Correction of Temperature from Infrared Cameras for More Precise As-Is 3D Thermal Models of Buildings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
please rewrite the abstract and the conclusions to meet the results you had in the paper.
it can be published if the notes the authors will done. and minor correction in English language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, explain the meaning of the abbreviations (AEC, BIM, UAV) when they appear in the text for the first time.
In Figures 2-4, it is necessary to indicate the scale of dimensions (not only the thermal scale)
You should also explain what as-is 3d thermal models are.
Please, provide more detailed information about the instrumentation you have been using (parameters and performance of the instruments and software), so that other researchers can understand better the feasibility and technical requirements of the proposed approach. Only for this purpose, I would ask you to show the manuscript again after the major revisions. For the rest, the work is really excellent.
English language quality is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
· Please describe what the problem is and then explain. The results. The abstract should answer the questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what did you conclude from your results? Please make your abstract with specific and quantitative results to further enrich the content of the article. Please indicate each of these questions in the abstract separately when you are replying to this comment.
· The outcome of the review is the identification of a “gap” of research that is not occupied by other scientists in this problem.
· What data the author obtained as scientific novelty and obtained (described) for the first time in this article.
· What practical recommendations can be made based on the data obtained?
· What are the limitations of this study?
· What disadvantages of this study can be noted and how can they be eliminated in the future?
· What can be the development of this research and what difficulties (mathematical, experimental or any other kind) can be encountered?
· The results need to be compared, discussed and analyzed with other references.
· It is recommended to describe the results obtained with add a scientific interpretation of the results.
1. Please check all manuscript for typo and punctuation mistakes, such as Definite and Indefinite Articles (a, an, the), the capital letters in the middle of sentences, etc.
2. It is recommended that the wordings and grammar of English should be rechecked throughout the present.
3. Some sentence in the introduction parts are too long. I would suggest to split it to simpler ones.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper provided for the review deals with the vital problem of assuring reliable and high-quality results of thermographic measurements. The article is well structured, and many key issues are well explained. Nevertheless, some parts are unclear and require updates or amendments.
1. Can you explain in detail what Colour Orthoimage is, how it differs from Temperature Orthoimage, and how it is applied?
2. How the location of aluminium and electric tapes was selected? Are there any guidelines on where and how many reference spots should be located?
3. What was the size in pixels of electric tape and aluminium pieces?
4. Can you provide results on how emissivity and reflected temperature errors influence the final U-values results?
5. On page 5, line 183, you are writing about some high-frequency filtering. Can you explain how this filtration is performed and the purpose of that operation?
6.The algorithm presented in Fig. 1 has constants Up1 and Up2. What was those constants' value, and how have you calculated/selected those values?
7. Fig. 3. a shows a significant difference in temperature distribution between consecutive thermograms. What was the reason for such considerable inconsistency?
8. Was there the real temperature measured using different, e.g. contact devices to have a reference temperature that could be used to validate the proposed approach?
Minor issues
1. Please make decimals separators the same in the whole paper (not it is, or .)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your efforts. My comments have been fully addressed.
Good and understandable Enlish.
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper can be accepted in present form
Minor editing of English language required
