in the review. Our corrections were highlighted in manuscript by blue and red colours. We hope that the new version of our manuscript looks better and meets your requirements although the number of pages wasn’t changed.

Here we’d like to reply for each point mentioned in the review:

1. Title

The title is written in an imperfect way. It is longer than usual and not precise. The authors need to use minimum and more accurate words when giving a title for the manuscript such as” An RGB pseudo-colorization method for filtering multi-source graphical data”.

We agreed with you and the title was abridged according your suggestion.

2. Abstract:

The abstract is still not written well. There is a need to focus on introducing the background, gap, methodology, results, and value of the research.

I advise rewriting the abstract carefully.

Abstract was rewritten and we added several sentences which give more information about the background, methodology and results.

3. Introduction

Some issues should be considered in this section.

3.1 The main existing issues the authors will solve, the proposed methodology, in short, the main contributions.

3.2 Can the authors simplify the content of this section; it is more than five pages.

A wider description of the proposed methodology was placed in Materials and Methods chapter.

We was thinking about length of Introduction and length of paper. The paper raises an important issue connected with the protection of information against electromagnetic penetration and the possibilities of the reconstruction of primary information in form of images. To prove these possibilities the new method has to be verify. Such verification was carried out by using several images (six). Our paper includes the description of carried out analyses and obtained results for easier understanding of proposed pseudo-colorization method. Taking into account the limitation of pages of the paper we corrected our paper according to your suggestions from 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2 points. The further limitation the number of pages could make difficult the understanding the scientific aspect of the new approach to filtering graphical data. Due to this reason please to consider an acceptation the length of this paper.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1 The methodology is not clearly described, and the novelty needs to be presented in a better way.

We added several sentences of description below equation (16) in the main text of the manuscript.

4.2 Figure 8 (a-l), and other figures, can be put together to reduce the space they take (using tools such as Office Visio), and its caption’s content can be simplified as well.

We corrected the Figure 8. This solution allows to analyse all images in the same time – all images could be displayed on one screen. It is easier to understand our method and to notice differences between images. Also the caption was corrected. Information about the test parameters was moved to the main text of the paper.

It was good remark. Thank you.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 As mentioned in 4.2, Figure 21 (a-n) can be put together and their captions should be reduced.

The images and caption were corrected as the images and caption of Figure 8.

5.2 content of Tables 5-8 should be simplified by deleting duplicated content such as “FFT transformation and high-pass filtering with window size 20x20”->  ” FFT transformation in 20x20 window size”.

The first columns of mentioned tables were rewritten. Now the tables are more legible. Thank you for the suggestion.

7. Conclusions

7.1 The conclusion still needs to be revised, by summarizing the manuscript content within several paragraphs.

I advise rewriting the Conclusions carefully.

We added several sentences to more summarize our manuscript.

Thank you again for your remarks. We corrected paper and explained your questions. We hope that our corrections, explanations and completions will meet your requirements.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript modified following my requests for revision is certainly more complete and clear. You followed every suggestion, increasing references and improving the manuscript. Now the manuscript can be published. Congratulations!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your opinion. Your comments helped improve the article, raising its scientific level. Thank you very much again.

Best Regards

Authors