Now it's 1:20 on January 21, IRCer are stay up to work. This year I don't need to rush paper, so I can leisurely waiting in the laboratory "needed".Using this time to write Rebuttal experience, it is also not a waste of time and life. Hopefully, IRCer were able to receive review comments and score of SIGGRAPH in a half months after the Deadline. Then,the next stage is the Rebuttal. Rebuttal is a very important stage. Most of the articles need to go through an effective response analysis for the article is received. Rebuttal is total of five days,and after receiving the review opinions, they not only need to analysis calmly, also need to written rebuttal presentation. It takes about three days between receiving review comments and submitting document to Rebuttal.It includes the following stages: summarizing review comments,writing document.
Summarizing review comments
After receiving review comments, we need to read and summarize first and send the comments of summary review to the project partners right away (usually in the form of E-mail).The topics' name of E-mail follows :
| Project Name：Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5 (Average Score)
| Here is the summary of the reviews:1. Less of technique contributions/novelty
#50(3.7): The most negative point of this paper (I have reviewed a somewhat similar previous draft) is that the technical elements are unremarkable, with the user doing the hard part by performing the segmentation.
#89(2.9): …(he/she firstly said a new solution using current interacting tools, then as follows)..I would very likely get great results (at least it would not have the limitations described in Section 7.1), but I think that this hypothetical system is not really published in SIGGRAPH, given the lack of significant new concepts. The ground plane estimation and depth layering are minor contributions.
#88(3.3): The main weakness is that it is difficult to pull out a generally applicable novel technical idea. The approach is very-much focused on the target application.
#12(2.8):The novelty of the paper is weak. The depth ordering method is a bit similar to the recent method from Liu et al. 2013, even though no considering of temporal coherence constraint in depth ordering. The