Wavefront Coding

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Determination of optical W 20§ Artefact metric, ∇(i(W o 20)) minima when the restoration kernelmatches the imaging kernel:1SNR= 80 60 40 dB0.31575lNormalizedartefact metric0.80.60.41.39658l1.80218l2.76166l0.24.30275l0D0 1 2 3 4 5Defocus W 20 @l§ |W 20 -W 20 W 20(W 20= 4.30275λ)|
Accuracy of optical W 20DError in W 20 D @l (λ)1.0000.5000.1000.0500.0100.005áìçàæòôíóæçôæòíàìáóæàìçòôíæ ç íæíá æóô æòôàìáòçáæóìàóôíçáôæ òæòáíçæìàìàóDó10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80SNR SNR (dB) @dBôòçæáæíìàóæàìòôçáíóæBoatCameramanLenaManMandrillPlasticSpokeStrawsUS airforce testAverage• Optical defocus can be determined with sufficient accuracy• Low levels at high SNR• Masked by noise at low SNR• Optimisation of α is possible29
Page 1 and 2: Computational Imaging:More pixels,
Page 3 and 4: Why computational imaging?• Imagi
Page 5 and 6: Hybrid imaging5
Page 7 and 8: The additional parameter space with
Page 9 and 10: Effect of defocus when usingsymmetr
Page 11 and 12: Optimisation of artefact-free imagi
Page 13 and 14: Through-focus imaging fidelity13
Page 15 and 16: Expected imaging error• errorε 2
Page 17 and 18: Relative performance of cubic, pure
Page 19 and 20: Optimum phase amplitudeα optimum
Page 21 and 22: Artefacts⎡OH o'(x, y) = I −1 W2
Page 23 and 24: Decomposition of OTF• Defocus:•
Page 25 and 26: The origin of image replicationsOTF
Page 27: Parametric blind-deconvolution:Calc
Page 31 and 32: Simplification of LWIR F/1 f=75mm G
Page 33 and 34: Pure and Generalised Cubic Solution
Page 35 and 36: IR singlet and phase maskDesignManu
Page 37 and 38: And as a movie37
Page 39 and 40: Single-moving-element zoom lenses:t
Page 41 and 42: No Phase maskGeneralised CubicPure

Wavefront Coding

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?