A Position Fixing Method for Near-Bottom Camera Data on the Seafloor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Seabed researches is the actual topic of today. It’s related with absence of the raw materials and raw stock price. Exploitation methods is complicated by several factors like depth, pressure, temperature, circulation, morphology and insufficient datasets. The article discuss of the use near-bottom camera from hydrothermal fluids on the sea floor. Article form is technician and it focus to camera corrections in the sea environment. In the article is absent any geological data and title is misleading in this sense. The content of the article does not belong to the Minerals.

Near-bottom camera is visualization, not detectional tool for seabed exploration. Exact data is necessary to confirm by another methodics. Correlations processing of the sea floor camera data by the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) measuring similarity between two temporal time series sequences. The study area is defined by spatial coordinate system in line 91 where absent horizontal coordinate. If authors want situated area to Mid –Atlantic ridge deliminated by transform fault is necessary faults marked in the figure. The Rio Grande terrestrial rift I know from Colorado, not from Atlantic ridge. If there similarity please describe in the article, because it can be mistake, not only me. 

The author's basic assumption is that camera is moving in the line and data must be linearly arranged. But this main difference if you take data from the surface and from underwater. The camera oscillating is necessary for this environment. In first you must know how the camera behaves and then you can do any corrections. I’m afraid your basic assumption is incorrect. Your DTW algorithm was defined for linear movement, by the way, figure 7 is not cited in your article. These are related chapters, discussions and conclusions, which I cannot identify.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your positive comments on this manuscript. According to your comments, we revised the manuscript carefully point by point. 

We are very grateful for your detailed feedback on our submission to the Minerals. We think that this feedback improved our manuscript. In line with your recommendation, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions. Moreover, we have attempted to address them in the revised revision of the paper. In the meantime, to meet the requirements, our articles had been sent to professional native English speakers for revision. We feel the paper has been considerably strengthened while addressing the respectable editor and reviewer comments. We are very grateful for your guidance, which helped us improve the paper. Please see the details below.

 

Best regards,

Xinyu Shi and Co-authors

August 3, 2022

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors are requested to consider the following:

1. Modify title of the paper as follows: 'Position fixing of near-bottom camera data from seafloor hydrothermal deposits'

2. At different places in text, 'positioning' needs to be replaced with 'position fixing' whereas at a few places it can remain as 'position' - depending on whether it means 'fixing the position of the camera' or  otherwise.

3.  Line 40: delete 'and'

4. Fig. 1: describe key features in the figure and the 'star'

5. Line 102: add 'sulfide' after 'hydrothermal'

6. Line 116: replace 'object area' with 'study area'

7. Line 127: replace 'next' with 'following'

8. Fig 5: change caption to 'Flow diagram of data acquisition and integration for position fixing of camera data'

9. Fig. 6: #4 in last box - change 'convent' to 'convert'

10. Line 230: Expand 'DTW' algorithm and how it is different from 'DTM' algorithm mentioned in Fig. 5

11. Line 413: replace 'tied' with 'attached' or 'fixed'

12. Line 487: replace 'solve' with 'resolve'

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your positive comments on this manuscript. According to your comments, we revised the manuscript carefully point by point. 

We are very grateful for your detailed feedback on our submission to the Minerals. We think that this feedback improved our manuscript. In line with your recommendation, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions. Moreover, we have attempted to address them in the revised revision of the paper. In the meantime, to meet the requirements, our articles had been sent to professional native English speakers for revision. We feel the paper has been considerably strengthened while addressing the respectable editor and reviewer comments. We are very grateful for your guidance, which helped us improve the paper. Please see the details below.

 

Best regards,

Xinyu Shi and Co-authors

August 3, 2022

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think it has a clean paper structure.

I cannot find the orange dotted and solid lines in Figure 3 as described in Section 4.1.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your positive comments on this manuscript. According to your comments, we revised the manuscript carefully point by point. 

We are very grateful for your detailed feedback on our submission to the Minerals. We think that this feedback improved our manuscript. In line with your recommendation, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions. Moreover, we have attempted to address them in the revised revision of the paper. In the meantime, to meet the requirements, our articles had been sent to professional native English speakers for revision. We feel the paper has been considerably strengthened while addressing the respectable editor and reviewer comments. We are very grateful for your guidance, which helped us improve the paper. Please see the details below.

 

Best regards,

Xinyu Shi and Co-authors

August 3, 2022

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I am satisfied with your corrections