OSA's Digital Library

Applied Optics

Applied Optics

APPLICATIONS-CENTERED RESEARCH IN OPTICS

  • Editor: James C. Wyant
  • Vol. 46, Iss. 22 — Aug. 1, 2007
  • pp: 5293–5303

Optical architectures for compressive imaging

Mark A. Neifeld and Jun Ke  »View Author Affiliations


Applied Optics, Vol. 46, Issue 22, pp. 5293-5303 (2007)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.46.005293


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (13593 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

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.

© 2007 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(100.0100) Image processing : Image processing
(110.0110) Imaging systems : Imaging systems
(110.4190) Imaging systems : Multiple imaging
(110.4280) Imaging systems : Noise in imaging systems

ToC Category:
Imaging Systems

History
Original Manuscript: September 5, 2006
Revised Manuscript: April 1, 2007
Manuscript Accepted: April 20, 2007
Published: July 12, 2007

Citation
Mark A. Neifeld and Jun Ke, "Optical architectures for compressive imaging," Appl. Opt. 46, 5293-5303 (2007)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-46-22-5293


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. D. Donoho, "Compressed sensing," IEEE Trans. Info. Theory 52, 1289-1306 (2006). [CrossRef]
  2. E. J. Candes and J. K. Romberg, "Practical signal recovery from random projections," IEEE Trans. Signal Process. (to be published).
  3. D. Takhar, J. N. Laska, M. B. Wakin, M. F. Duarte, D. Baron, S. Sarvotham, K. F. Kelly, and R. G. Baraniuk, "A new compressive imaging camera using optical domain compression," Proc. SPIE 6065, 606509 (2006). [CrossRef]
  4. M. A. Neifeld and P. Shankar, "Feature-specific imaging," Appl. Opt. 42, 3379-3389 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. H. Pal and M. A. Neifeld, "Multispectral principal component imaging," Opt. Express 11, 2118-2125 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. D. L. Marks, R. Stack, A. J. Johnson, D. J. Brady, and D. C. Munson, "Cone-beam tomography with a digital camera," Appl. Opt. 40, 1795-1805 (2001). [CrossRef]
  7. W. T. Cathey and E. R. Dowski, "New paradigm for imaging systems," Appl. Opt. 41, 6080-6092 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. H. S. Pal, D. Ganotra, and M. A. Neifeld, "Face recognition by using feature-specific imaging," Appl. Opt. 44, 3784-3794 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. I. T. Jolliffe, Principle Component Analysis (Springer, 2002).
  10. The University of Oulu Physics-Based Face Database, http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/imag/color/pbfd.html.
  11. H. H. Barrett and K. J. Myers, Foundations of Image Science (Wiley-Interscience, 2004).
  12. J. Ke, M. D. Stenner, and M. A. Neifeld, "Minimum reconstruction error in feature-specific imaging," Proc. SPIE 5817, 7-12 (2005). [CrossRef]
  13. W. Wenzel and K. Hamacher, "A stochastic tunneling approach for global minimization of complex potential energy landscapes," Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3003-3007 (1999). [CrossRef]
  14. J. Haupt and R. Nowak, "Signal reconstruction from noisy random projections," IEEE Trans. Info. Theory 52, 4036-4048 (2006). [CrossRef]
  15. M. F. Duarte, M. A. Davenport, M. B. Wakin, and R. G. Baraniuk, "Sparse signal detection from incoherent projections," in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2006. ICASSP 2006 Proceedings, Vol. 3 (IEEE, 2006).
  16. E. Candes, J. Romberg, and T. Tao, "Stable signal reconvery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements," Commun. Pure Appl. Mathematics 59, 1207-1223 (2006). [CrossRef]
  17. S. S. Chen, D. L. Donoho, and M. A. Saunders, "Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit," SIAM Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. J. Numer. Anal. 43, 129-159 (2001).
  18. H. H. Barrett, D. W. Wilson, and B. M. W. Tsui, "Noise properties of the EM algorithm: I. Theory," Phys. Med. Biol. 39, 833-845 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited