Reviewer Comments:
There are a couple of minor grammatical issues:
“… which utilizes seven colors of light emitting diodes (LED;
450, 521, 593, 625, 660, 730, and 870 nm) for acquiring multispectral
images and a longpass filter (> 665 nm) to create mask
image based on chlorophyll fluorescence.”
… to create a mask image …
“Differences chlorophyll levels between low and sufficient fertilizer
treatments were evident from the average NDVI value of the plants and
easily visualized in false color NDVI images (Figure 1).”
Differences in chlorophyll levels …
In general, I think this short paper is easy to read and understand. The
authors present a low-cost system for multispectral imaging using
monochrome cameras and LEDs. They show significant correlations between
their method and other approaches/measurements.
The methods seem to be appropriate for the objective and the imaging
system is reasonably well documented.
There is no data or code availability statement, so I am unable to
reproduce any results or examine code.
We are planning to write a manuscript with the data used in this
proceeding. Therefore, we do not want to jeopardize our later
manuscript by the proceeding.
I think that that introduction could be expanded. I was surprised that
the abstract is nearly 100 words longer than the introduction. I think
that the intro could benefit from more of a ”…what do we know? What
do we want to know? here we show…” format. I do not have a sense of
the state-of-the-art in stationary multi-spectral phenotyping.
We edited the abstract and introduction to make clear what we want to
present.
There is no description of the experiment design for the fertilizer
experiment in the methods. In the results, there is a figure (Fig 1)
but very little description of the finds of this experiment.
Again, we do not want to share the detail at this moment for later
publication. On the later publication, we will share all the details
including the codes
I might try to reframe the results and discussion as (1) the system,
(2) the ”calibration” experiments, (3) the fertilizer case study.
We changed structure of it as you suggested.
The conclusions did not leave me with a sense of the contribution to
the state-of-the-art. It is well-known that images are sources of data
and that R-Pi computers are useful tools. What does this study
demonstrate and why should the readers be interested in this work?
We rewrote the conclusion as you suggested.
The proceeding is well written and presents a cost-effective imaging
platform that will be of interest to the community. Given the focus of
the proceeding it would be good to include links to the code that was
used. The proceeding highlights cost-effective technologies that can be
used to create accurate imaging and image analysis pipelines.
In general, we shorten some unnecessary sentences and rephrased points
we would like to present, especially in introduction and conclusion.