Paper: #1515
Title: Online Image Processing System for Fire in A Burner 

Recommendation: 
    Marginal Tend to Reject: Not as badly flawed; major effort necessary to make acceptable but content well-covered in literature already

Paper Categorization: 
    Tends toward practical

Overall Value Added to the Field:
(Check as many as appropriate)

    Not much

Reviewer Familiarity with Subject Matter
Relates to the confidence you have in your review 

    Moderate

Is this paper a candidate for the best paper award? 
    No

Is the paper length appropriate? 
    Yes



If from reading the paper you know who the author is, how different is this from earlier papers on the same topic by the same author? That is, is it the same as or a slight modification of other papers, with little or no new information? 

    Don't know


Optional: Which of the following session(s) would be the most appropriate for this paper? We use these suggestions in assigning papers to sessions for the conference, but not in determining whether the paper is accepted)

   Intelligent Image and Signal Processing

__________________________________
Comments for the Program Committee
(Reasons must be included for all papers, because they help us determine what to do when reviewers disagree with each other.) 

None
Reviewer don't understand the implication inside (     )

________________________
Comments for the Authors

Authors wrote
"the results are much closed to the other measurements."
in the end of Section VI.

So I guess those formulae in this section seems to be your proposal. Why do you describe it more clearly. To me those equations look like from some text books. If not, you should clear what is your proposal and what is already-known-equations-proposed-by-others-before. Then what is the other measurements? You didn't even give references of this other measurements.

In addition, your text above includes basic mistake of English usage. Proof-read more carefully.

All 10 papers the authors listed in REFERENCE were old, more or less, of which 4 are by authors of this article. It suggest survey of this topic is not enough at all. Authors should know one of the purposes of the reference list is for readers to know how this topic was well surveyed by the author.