Adaptive Threshold Algorithm for Outlier Elimination in 3D Topography Data of Metal Additive Manufactured Surfaces Obtained from Focus Variation Microscopy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article's authors proposed an Adaptive threshold algorithm for outlier elimination in 3D topography data of metal additive-manufactured surfaces obtained from focus variation microscopy. Below are the main comments and questions.
a) In the abstract, additional results in the form of obtained surface roughness parameters from the conducted research are worth adding. It is best to compare the results obtained without and with the implemented procedure.
b) To present the research conducted in the article more clearly, it is worthwhile in subsection 2.2 to develop a flowchart showing the entire procedure developed.
c) A minor note: when citing figures in the text, it is required to cite them according to the order. In the case of figure 1f, it was cited earlier than figures a-e.
d) The authors should have specified which program developed the whole procedure. The second question is whether the entire procedure was built into the surface roughness evaluation program or is an external program.
e) What FVM parameters were used when measuring the selected standard and test samples? The following are worth putting in the table: Obiective’s magnification, Number of image fields, Examination field, Vertical resolution, LaterAL resolution, and Pixel size. Some of the listed parameters are presented in the text, but it is worth including them in a table for better clarity. Additionally, a picture of the FVM system while measuring samples could be included in the article.
f) I wonder if Chapter 3 should be called more results. In addition, it will be combined with Chapter 4. In Chapter 3, the authors also discuss the results. It is worth expanding it. In the end, maybe it is best to call Chapter 3 Results and Discussion.
g) Please, on the editing side, correct the referances, as the form of citing literature items is not consistent with the MDPI format.
h) One last question: Did the authors attempt to test the presented procedure on more non-standard surfaces, such as models of anatomical structures? We are conducting a study with the research team to evaluate, among other things, the quality of macro and microgeometry on Focus Variation microscopy for crowns and molars of teeth. We encounter problems due to the limitations of the measurement method, which the authors removed from the procedure presented.
The article, as a whole, presents a very intervening procedure that is worth developing in the future. If the authors make the applicable corrections, the article will be accepted by me.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we would like to express our thanks for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper. We appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered all the comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. We believe that these changes have strengthened the manuscript significantly.
Comments 1: In the abstract, additional results in the form of obtained surface roughness parameters from the conducted research are worth adding. It is best to compare the results obtained without and with the implemented procedure.
Response 1: changed according to the advices
Comments 2: To present the research conducted in the article more clearly, it is worthwhile in subsection 2.2 to develop a flowchart showing the entire procedure developed.
Response 2: changed according to the advices
Comments 3: A minor note: when citing figures in the text, it is required to cite them according to the order. In the case of figure 1f, it was cited earlier than figures a-e.
Response 3: The original citation order ensured consistency with Figure 6, panels (a) through (c). However, it is changed according to your advice.
Comments 4: The authors should have specified which program developed the whole procedure. The second question is whether the entire procedure was built into the surface roughness evaluation program or is an external program.
Response 4: In Section 2.2, titled "Proposed Algorithm to Construct the SATP," we added the sentence: "Figure 2 presents a flowchart illustrating the complete procedure, implemented in Python, developed for the construction of the SATP." This explicitly identifies Python as the programming language used to develop the entire procedure for SATP construction. Furthermore, in Section 2.3, "Procedure to Characterize Surface Roughness," it is stated that "This section elucidates the subsequent processing of the reconstructed topography and the acquisition of roughness parameters using the topography analysis software 'Mountains Map' from Digital Surf." This clarification indicates that while Python was employed for the primary procedure development, the subsequent processing, specifically the calculation of roughness parameters and the visualization of the topography, was performed using the commercial software Mountains Map.
Comments 5: What FVM parameters were used when measuring the selected standard and test samples? The following are worth putting in the table: Obiective’s magnification, Number of image fields, Examination field, Vertical resolution, LaterAL resolution, and Pixel size. Some of the listed parameters are presented in the text, but it is worth including them in a table for better clarity. Additionally, a picture of the FVM system while measuring samples could be included in the article
Response 5: The necessary table has been prepared and is presented as Table 1. Additionally, the corresponding picture of the system is detailed in references [10] or [11] and stated in the sentence “For more details related to the construction of FVM relevant to this work, we refer to [10,11]”
Comments 6: I wonder if Chapter 3 should be called more results. In addition, it will be combined with Chapter 4. In Chapter 3, the authors also discuss the results. It is worth expanding it. In the end, maybe it is best to call Chapter 3 Results and Discussion.
