OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A


  • Editor: Franco Gori
  • Vol. 29, Iss. 5 — May. 1, 2012
  • pp: 782–789

Computational ghost imaging for remote sensing

Baris I. Erkmen  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 29, Issue 5, pp. 782-789 (2012)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (427 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Computational ghost imaging is a structured-illumination active imager coupled with a single-pixel detector that has potential applications in remote sensing. Here we report on an architecture that acquires the two-dimensional spatial Fourier transform of the target object (which can be inverted to obtain a conventional image). We determine its image signature, resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio in the presence of practical constraints such as atmospheric turbulence, background radiation, and photodetector noise. We consider a bistatic imaging geometry and quantify the resolution impact of nonuniform Kolmogorov-spectrum turbulence along the propagation paths. We show that, in some cases, short-exposure intensity averaging can mitigate atmospheric-turbulence-induced resolution loss. Our analysis reveals some key performance differences between computational ghost imaging and conventional active imaging, and identifies scenarios in which theory predicts that the former will perform better than the latter.

© 2012 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(030.6600) Coherence and statistical optics : Statistical optics
(110.2990) Imaging systems : Image formation theory
(110.1758) Imaging systems : Computational imaging

ToC Category:
Imaging Systems

Original Manuscript: November 4, 2011
Revised Manuscript: January 31, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: February 4, 2012
Published: April 24, 2012

Baris I. Erkmen, "Computational ghost imaging for remote sensing," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 29, 782-789 (2012)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, “Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429 (1995). [CrossRef]
  2. A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, “Correlated imaging, quantum and classical,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 013802 (2004). [CrossRef]
  3. A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, “Ghost imaging with thermal light: comparing entanglement and classical correlation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 093602 (2004). [CrossRef]
  4. Y. Cai and S.-Y. Zhu, “Ghost imaging with incoherent and partially coherent light radiation,” Phys. Rev. E 71, 056607 (2005). [CrossRef]
  5. B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Unified theory of ghost imaging with Gaussian-state light,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 043809 (2008). [CrossRef]
  6. B. I. Erkmen and J. H. Shapiro, “Ghost imaging: from quantum to classical to computational,” Adv. Opt. Photon. 2, 405–450 (2010). [CrossRef]
  7. We define a classical source as one whose photodetection statistics can be accurately described using the semiclassical (shot-noise) theory. This is equivalent to having a source state with a proper P-representation. [17] A quantum source is one whose photodetection statistics cannot be described by the semiclassical theory; i.e., the source state does not have a proper P-representation.
  8. J. H. Shapiro, “Computational ghost imaging,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 061802(R) (2008).
  9. Y. Bromberg, O. Katz, and Y. Silberberg, “Ghost imaging with a single detector,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 053840 (2009). [CrossRef]
  10. P. K. Baheti and M. A. Neifeld, “Feature-specific structured imaging,” Appl. Opt. 45, 7382–7391 (2006). [CrossRef]
  11. O. Katz, Y. Bromberg, and Y. Silberberg, “Compressive ghost imaging,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 131110 (2009). [CrossRef]
  12. R. Meyers and K. S. Deacon, “Quantum ghost imaging experiments at ARL,” Proc. SPIE 7815, 78150I (2010). [CrossRef]
  13. N. D. Hardy and J. H. Shapiro, “Ghost imaging in reflection: resolution, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio,” Proc. SPIE 7815, 78150L (2010). [CrossRef]
  14. J. Cheng, “Ghost imaging through turbulent atmosphere,” Opt. Express 17, 7916–7921 (2009). [CrossRef]
  15. N. D. Hardy, “Analyzing and improving image quality in reflective ghost imaging,” S.M. thesis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011).
  16. N. D. Hardy and J. H. Shapiro, “Reflective ghost imaging through turbulence,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 063824 (2011). [CrossRef]
  17. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University, 1995).
  18. M. Duarte, M. Davenport, D. Takhar, J. Laska, T. Sun, K. Kelly, and R. Baraniuk, “Single-pixel imaging via compressive sampling,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25, 83–91 (2008). [CrossRef]
  19. R. F. Lutomirski and H. T. Yura, “Propagation of a finite optical beam in an inhomogeneous medium,” Appl. Opt. 10, 1652–1658 (1971). [CrossRef]
  20. J. H. Shapiro, Imaging and Optical Communication Through Atmospheric Turbulence (Springer-Verlag, 1978), Chap. 6.
  21. L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips, Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media, 2nd ed. (SPIE, 2005).
  22. Although the Eq. (7) structure function was initially derived using the weak-fluctuation (Rytov) approximation, it remains valid well beyond the regime in which the Rytov approximation can be used [20].
  23. M. H. Lee, J. F. Holmes, and J. R. Kerr, “Statistics of speckle propagation through the turbulent atmosphere,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 1164–1172 (1976). [CrossRef]
  24. A more general and better filter is gn(t)≡ ∑kfk*(t)fk+n(t)-〈|fk(t)|2〉δ0,n, but because it complicates the forthcoming analysis, here we use the suboptimal filter in Eq. (14).
  25. D. Kryskowski and G. H. Suits, Sources of Radiation (SPIE, 1993), Vol. 1, Chap. 3.
  26. N. S. Kopeika and J. Bordogna, “Background noise in optical communication systems,” Proc. IEEE 58, 1571–1577 (1970). [CrossRef]
  27. B. I. Erkmen, “Computational ghost imaging for remote sensing applications,” Interplanet. Netw. Prog. Rep. 42–185, 1–23 (2011).
  28. Given that the atmospheric coherence time is typically longer than a millisecond, and SLMs have modulation bandwidths that are several MHz, correlations can be taken nominally over thousands of modulation symbols before the state of turbulence has significantly changed.
  29. J. W. Goodman, Speckle Phenomena in Optics (Ben Roberts, 2007).
  30. J. R. Fienup, “Lensless coherent imaging by phase retrieval with an illumination pattern constraint,” Opt. Express 14, 498–508 (2006). [CrossRef]
  31. P. S. Idell, J. R. Fienup, and R. S. Goodman, “Image synthesis from nonimaged laser-speckle patterns,” Opt. Lett. 12, 858–860 (1987). [CrossRef]
  32. A raster-scanning laser radar would share the same limitations with computational ghost imaging regarding forward-path turbulence, as the focused-spot size on the target surface would become turbulence-limited when the transmitter-aperture diameter exceeds the transmitter-plane coherence length.
  33. B. M. Welsh and C. S. Gardner, “Bistatic imaging lidar technique for upper atmospheric studies,” Appl. Opt. 28, 82–88 (1989). [CrossRef]
  34. S. Komiyama, “Single-photon detectors in the terahertz range,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 17, 54–66 (2011). [CrossRef]
  35. M. J. Fitch and R. Osiander, “Terahertz waves for communications and sensing,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 25, 348–355 (2004).

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.


Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited