Optical architectures for compressive imaging

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

72 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compare three optical architectures for compressive imaging: sequential, parallel, and photon sharing. Each of these architectures is analyzed using two different types of projection: (a) principal component projections and (b) pseudo-random projections. Both linear and nonlinear reconstruction methods are studied. The performance of each architecture-projection combination is quantified in terms of reconstructed image quality as a function of measurement noise strength. Using a linear reconstruction operator we find that in all cases of (a) there is a measurement noise level above which compressive imaging is superior to conventional imaging. Normalized by the average object pixel brightness, these threshold noise standard deviations are 6.4, 4.9, and 2.1 for the sequential, parallel, and photon sharing architectures, respectively. We also find that conventional imaging outperforms compressive imaging using pseudo-random projections when linear reconstruction is employed. In all cases the photon sharing architecture is found to be more photon-efficient than the other two optical implementations and thus offers the highest performance among all compressive methods studied here. For example, with principal component projections and a linear reconstruction operator, the photon sharing architecture provides at least 17.6% less reconstruction error than either of the other two architectures for a noise strength of 1.6 times the average object pixel brightness. We also demonstrate that nonlinear reconstruction methods can offer additional performance improvements to all architectures for small values of noise.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5293-5303
Number of pages11
JournalApplied Optics
Volume46
Issue number22
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2007

Fingerprint

Photons
Imaging techniques
projection
Luminance
photons
Pixels
noise measurement
brightness
noise threshold
pixels
Image quality
operators
standard deviation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

Cite this

Optical architectures for compressive imaging. / Neifeld, Mark A; Ke, Jun.

In: Applied Optics, Vol. 46, No. 22, 01.08.2007, p. 5293-5303.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Neifeld, Mark A ; Ke, Jun. / Optical architectures for compressive imaging. In: Applied Optics. 2007 ; Vol. 46, No. 22. pp. 5293-5303.
@article{0c0617574d04421c80a35b35ac0553ce,
title = "Optical architectures for compressive imaging",
abstract = "We compare three optical architectures for compressive imaging: sequential, parallel, and photon sharing. Each of these architectures is analyzed using two different types of projection: (a) principal component projections and (b) pseudo-random projections. Both linear and nonlinear reconstruction methods are studied. The performance of each architecture-projection combination is quantified in terms of reconstructed image quality as a function of measurement noise strength. Using a linear reconstruction operator we find that in all cases of (a) there is a measurement noise level above which compressive imaging is superior to conventional imaging. Normalized by the average object pixel brightness, these threshold noise standard deviations are 6.4, 4.9, and 2.1 for the sequential, parallel, and photon sharing architectures, respectively. We also find that conventional imaging outperforms compressive imaging using pseudo-random projections when linear reconstruction is employed. In all cases the photon sharing architecture is found to be more photon-efficient than the other two optical implementations and thus offers the highest performance among all compressive methods studied here. For example, with principal component projections and a linear reconstruction operator, the photon sharing architecture provides at least 17.6{\%} less reconstruction error than either of the other two architectures for a noise strength of 1.6 times the average object pixel brightness. We also demonstrate that nonlinear reconstruction methods can offer additional performance improvements to all architectures for small values of noise.",
author = "Neifeld, {Mark A} and Jun Ke",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1364/AO.46.005293",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "5293--5303",
journal = "Applied Optics",
issn = "1559-128X",
publisher = "The Optical Society",
number = "22",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optical architectures for compressive imaging

AU - Neifeld, Mark A

AU - Ke, Jun

PY - 2007/8/1

Y1 - 2007/8/1

N2 - We compare three optical architectures for compressive imaging: sequential, parallel, and photon sharing. Each of these architectures is analyzed using two different types of projection: (a) principal component projections and (b) pseudo-random projections. Both linear and nonlinear reconstruction methods are studied. The performance of each architecture-projection combination is quantified in terms of reconstructed image quality as a function of measurement noise strength. Using a linear reconstruction operator we find that in all cases of (a) there is a measurement noise level above which compressive imaging is superior to conventional imaging. Normalized by the average object pixel brightness, these threshold noise standard deviations are 6.4, 4.9, and 2.1 for the sequential, parallel, and photon sharing architectures, respectively. We also find that conventional imaging outperforms compressive imaging using pseudo-random projections when linear reconstruction is employed. In all cases the photon sharing architecture is found to be more photon-efficient than the other two optical implementations and thus offers the highest performance among all compressive methods studied here. For example, with principal component projections and a linear reconstruction operator, the photon sharing architecture provides at least 17.6% less reconstruction error than either of the other two architectures for a noise strength of 1.6 times the average object pixel brightness. We also demonstrate that nonlinear reconstruction methods can offer additional performance improvements to all architectures for small values of noise.

AB - We compare three optical architectures for compressive imaging: sequential, parallel, and photon sharing. Each of these architectures is analyzed using two different types of projection: (a) principal component projections and (b) pseudo-random projections. Both linear and nonlinear reconstruction methods are studied. The performance of each architecture-projection combination is quantified in terms of reconstructed image quality as a function of measurement noise strength. Using a linear reconstruction operator we find that in all cases of (a) there is a measurement noise level above which compressive imaging is superior to conventional imaging. Normalized by the average object pixel brightness, these threshold noise standard deviations are 6.4, 4.9, and 2.1 for the sequential, parallel, and photon sharing architectures, respectively. We also find that conventional imaging outperforms compressive imaging using pseudo-random projections when linear reconstruction is employed. In all cases the photon sharing architecture is found to be more photon-efficient than the other two optical implementations and thus offers the highest performance among all compressive methods studied here. For example, with principal component projections and a linear reconstruction operator, the photon sharing architecture provides at least 17.6% less reconstruction error than either of the other two architectures for a noise strength of 1.6 times the average object pixel brightness. We also demonstrate that nonlinear reconstruction methods can offer additional performance improvements to all architectures for small values of noise.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35448975130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35448975130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1364/AO.46.005293

DO - 10.1364/AO.46.005293

M3 - Article

C2 - 17676143

AN - SCOPUS:35448975130

VL - 46

SP - 5293

EP - 5303

JO - Applied Optics

JF - Applied Optics

SN - 1559-128X

IS - 22

ER -