| Literature DB >> 30231593 |
Zhixin Li1,2, Desheng Wen3, Zongxi Song4, Gang Liu5,6, Weikang Zhang7,8, Xin Wei9,10.
Abstract
Imaging past the diffraction limit is of significance to an optical system. Fourier ptychography (FP) is a novel coherent imaging technique that can achieve this goal and it is widely used in microscopic imaging. Most phase retrieval algorithms for FP reconstruction are based on Gaussian measurements which cannot extend straightforwardly to long range, sub-diffraction imaging setup because of laser speckle noise corruption. In this work, a new FP reconstruction framework is proposed for macroscopic visible imaging. When compared with existing research, the reweighted amplitude flow algorithm is adopted for better signal modeling, and the Regularization by Denoising (RED) scheme is introduced to reduce the effects of speckle. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed method can obtain state-of-the-art recovered results on both visual and quantitative metrics without increasing computation cost, and it is flexible for real imaging applications.Entities:
Keywords: Fourier optics and signal processing; Fourier ptychography; computational imaging; phase retrieval; sub-diffraction visible imaging
Year: 2018 PMID: 30231593 PMCID: PMC6164269 DOI: 10.3390/s18093154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Transfer functions of the imaging system with incoherent illumination, coherent illumination and macroscopic Fourier ptychography, respectively.
Figure 2The imaging process of Fourier ptychography.
Figure 3Peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) for Reweighted Amplitude Flow for Fourier Ptychography (RAFP) algorithm with different weights.
Figure 4Block scheme of the simulation experiments.
PSNR(dB) and structure similarity (SSIM) of the proposed algorithm with different denoisers and varying amounts of Gaussian noise.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | |
| Without RED | 29.72 | 0.90 | 28.93 | 0.88 | 28.43 | 0.87 | 28.10 | 0.86 | 27.86 | 0.85 |
| RED-median | 30.10 |
| 29.32 |
| 28.85 |
| 28.47 | 0.87 | 28.15 | 0.86 |
| RED-wavelet | 30.12 | 0.90 | 28.98 | 0.88 | 28.57 | 0.87 | 28.18 | 0.86 | 27.92 | 0.85 |
| RED-BM3D |
| 0.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PSNR(dB) and SSIM of the proposed algorithm with different denoisers and varying amounts of speckle noise.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | |
| Without RED | 24.08 | 0.82 | 21.36 | 0.74 | 19.20 | 0.66 | 17.78 | 0.60 | 16.70 | 0.54 |
| RED-median | 27.31 |
| 26.93 |
| 26.09 |
| 25.03 | 0.83 | 24.07 | 0.81 |
| RED-Lee filter | 26.93 | 0.89 | 26. 69 | 0.88 | 25.38 | 0.84 | 24.46 | 0.81 | 23.52 | 0.78 |
| RED-BM3D |
|
|
| 0.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5Quantitative comparison of the reconstruction results by different methods under Gaussian noise and speckle noise.
Comparison of running time between different algorithms.
| AP | WFP | TAFP | RAFP-median | RAFP-BM3D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iteration | 100 | 350 | 300 | 200 | 140 |
| Running time(s) | 25 | 332 | 294 | 206 | 630 |
Figure 6Visual comparison of the reconstruction results by different methods under Gaussian noise and speckle noise.