A Novel Multi-Projection Correction Method Based on Binocular Vision

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper shows a multi-projection correction method based on binocular 2 vision. The topic is interesting.  The problems in existing methods are clearly analyzed and the new method are presented very clearly. All in all, the whole paper is well written.

The writing is acceptable though the grammar has some rooms to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. We have now worked on both grammar and readability and have also involved native English speakers for language corrections. We really hope that the flow and language level have been substantially improved and we guarantee to use a paid English language editing services provided by mdpi to improve the language level of our manuscript as soon as possible.

Thanks again! 

Reviewer 2 Report

To improve the accuracy of multi projection correction fusion. In this paper, a multi-projection correction method based on binocular vision is proposed. The paper need to improve the introduction and discussion, and clear your method. Thus, it is not suitable to publish in Electronics at present. Following comments are for you reference:

More quantitative conclusions are needed in the abstract.

1.     The introduction should summarize previous research, not list references.

2.     The introduction lacks a research objective.

3.     Research results and methods are confused.

4.     Please explain the meaning of each parameter in Eq 1.

5.     R is the rotation matrix? how to solve it in Eq 3.

6.     How to evaluate the accuracy of multi-projection correction technology to convert photos into point cloud data? This is a question I want to ask you?

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.

The main innovation of this paper is to apply the structured light projection measurement method based on binocular camera to the geometric correction of multi-projection display system. So far, most of the existing methods were based on single camera mode, which could lose the depth information of the display wall and could not accurately obtain the details of the geometric structure of the display wall. However, binocular camera mode could solve the above drawbacks well. There is no need to know the specific CAD size of the display wall in advance. Meanwhile it could be applied to display walls with any shape, substantially improving the measurement accuracy of geometric correction. In addition, by means of the one-to-one mapping relation between the phase information and the three-dimensional space points, the accurate point cloud matching among multiple binocular phase sets could be established, so that such method can be applicable for any quantity of projectors.

In conclusion, the method proposed in this paper has many advantages, such as strong universality, high measurement accuracy and rapid measurement speed, so as to indicate its wide applicability and application value. The contribution of related literature was added in the abstract part and introduction part. The features of this paper are more clearly stated.

The point-by-point response to your comments is attached.

Please see the attachment.

Thanks again！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The motivation of this work is insufficiently described. Several papers have been devoted to the multi-projection correction. Why are they not sufficient? I would recommend to improve the description of motivation of the work. The contribution of this work seems not clear for me. This is due to the fact that the authors do not mention other published methods and do not compare the proposed methods with them.

(1) The references are definitely not sufficient. 14 of 22 references are rather old (more than ten years old). At the same time, this area of research is actively elaborating. Just a few similar recent works.These works should not only be referenced but the novelty of the proposed study should be clearly indicated in comparison with them.

(2) The results represent the very basic experiments. In my opinion, they are not enough to prove the novelty and contribution of the study.

(3) In Figure 2, the phase diagram and parallax diagram cannot be calculated from the modulated deformation fringe captured by the left and right cameras, and the schematic diagram must also conform to the consistency of the technical process results.

(4) All mathematical symbols must be defined and consistent.For example, p1 and p2 in line 116

(5) Line 149, symbol xL does not conform to formula (2)

(6) In Table 1, the parameters and calibration value lines correspond incorrectly, please adjust it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.

The main innovation of this paper is to apply the structured light projection measurement method based on binocular camera to the geometric correction of multi-projection display system. So far, most of the existing methods were based on single camera mode, which could lose the depth information of the display wall and could not accurately obtain the details of the geometric structure of the display wall. However, binocular camera mode could solve the above drawbacks well. There is no need to know the specific CAD size of the display wall in advance. Meanwhile it could be applied to display walls with any shape, substantially improving the measurement accuracy of geometric correction. In addition, by means of the one-to-one mapping relation between the phase information and the three-dimensional space points, the accurate point cloud matching among multiple binocular phase sets could be established, so that such method can be applicable for any quantity of projectors.

In conclusion, the experimental results of various special-shaped projection screens show that, comparing with the single camera based method, the proposed method improves the geometric correction accuracy of multi-projection stitching by about 20%, this method also has many advantages, such as strong universality, high measurement accuracy and rapid measurement speed, so as to indicate its wide applicability and application value.

The description of motivation and the contribution of our work have been improved. The summary and analysis of related literature have been added in the abstract part and introduction part. The features of this paper are more clearly stated.

The point-by-point response to your comments is attached.

Please see the attachment.

Thanks again！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion, and we have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.

Firstly, according to your comments, we have made some corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing. For example, we have checked and added some definitions of mathematical symbols to ensure that all mathematical symbols were defined and consistent in the full text.

Secondly, in order to make the motivation and contribution of the paper clearer, we have added some references published within five years in the introduction section, and updated some descriptions of experimental procedures and results in the result section, such as flow diagram, point cloud matching diagram, geometric correction effect.

The specific revisions are attached.

Please see the attachment.

Thanks again！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The newly added references by the author are even older. All mathematical symbols in the whole paper need to be defined, the same character cannot be used for different meanings in the full text, and the characters in the second column of Table 1 are not defined, what do those characters mean?

The last review opinion is basically unrevised, this comments are as follows

The motivation of this work is insufficiently described. Several papers have been devoted to the multi-projection correction. Why are they not sufficient? I would recommend to improve the description of motivation of the work. The contribution of this work seems not clear for me. This is due to the fact that the authors do not mention other published methods and do not compare the proposed methods with them.

(1) The references are definitely not sufficient. 14 of 22 references are rather old (more than ten years old). At the same time, this area of research is actively elaborating. Just a few similar recent works.These works should not only be referenced but the novelty of the proposed study should be clearly indicated in comparison with them.

(2) The results represent the very basic experiments. In my opinion, they are not enough to prove the novelty and contribution of the study.

(3) In Figure 2, the phase diagram and parallax diagram cannot be calculated from the modulated deformation fringe captured by the left and right cameras, and the schematic diagram must also conform to the consistency of the technical process results.

(4) All mathematical symbols must be defined and consistent.For example, p1 and p2 in line 116

(5) Line 149, symbol xL does not conform to formula (2)

(6) In Table 1, the parameters and calibration value lines correspond incorrectly, please adjust it.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion, and we have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.

According to your comments, the main changes are as follows:

(1) We have added some references published within five years in the Introduction section, and we also have analyzed and summarized these relevant studies to make the motivation and contribution of the paper clearer.

(2) We have checked and added some definitions of mathematical symbols to ensure that all mathematical symbols were defined and consistent in the full text.

(3) In order to prove the novelty and contribution of the study, we have updated some descriptions of experimental procedures and results in the Results section, such as flow diagram, point cloud matching diagram, geometric correction effect and so on.

The point-by-point response to your comments is attached.

Please see the attachment.

Thanks again！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have changed most of the relevant parts of reviewer comments. I think that the manuscript can be accepted.