Adaptive Image-Defogging Algorithm Based on Bright-Field Region Detection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is lack of innovation, and is not suitable for publication in this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Image defogging or dehazing has become a hot topic in recent years. This manuscript proposes an adaptive image defogging algorithm based on bright field region detection. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm works well. However, several issues should be addressed.

1. The proposed algorithm is simple and should be described more clearly. The existing methods are unnecessary; for example, Section 2 is related to DCP and does not include any new analysis.
2. There need to be more experiments. It is necessary to add the sensitivity of parameters or threshold values; in addition, unsuccessful experimental results are encouraged and discussed as limitations.
3. In lines 427-428, there is a description of time efficiency, so it is better to list the experimental software and hardware, including programming language, image size, and number of images.
4. In lines 326 and 444, the synthetic images are discussed, so an experimental result comparing the defogged images to the fog-free image as the ground truth is expected.
5. In line 46, about abbreviations in " multi-scale Retinex (MSR). Multi-scale Retinex (MSRCR)" are not suitable; In lines 47-48, the sentence is not correct; In lines 51-52, " This method is more suitable for the restoration of haze images with uneven illumination, but it is not as effective for dense fog images. ", should be labeled with a reference or be proved.
6. The title of Subsection 2.3 needs to be corrected.
7. Some blocks in the flowchart are unclear, such as "Idark."
8. How to calculate information entropy? A formula should be used, and a reference should be cited.
9. Formula (19) can be written using a simple format.
10. Some formulae are incorrect, for example, in lines 291-292 and formulae (14) and (22).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The image dehazing research proposed by the authors of this article is a relatively classic topic, and from the techniques provided by the authors, there are no innovative technologies proposed. In addition, there are also some obvious shortcomings that need to be supplemented and improved. My specific suggestions are as follows: 

1) Figure 1. Flowchart of proposed algorithm. ， I completely cannot see the contribution and characteristics of this article, and the drawing quality is also rough. 

2) 2. Why is it necessary to derive a very classic principle from the beginning to the end in DCP defogging algorithm and background? 

3) 3.1. Improved dark channel image， No improvement ideas for real-time performance were provided, and no description of the principle was seen. 

4) Formula 14 has an issue with a negative sign appearing in the bottom right corner of the template, which is not a strict Sobel operator. 

5) The formula for the histogram of formulas 15-16 belongs to the principles of classical textbooks and is completely unnecessary to appear in the main text. 

Futhermore, there are a large number of new technologies for image dehazing, such as deep learning based methods. The author should provide a review of the technological development in this field, as well as the limitations and future considerations of this article's technology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current works have not been compared with recent works yet.  The novelty of the presented method can't be proved fully.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is okey.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad to see that the authors have made substantial revisions to the paper, and I believe the quality of the paper has basically reached the level of publication. I agree to accept this article, although there are still some details that can be further improved, such as the font size of the formula in Figure 1 being inconsistent; The effect of the input image and the output dehazed image in Figure 1 is not significant; There is an extra bold font in the title of Table 1.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 1. Flowchart of proposed algorithm， Removing the two formulas that appear appears to be very inconsistent, the principle can be explained and presented in the article text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf