grARffiti: The Reconstruction and Deployment of Augmented Reality (AR) Graffiti

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very nice paper on the augmentation of cultural heritage due to graffiti. There are only a few minor comments that I have.

 

The paper does not provide sufficient technical information for the reproduction of this work by the reader. The implementation of the method is not presented in sufficient detail.

 

The experimental results are qualitative and not quantitative. A quantitative characterisation of the accuracy, performance, and computational requirements of the method should be provided.

 

The proposed method is not compared to any other competitive method in the literature. 

 

The figures need a bit more explanation. There are many figures with very little discussion so that the reader can understand the point made by each one and the reason that it is shown.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.

Your suggestions are highly appreciated.

 

Best regards,

Naai-Jung Shih

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented paper employs an emerging digital technology to support graffiti creation and fruition. The paper could be better set, the content is interesting, but some aspects could be improved:

- What does it mean that the proposed methodology is an ANTICIPATION of existing graffiti?

- There are a lot of Sections and subsections. The authors should better explain the section subdivision.

 

- Related works section does not really introduce similar previous work, but frames the context as well as the introduction. Related works should deepen existing digital solutions dealing with graffiti, or steps of the process detailed in the manuscript, for instance the need of recreate 3D environments from 2D images, as described in Cannavò et al. "Automatic generation of affective 3D virtual environments from 2D images".

- Although several apects of adopting AR in graffiti realization are undoubdtely positive ("they do not have to always be created in the darkness, nor does it need to be maintained or 43 governed"), I think that negative aspects should be addressed in a limitation Sections. For instance, artists could complain about the loss of physicality, in fact some artists may feel that AR graffiti lacks this tangible, visceral quality, making it less authentic, there could be a loss of social significance, since graffiti could be seen as act of rebellion, and the temporary nature of a virtual graffiti could seen as depersonalization.

- Detail which steps of the proposed methodology should be prioritized for addresing future research.

- Define all the acronyms the first time they are adopted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.

Your suggestions are highly appreciated.

 

Best regards,

Naai-Jung Shih

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors solved all my doubts and answered all my comments and suggestions properly. In my opinion, the manuscript is ready for the publication.