意見如下：
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.
第一個(gè)審稿人綜合評(píng)價(jià)給了個(gè)good  第二個(gè)審稿人綜合評(píng)價(jià)給了個(gè)marginal，有點(diǎn)好奇，marginal 到底是什么意思，我投的這個(gè)期刊一共五個(gè)檔
Excellent  good  marginal poor  impossible  to read 返回小木蟲查看更多