意见如下：
1、The overall quality of the article is OK, but some pictures are not clear, such as Fig11, Fig.15,Fig.17, and so on. Besides,the writing of the introduction needs to be strengthened. Moreover, new references should be cited for analysis and comparison.

2、1. The author drew his conclusion by comparing and analyzing proposed and conventional methods in simulation images. The comparison results, such as Table 4, should be accompanied by a real image.
The result of the experiment and an analysis using the real image needs to be attached; add to section 4.3.

2. Comma formatting, consistency in equation font (some are italicized; some are not) and other formatting revisions are necessary.

3. Categorization of sub-illustrations for figures 4 and 11 need to be unified. Choose between (A), (B)... OR (1), (2) for these figures.

4. When referring to 'Figure X' or 'figure X' ensure the case is consistent.

5. Eliminate unnecessary variable γ (Figure 13) or attach equation with variable γ.
第一个审稿人综合评价给了个good  第二个审稿人综合评价给了个marginal，有点好奇，marginal 到底是什么意思，我投的这个期刊一共五个档
Excellent  good  marginal poor  impossible  to read 返回小木虫查看更多