Three-Dimensional Measurement and Three-Dimensional Printing of Giant Coastal Rocks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

All the methods and techniques presented in the manuscript are the use of exsiting and mature data acquisition equipments and commercial software, such as sfm 3D reconstruction technology using PiX4D, 3D model format transformation using several kinds of software, 3D rock model printing using 3D printing software and hardware. No inovation point was proposed in this work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your precious comments. We had made several changes based on your comments.

We described the benefit of having the 3D printed model for research and communication compared to a digital model in the “Discussion” chapter on page 9. The 3D printed model is directly touchable compared to the digital model. It can be used for museum exhibitions, school teaching, and also for making molds for mass production of souvenirs.

In order to prove that both the digital model and the 3D printed model are valid for some measurements, we calculated the rock height, volume and weight from the digital model using Fusion 360. We also measured the height of the rocks of 3D printed model, and we compared both numbers to verify their accuracy. The results are shown on Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. We have described in "3.3. Calculation of rock size, volume and weight" on page 7 and the first paragraph on page 9.

We compared two 3D printed model with different materials and the digital model, and analyzed the effect of different materials and printer types on the accuracy of the model. We have described in the first paragraph on page 9. 3D printing technology is advancing, and its modeling accuracy is extremely high.

We added the new paper [16] in the reference chapter, and we compared it in “Discussion” chapter. We also added in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 in the “Discussion” chapter.

[16] Franciszek Hasiuk, Chris Harding; Touchable topography: 3D printing elevation data and structural models to overcome the issue of scale, February 2016Geology Today 32(1):16-20

The novelty of this paper was explained in the “Discussion” chapter. Making a 3D printed model is not limited by distance geographically. By simply uploading a digital model online, you can print the model thousands of miles away, which greatly saves time costs. You can touch and take a closer look the 3D printed model.

We added a scale to the image of the 3D printed model on Figures 15 and 16. The reader can understand the physical size of the model.

 

Again, thank you for your helpful review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors!

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript! Please consider revising the following points to improve your manuscript:

1) Please explain the benefit of having the 3D-printed model in comparison to the digital model for the research and communication

2) It was mentioned that 3D-printed models are efficient for some measurements, but there was no concrete example in results or discussion. Please explain what was meant there. 

3) Present limitations of the presented methodology. For example, how the accuracy of the data is varied across each model; how one can be certain that a 3D-printed model is precise and similar to its digital counterpart.

4) Please expand the discussion section by comparing previous literature to the results of this study.

5) Similar approach was published in earlier papers. Provide strong arguments how this study is novel and different from similar papers on 3D printing geological data.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your precious comments. We had made several changes based on your comments.

1)

We described the benefit of having the 3D printed model for research and communication compared to a digital model in the “Discussion” chapter on page 9. The 3D printed model is directly touchable compared to the digital model. It can be used for museum exhibitions, school teaching, and also for making molds for mass production of souvenirs.

2)

In order to prove that both the digital model and the 3D printed model are valid for some measurements, we calculated the rock height, volume and weight from the digital model using Fusion 360. We also measured the height of the rocks of 3D printed model, and we compared both numbers to verify their accuracy. The results are shown on Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.

We have described in "3.3. Calculation of rock size, volume and weight" on page 7 and the first paragraph on page 9.

3)

We compared two 3D printed model with different materials and the digital model, and analyzed the effect of different materials and printer types on the accuracy of the model. We have described in the first paragraph on page 9. 3D printing technology is advancing, and its modeling accuracy is extremely high.

4)

We added the new paper [16] in the reference chapter, and we compared it in “Discussion” chapter. We also added in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 in the “Discussion” chapter.

[16] Franciszek Hasiuk, Chris Harding; Touchable topography: 3D printing elevation data and structural models to overcome the issue of scale, February 2016Geology Today 32(1):16-20

5)

The novelty of this paper was explained in the “Discussion” chapter. Making a 3D printed model is not limited by distance geographically. By simply uploading a digital model online, you can print the model thousands of miles away, which greatly saves time costs. You can touch and take a closer look the 3D printed model.

 

We added a scale to the image of the 3D printed model on Figures 15 and 16. The reader can understand the physical size of the model.

 

Again, thank you for your helpful review.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is my review of manuscript “3D Measurement and Printing for Giant Seaside Rocks” by Gao et al. I recommend accepting the paper with minor revision to expand the discussion. As a native English speaker, I judge the manuscript’s English language usage as excellent. Figures are excellent aside from some small formatting issues listed below.

The paper’s discussion is too short. I would like to read more about how the models were used after creation. Were they given to the national park? How do they compare to interpretive materials already in use at the national park? How would the authors improve the process of making these models? How will the data be archived? The authors have reported an excellent process, but I would have liked to have read more about the implications of what they accomplished.

 

Specific points:

• The authors use numerous software packages. The readers would appreciate a table listing the software for each step as well as an open source or free equivalent.
• The steps enumerated in Section 3.2 need to be explained in greater detail. Please provide 3-4 sentences at least.

 

Figures

• Most figures have more than one part. I usually see labels like “A…B…C…” applied to each of the subparts to minimize confusion to the reader.
• It would be beneficial to the reader to have one summary summarizing the entire workflow using simple schematic drawings.
• Figures 16 and 17 need a scale bar or scale object (e.g., coin) so the reader can tell how big the models are.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your precious comments, and it is appreciate for fixing my English grammar problem.

We described the benefit of having the 3D printed model for research and communication compared to a digital model in the “Discussion” chapter on page 9. The 3D printed model is directly touchable compared to the digital model. It can be used for museum exhibitions, school teaching, and also for making molds for mass production of souvenirs.

In order to prove that both the digital model and the 3D printed model are valid for some measurements, we calculated the rock height, volume and weight from the digital model using Fusion 360. We also measured the height of the rocks of 3D printed model, and we compared both numbers to verify their accuracy. The results are shown on Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. We have described in "3.3. Calculation of rock size, volume and weight" on page 7 and the first paragraph on page 9.

We compared two 3D printed model with different materials and the digital model, and analyzed the effect of different materials and printer types on the accuracy of the model. We have described in the first paragraph on page 9. 3D printing technology is advancing, and its modeling accuracy is extremely high.

We added the new paper [16] in the reference chapter, and we compared it in “Discussion” chapter. We also added in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 in the “Discussion” chapter.

[16] Franciszek Hasiuk, Chris Harding; Touchable topography: 3D printing elevation data and structural models to overcome the issue of scale, February 2016Geology Today 32(1):16-20

 

The novelty of this paper was explained in the “Discussion” chapter. Making a 3D printed model is not limited by distance geographically. By simply uploading a digital model online, you can print the model thousands of miles away, which greatly saves time costs. You can touch and take a closer look the 3D printed model.

We added a scale to the image of the 3D printed model on Figures 15 and 16. The reader can understand the physical size of the model.　We also modify Fig. 6: Overview of modeling Giant Seaside Rocks in order to summarizing the entire workflow.

 

Again, thank you for your helpful review.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Please cite al the references in the list in the introduction and other appropriate locations within the paper;

2) Provide more information on methods as this section contain more figures and less text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

1) We rewrote the introduction of Chapter 1. In addition, new sentences have been added to the areas where the explanation is insufficient in the entire treatise. We also had a professional proofreader proofread the English text of this paper.

2) We have rechecked the references and placed them in the appropriate places in the article. In order to provide a basis for the structure and density determination of the rocks，We have added literature on the petrographic log of the Three Kings Rock [9].
For ease of access, we have also included web links to the literature after the literature.
3) We added more text for further description of graphs and tables.

Again, thank you very much for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx