Straightforward Stereoscopic Techniques for Archaeometric Interpretation of Archeological Artifacts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors talk about stereoscopic visualization based on a textured 3D model. They even comment on the differences between two types of stereoscopic visualization and the cost of the glasses for viewing it. However, at no time did they comment on the possibility of seeing the object of study through virtual reality glasses such as Meta Quest2 or similar. It would be interesting if they commented on this possibility, as well as the differences, advantages and disadvantages compared to stereoscopic visualization.
Author Response
Heritage MDPI
Manuscript title: Easy handling stereoscopic techniques for archaeometry interpretation of archeological artifacts
Answers to the comments and suggestions:
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for provision of remarks and suggestions. The authors hope that corrections and further explanations which are provided according to your comments and suggestions improved quality of the manuscript up to the satisfactory level it can be accepted for publication in Heritage.
|
REVIEWER # 1 |
|||
|
No. |
Comment |
|
Authors' responds |
|
1 |
At no time did they comment on the possibility of seeing the object of study through virtual reality glasses such as Meta Quest2 or similar. It would be interesting if they commented on this possibility, as well as the differences, advantages and disadvantages compared to stereoscopic visualization. |
Adopted |
|
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The title does not match the content of the article. The title covers a much broader material than presented in the paper.
2. The work did not prove the superiority of the proposed solution: generating stereoscopic images in the form of anaglyphs or polarized images over modern technologies: the ability to generate separate images for the left and right eye and view them on a mobile device inserted into glasses (frames).
3. The problem of 3D viewing has many solutions. The technique of stereoscopic images appeared at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, e.g. in the US. Nowadays, 3D movies, 3D television, 3D projectors and VR have been created. However, the preparation of 3D images is very cumbersome, and the technical equipment for viewing them is quite expensive and over time becomes unusable, because the support of equipment or software manufacturers ends.
4. I am surprised by the lack of reference to VR technology. In VR, we also have generated images for the left and right eye, and the software used allows you to continuously observe a 3D object from every side, giving the impression of three-dimensionality. An example museum in the VR version is presented in the work: Miłosz M., Skulimowski S., Kęsik J., Montusiewicz J., Virtual and interactive museum of archaeological artefacts from Afrasiyab – An ancient city on the silk road. Digital Applications in Archeology and Cultural Heritage, 2020, vol. 18, pp. 1-12.
5. Increased popularization and availability of archaeological and museum objects, as well as architectural objects in 3D version can be achieved by placing them on Internet portals. Such objects can be inserted there as interactive (e.g. rotation and scaling). An example solution is the "3D Digital Silk Road" portal silkroad3d.com.
6. It seems that some of the statements in the Discussion and Conclusions section are not valid. They are rather certain postulates. For example, the paper did not examine the acceptability of the proposed technology of using stereoscopic images. There should be a separate section Further work to separate what has been done and investigated from what will be done in the future.
Author Response
Heritage MDPI
Manuscript title: Easy handling stereoscopic techniques for archaeometric interpretation of archeological artifacts
Answers to the comments and suggestions:
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for provision of remarks and suggestions. The authors hope that corrections and further explanations which are provided according to your comments and suggestions improved quality of the manuscript up to the satisfactory level it can be accepted for publication in Heritage.
|
REVIEWER #2 |
|||
|
No. |
Comment |
|
Authors' responds |
|
1 |
The title does not match the content of the article. The title covers a much broader material than presented in the paper. |
Adopted |
We changed the title so that it now more accurately reflects the article's content and main idea. |
|
2 |
The work did not prove the superiority of the proposed solution: generating stereoscopic images in the form of anaglyphs or polarized images over modern technologies: the ability to generate separate images for the left and right eye and view them on a mobile device inserted into glasses (frames). |
Adopted |
|
|
3 |
The problem of 3D viewing has many solutions. The technique of stereoscopic images appeared at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, e.g. in the US. Nowadays, 3D movies, 3D television, 3D projectors and VR have been created. However, the preparation of 3D images is very cumbersome, and the technical equipment for viewing them is quite expensive and over time becomes unusable, because the support of equipment or software manufacturers ends. |
Adopted |
|
|
4 |
I am surprised by the lack of reference to VR technology. In VR, we also have generated images for the left and right eye, and the software used allows you to continuously observe a 3D object from every side, giving the impression of three-dimensionality. An example museum in the VR version is presented in the work: Miłosz M., Skulimowski S., Kęsik J., Montusiewicz J., Virtual and interactive museum of archaeological artefacts from Afrasiyab – An ancient city on the silk road. Digital Applications in Archeology and Cultural Heritage, 2020, vol. 18, pp. 1-12. |
Adopted |
|
|
5 |
Increased popularization and availability of archaeological and museum objects, as well as architectural objects in 3D version can be achieved by placing them on Internet portals. Such objects can be inserted there as interactive (e.g. rotation and scaling). An example solution is the "3D Digital Silk Road" portal silkroad3d.com. |
Adopted |
|
|
6 |
It seems that some of the statements in the Discussion and Conclusions section are not valid. They are rather certain postulates. For example, the paper did not examine the acceptability of the proposed technology of using stereoscopic images. There should be a separate section Further work to separate what has been done and investigated from what will be done in the future. |
Adopted |
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The text of the article has been significantly improved. Earlier comments have been taken into account. In this version, I support the acceptance of the article for publication.
