Temporal Analysis of Speckle Images in Full-Field Interferometric and Camera-Based Optical Dynamic Measurement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on the article. Your feedback is very important to us. We have made revisions based on your comments, addressing each point individually. Attached, you will find our detailed responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled "Temporal Analysis of Speckle Images in Full-Field Interferometric and Camera-Based Optical Dynamic Measurement" submitted to Photonics. The study presents a comprehensive analysis of temporal processing in dynamic interferometric and digital speckle-image-based measurements. The research is well-structured, and the methodology is sound. However, there are a few areas where additional experiments or clarifications would significantly enhance the robustness and impact of the findings. Below are three key points that I believe would benefit from further investigation:
Experimental Validation of Temporal Analysis in Diverse Dynamic Scenarios: While the manuscript provides two examples to illustrate the advantages of temporal analysis, it would be beneficial to include a broader range of dynamic scenarios to validate the generalizability of the proposed method. Specifically, experiments that simulate different frequencies and amplitudes of vibration, as well as varying environmental conditions (such as temperature fluctuations and humidity), would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the temporal analysis technique performs under diverse and potentially challenging conditions. This would strengthen the paper's contribution to the field by demonstrating the method's versatility and reliability.
Comparison with Existing Techniques: The manuscript briefly mentions other non-contact methods for structural dynamic measurement but does not provide a direct comparison with these techniques. It would be valuable to include a comparative analysis of the proposed temporal analysis method with existing methods, such as phase-shifting digital holography or moiré interferometry, in terms of resolution, measurement speed, and ease of implementation. This comparison could be supported by additional experiments that quantify the performance metrics of each technique, allowing readers to assess the relative advantages and potential applications of the proposed method. Some works related to the existing Full-Field image techniques can be referred in the background or introduction part. For example, Crystal Growth & Design, 2023, 23(11), DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.3c00780.
Error Analysis and Limitations of the Temporal Analysis Method: Although the manuscript discusses the benefits of temporal analysis in reducing speckle and electronic noise, it does not provide a detailed error analysis or discuss the limitations of the method. It would be insightful to include an experimental section that quantifies the measurement errors and identifies potential sources of error. This could involve analyzing the signal-to-noise ratio, the effect of out-of-plane displacement on measurement accuracy, and the influence of camera settings (e.g., exposure time, ISO sensitivity) on the results. Additionally, discussing the limitations of the method, such as its applicability to certain types of materials or structures, would provide a balanced view and guide future research directions.
In conclusion, the manuscript presents an interesting and potentially valuable approach to dynamic measurement. Addressing the points mentioned above will not only improve the quality of the research but also provide a more thorough understanding of the proposed method's capabilities and areas for future development.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagegood
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on the article. Your feedback is very important to us. We have made revisions based on your comments, addressing each point individually. Attached, you will find our detailed responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents two examples of temporal analysis associated with both DSSI and LDV-enhanced DIC. The reviewer expresses doubts regarding the possibility for publication in its current form due to poor organization, many logical errors, and formatting mistakes. Here are the comments provided.
1. In line 168-171, what do the authors want to express via the following sentence?
“Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.”
This sentence appears to be written in the style of a reviewer's comment rather than the authors' own words.
2. It seems to be a missing label of point A in Figure 1, while it is referenced in Figure 3.
3. In line 158, the authors should provide additional information regarding how the LDV spectrum guides the temporal analysis of DIC, as it could represent the most innovative aspect of this manuscript.
4. In its initial appearance, the LDV should be fully explained as Laser Doppler Vibrometer.
5. In Figure 6(c), it is recommended to differentiate these lines by utilizing a combination of colors and symbols, accompanied by clear legends.
6. BTW, the image resolution in this manuscript is relatively low, resulting in a suboptimal reading experience.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on the article. Your feedback is very important to us. We have made revisions based on your comments, addressing each point individually. Attached, you will find our detailed responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
section "4. Discussion" is completely missing. It is then impossible to evaluate the paper. It seema that the text reporte in this section is coming from the previous round of reviewing.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on the article. Your feedback is very important to us.
As suggested by the reviewer, we supplemented the Discussion section and highlighted the novelties of this study, in Line 195-233.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPublish
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the issues.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWell.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I believe that the revised version of the paper is now suitable for being published in MDPI Photonics.