Response 6: Changed according to your advice, Chapter 3 is now “Results and Discussion”
Comments 7: Please, on the editing side, correct the referances, as the form of citing literature items is not consistent with the MDPI format.
Response 7: The references are in the format obtained from the editor
Comments 8: One last question: Did the authors attempt to test the presented procedure on more non-standard surfaces, such as models of anatomical structures? We are conducting a study with the research team to evaluate, among other things, the quality of macro and microgeometry on Focus Variation microscopy for crowns and molars of teeth. We encounter problems due to the limitations of the measurement method, which the authors removed from the procedure presented.
Response 8: This is a very interesting question that you have raised. We did not previously examine anatomical structures, such as crowns and molars of teeth. The surfaces must produce sufficient contrast, for example due to roughness, in order to apply FVM. We suspect that the surface of the teeth may not exhibit the complex structure seen in MAM surfaces. The challenge could arise from the smoothness potentially generating insufficient contrast data, which may hinder the accurate detection of the correct focus position, leading to the appearance of artifacts. If you have any samples available, we would appreciate the opportunity to analyze them for further investigation.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper introduces a method for deriving self-adaptive thresholds from the convolution result and compares the effects of different operators in creating self-adaptive thresholds. Additionally, a simulation model of focus variation microscopy is introduced to validate both the measuring system and the proposed algorithm, thereby enhancing the overall performance of focus variation microscopy. Finally, comparisons of measurement results on rough metal additive manufacturing workpieces with and without self-adaptive thresholds are discussed to demonstrate the algorithm’s effectiveness.
There are some problems, which must be solved before itis considered for publication. If the following problems arewell-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this paper are important for constructing SATPs that effectively prevent artifacts.
1. In the introduction, data should be introduced to compare the method adopted in this paper with the previous methods, so that readers can understand the method adopted in this paper more intuitively.
2. In figure 1, the assembly model diagram or physical diagram of the measuring device should be added to facilitate readers to understand the measuring device..
3. In “2.1. Samples for simulation, validation and experiments”, the length of the article is appropriately shortened and the sentences are simplified..
4. In “3.1. Validation by simulation”, line chart comparison should be added to better compare the verification results..
5. The data measured in Table 1 should be plotted as a histogram or a line chart..
6. Some suitable pictures or mind maps should be added to of the article to ensure the logic of the paper and attract readers' interest in reading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we would like to express our thanks for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper. We appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered all the comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. We believe that these changes have strengthened the manuscript significantly.
Comments 1: In the introduction, data should be introduced to compare the method adopted in this paper with the previous methods, so that readers can understand the method adopted in this paper more intuitively.
Reponse 1: Thank you very much for your advices, and I find the data you referenced somewhat unclear; however, to facilitate a more intuitive understanding of the method employed in this paper, a flowchart has been created, as illustrated in Figure 2. Furthermore, an additional sentence has.0, been incorporated at the conclusion of the abstract to provide further clarification: ‘The utilization of self-adaptive thresholds demonstrably reduces the uncertainty range in roughness parameter calculations. For example, in the case of an additive manufactured metal sample due to outlier elimination the Sz roughness value reduces from 543 μm to 413 μm.’
Comments 2: In figure 1, the assembly model diagram or physical diagram of the measuring device should be added to facilitate readers to understand the measuring device.
Reponse 2: The necessary table has been prepared and is presented in Table 1. Additionally, the corresponding picture of the system is detailed in references [10] or [11] and stated in the sentence “For more details related to the construction of FVM relevant to this work, refer to [10,11]”
Comments 3: In “2.1. Samples for simulation, validation and experiments”, the length of the article is appropriately shortened and the sentences are simplified
Reponse 3: Changed according to your suggestion.
Comments 4: In “3.1. Validation by simulation”, line chart comparison should be added to better compare the verification results.
Reponse 4: In the authors' view, the three dimensions generated from the three samples are insufficient for constructing a line chart.
Comments 5: The data measured in Table 1 should be plotted as a histogram or a line chart
Reponse 5: In the authors' view, the number of data points is insufficient for constructing a histogram or a line chart.
Comments 6: Some suitable pictures or mind maps should be added to of the article to ensure the logic of the paper and attract readers' interest in reading.
Reponse 6: Thank you for your advice, to facilitate a more intuitive understanding of the method employed in this paper, a flowchart has been created, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for responding to my comments. I hope that not only did the comments make the article qualitatively better, but they also pointed the way towards new research. I wish you good luck in your further research. I accept the article in its current form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
