| Literature DB >> 35336337 |
Alejandro Morales1, Pablo Horstrand1, Raúl Guerra1, Raquel Leon1, Samuel Ortega1,2, María Díaz1, José M Melián1, Sebastián López1, José F López1, Gustavo M Callico1, Ernestina Martel1, Roberto Sarmiento1.
Abstract
Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) techniques have demonstrated potential to provide useful information in a broad set of applications in different domains, from precision agriculture to environmental science. A first step in the preparation of the algorithms to be employed outdoors starts at a laboratory level, capturing a high amount of samples to be analysed and processed in order to extract the necessary information about the spectral characteristics of the studied samples in the most precise way. In this article, a custom-made scanning system for hyperspectral image acquisition is described. Commercially available components have been carefully selected in order to be integrated into a flexible infrastructure able to obtain data from any Generic Interface for Cameras (GenICam) compliant devices using the gigabyte Ethernet interface. The entire setup has been tested using the Specim FX hyperspectral series (FX10 and FX17) and a Graphical User Interface (GUI) has been developed in order to control the individual components and visualise data. Morphological analysis, spectral response and optical aberration of these pushbroom-type hyperspectral cameras have been evaluated prior to the validation of the whole system with different plastic samples for which spectral signatures are extracted and compared with well-known spectral libraries.Entities:
Keywords: aberrations; hyperspectral images; image acquisition; validation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35336337 PMCID: PMC8956094 DOI: 10.3390/s22062159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Hyperspectral Laboratory model and detail view. (a) 3D model of the acquisition system. (b) Detailed view of the main components involved in the acquisition system.
Specim FX10 and FX17 main characteristics.
| FX10 | FX17 | |
|---|---|---|
| Spectral Range | 400–1000 nm | 900–1700 nm |
| Spectral Bands | 224 | 224 |
| Spatial Sampling | 1024 px | 640 px |
| Spectral FWHM | 5.5 nm | 8 nm |
| Spectral Resolution | 2.7 nm | 3.5 nm |
| Frame Rate | 327 FPS | 527 FPS |
| FOV ( | 38° | 38° |
| Camera SNR (Peak) | 420:1 | 1000:1 |
| Dimensions | 150 × 85 × 71 mm | 150 × 75 × 85 mm |
| Weight | 1.26 kg | 1.56 kg |
| Sensor Material | CMOS | InGaAs |
| Camera Interface | GigE | GigE |
| Effective slit width | 42 μm | 42 μm |
| Bit depth | 12 | 12 |
Zaber A-LST1000B linear stage main characteristics.
| Maximum Centered Load | 1000 N |
| Maximum Cantilever Load | 3000 N·cm |
| Maximum Continuous Thrust | 350 N |
| Microstep Size (Resolution) | 0.4961 μm |
| Travel Range | 1000 mm |
| Backlash | <10 μm |
| Maximum Speed | 100 mm/s |
| Minimum Speed | 0.000303 mm/s |
| Weight | 6.90 kg |
| Communication Interface | RS-232 |
| Communication Protocol | Zaber ASCII/Zaber Binary |
Figure 2Stream tab of the application user interface.
Figure 3Calibration popup window.
Figure 4Diagram of the capturing system.
Figure 5Capture popup window.
Figure 6Representation of the keystone effect on individual frames. (a) With hardware aberration correction disabled. (b) With hardware aberration correction enabled.
Keystone empirical results measured in pixels.
| Specim FX10 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| w. AIE | w/o. AIE | Correction (%) | |
| left side | 0.86597 | 4.55817 | 81.00 |
| right side | 0.07689 | 3.99435 | 98.07 |
| center | 0.04523 | 1.07568 | 95.79 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
| left side | 0.94518 | 1.47291 | 35.82 |
| right side | 0.82366 | 1.38280 | 40.43 |
| center | 0.03998 | 1.12169 | 96.43 |
Figure 7Color checker acquisition.
Figure 8Representation of the smile effect by measuring the same element on different camera FOV positions. (a) With hardware aberration correction disabled. (b) With hardware aberration correction enabled.
Figure 9Camera spectral validation using a Zenith Polymer material. (a) Polymer signature comparison. (b) Signal error.
Figure 10GSD empirical measurement using a chessboard pattern. (a) Chessboard pattern x-lambda image. (b) The centre line of the frame displayed in (a). (c) First derivative of plot displayed in (b).
GSD empirical measurements results.
| Specim FX10 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||
| 280 | 0.188 | 0.216 | 12.96 |
| 680 | 0.457 | 0.476 | 3.99 |
| 920 | 0.618 | 0.641 | 3.58 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||
| 280 | 0.301 | 0.325 | 7.38 |
| 680 | 0.731 | 0.778 | 6.04 |
| 920 | 0.989 | 1.014 | 2.45 |
Figure 11Morphological analysis of the proposed system using the Specim FX10 camera. (a) Binary image of the acquired circular object captured using the empirical GSD. Fitted ellipse axes are shown in red and blue. (b) Binary image of the acquired circular object captured using the theoretical GSD. Fitted ellipse axes are shown in red and blue.
Morphological analysis results.
| Ellipse Axis Ratio | ||
|---|---|---|
| Fx10 | Fx17 | |
| GSD theoretical (h = 920 mm) [mm/px] | 0.9766 | 0.9701 |
| GSD empirical value [mm/px] | 0.9986 | 0.9814 |
Figure 12Plastic samples layout in the proposed hyperspectral acquisition system.
Figure 13Plastic samples analysis using the developed software tool.
Figure 14Comparison between the USGS plastics and the plastics captured by the Specim FX17. (a) HDPE plastic comparison. (b) LDPE plastic comparison.