Journal of Graphics Tools Review Form

Paper Number:
Paper Title: Rendering Tubes from Discrete Curves with Anti-Aliasing and Continuous LOD
Author(s): Gustavo Nunes, Alexandre Valdetaro, Alberto Raposo, 
           Bruno Feijo, Rodrigo de Toledo

>1. Is it clear what the paper is offering? (E.g. what problem is being
>   solved)
>   * From reading the title and abstract, can the reader know what to expect
>     the "take-aways" to be? 
>   * And does it then deliver these? 
>   * What type of paper is it?
>          Trick/Hack
>          Original Technique/Algorithm
>          Novel Research Idea
>          Experience/Advice
>          Survey
>          Tutorial
>          Production Notes	
>   * Please summarize what the paper offers.

The paper proposes an algorithm that uses the new Tessellator pipeline to render 3D Tubes 
avoiding the CPU-GPU memory bandwidth bottleneck and solving the aliasing problem. 
Therefore, the paper fits the category "Original Technique/Algorithm". We think the abstract
describes clearly what the work offers.



>2. Is it a new idea or is it a new presentation of existing ideas? (The
>   paper should be explicit about this.)
>   * If it's a new idea, has it been sufficiently proven or "battle-tested"?
>     (An idea may be worthy as research but not mature enough to be
>     considered a tool.)
>   * If it's a presentation of existing ideas, is this presentation better
>     than existing texts or literature? "Better" can mean:
>          Clearer than existing literature.
>          Fills in gaps in existing literature.
>          The existing ideas are put together in a new and useful way.
>          The existing ideas are applied here to computer graphics.
>          The presentation is better-suited to the jgt audience.
>          Existing literature is too obscure for the jgt audience.

We believe the paper is a new presentation of existing ideas. The existing ideas are put 
together in a new and useful way and the presentation is better-suited for the jgt audience.



>3. Is the paper written simply and clearly? 
>
>   * Is it well organized?
>   * Is the language clear and readable?
>   * Are there appropriate figures? (Not too few or too many?)
>   * Are the figures clear?
>   * Is the bibliography adequate?  (Not too little or too much?)
>   * Is there appropriate background and introduction? (Not too little or
>     too much?)
>   * Is the paper "short and sweet"? (Will readers be happy to read all the way
>     through it?)


We made our best to organize the paper clearly. We believe the figures are clear and the
number of figures is adequate. Following the journal guidelines, the bibliography isn't 
extensive (we can easily extend it, if needed). Also according to the journal guidelines, 
we tried to balance the background and introduction to what we judged appropriate. 


>4. What service does the paper provide to the reader?  (Will jgt readers
>   want to try out the idea or technique in the paper?)
>
>   * How relevant and important is the topic?
>   * Does the paper:
>          Provide general education?
>	   Suggest a new way to accomplish a task?
>          Save the reader from going down false trails?
>          Save the reader from working out details?
>   * How unobvious is the idea or technique? (If it's the first thing a
>     competent graduate student would try, it's too obvious. If it's the
>     fourth, it could be worth publishing.)

The topic is relevant in the field of computer graphics. In section 1 we describe
several applications the make use of tubes visualization. The paper provides some
general education and, mainly, a new way to accomplish an efficient visualization
of a massive number of tubes. 

In our opinion, the idea is worth publishing since, to the best of our knowledge, 
hasn't been used yet.



>5. What is the level of utility of the paper?  (If jgt readers try out the
>   idea or technique in the paper, will they be glad they did?)
>
>   * Is it complete and sufficiently detailed?
>   * Is it sufficiently focused? (Does it avoid straying into irrelevancies
>     that the reader must filter out?)
>   * Does it address all singularities, degeneracies, boundary conditions,
>     and special cases?
>   * Does it honestly discuss drawbacks and limitations?
>   * Overall, could a reader immediately and easily make use of the content?
>     "Make use" can include:
>          Make use of source code.
>          Make use of pseudocode.
>          Make use of ideas.
>          Make use of knowledge.

We believe the paper is sufficiently detailed and focused. We discuss the limitations
and drawbacks in section 8, and some singularities/special cases throughout the text.
A reader may easily make use of the ideas and source code provided in the text.



>6. Recommendation:

As authors, we prefer not to provide a recommendation. 



>7. Please add any additional comments.