Dip-NeRF: Depth-Based Anti-Aliased Neural Radiance Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and worth publishing. The authors clearly identify the practical purpose of the study and the adopted research assumptions. They present this against the background of a broad literature review, which contains quite recent items, although in some cases it is worth considering whether there is more recent research.

In addition to the practical purpose of the research, it is also worth demonstrating the scientific purpose. What is the contribution to science, how does the research carried out fit into the development of science, etc

The "discussion" section also requires expansion and justification. This should be a deeper analysis of the results obtained, not a short statement by the authors.

Therefore, in my opinion, the article is suitable for publication, but the literature should be updated, the discussion section should be improved and the justification for the scientific novelty of the presented results should be strengthened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your efforts in preparing and submitting your manuscript. The paper is interesting and can be accepted provided rectifying the below points:

1) The literature review needs to be enhanced, for example, the research gaps should be highlighted.

2) Subsection 4.5 (Lines 366-378) needs to be re-structured.

3) In section 4: please add a scientific justification about the sampling (64 & 32 samples).

4) Please expand the discussion section.

5) The conclusion section needs to be re-structured. Please include the future research agenda.

Thanks again and best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf