The reviewers overall felt positively about this paper, though scores were somewhat marginal. The reviews, while not glowing, overall lean toward acceptance of the paper: the reviewers feel the work is technically sound, the method is practical and effective, related work is good, and the experiments are convincing. There are some more tentative comments regarding the novelty/originality, being mostly a combination of existing techniques (R3), however this issue seems not to be a dealbreaker, and the difference compared to existing work is clear. There are a few clarifying points that seem to be addressed in the rebuttal.