You know those kids' books that have the bumpy plastic coating and when you turn the book one way you see one image - look at it from a different angle and you see another image?
This is the same concept. They have a bumpy plastic coating that sends the incoming light in different directions. They do some processing on standard images to determine how the scattering works and then use that scattering pattern to reconstruct new images.
I would view the bumpy coating as a myriad of lenses that change the character of the incoming light.
We have one of those windows in our bathroom with the glass that is warped so that it breaks up the light so much that it gives you privacy. I've often thought that it would be a fun project to create a camera system that you could calibrate to decrypt that scattered image by placing a known image behind the window and pre-determining how the light waves are refracted. It's cool to see that someone implemented something similar.
I don't think you know what the word 'lens' means[0]. It has a pretty solid definition, and the objects used in the paper do not meet it. To be a lens the object has to focus or disperse light via refraction, the objects used in the paper and then referenced in the article diffuse[1] light.
Even relaxing the definition of lens to be an object designed to have particular optical properties, the diffusion filters referenced in the article weren't designed but chosen arbitrarily (they use the laminate from an ID badge at one point). That's the bulk of the reason this is valuable is because it eliminates one of the most expensive components required to accomplish the same result (the micro-array lens they reference in the article).
Now, the lenticular lens you referenced is a lens because of how it operates, but the referenced in the article technique definitively does not require a lens because lenses aren't diffusers. Does that make sense?
I'm not really interested in having a semantic argument about the meaning of lens, but what the heck...
To be a lens the object has to focus or disperse light via refraction, the objects used in the paper and then referenced in the article diffuse[1] light
What do you think the "bumpy piece of plastic" in the article does, if not focus and disperse light using refraction? There's no separate optical effect called "diffusion" that isn't based upon dispersion. As a matter of fact, often a diffuser is referred to as a "diffuser lens":
the diffusion filters referenced in the article weren't designed but chosen arbitrarily
Nothing I said indicated that the specific bumpy plastic patterns needed to be designed. See my related thoughts on decoding images seen through privacy glass. It's the same concept, except they use the refracted images to specifically select for multiple incoming light angles to create 3D images (when they're doing the 3D image part). I actually understand how they did what they did fairly well. I read the first couple of lines in the article and knew that they had implemented the same concept that I had thought about years ago.
Now, the lenticular lens you referenced is a lens because of how it operates, but the referenced in the article technique definitively does not require a lens because lenses aren't diffusers. Does that make sense?
I think maybe you're coming at this subject from photography terminology? Perhaps that's why you think there's some kind of distinction between a "lens" and a "diffuser". I'm coming at it from a physics perspective where these are really the same thing.
Semantics is important when you're trying to change the definition of a word that is rigorously defined. Your assertion that the bumpy piece of plastic in the article focus's or disperse's light is false because it does neither, it diffuses light. Focus and disperse have very specific meanings in physics that are not met by an arbitrary piece of material.
If you're confident that a diffuser meets the physical definition of a lens could you point me to reference material that is from something a bit more rigorous than ylighting's webpage? I have yet to see any physics source refer to a diffuser as a lens, Edmund Optics [0] is very precise in their aversion to using that term for a diffuser.
I have yet to find any physics texts that indicate a diffuser is a lens. Please correct me if you have a source because ylighting looks like a commercial supplier using the same imprecise language that you were.
I am happy to stand corrected but I'm not okay with the top comment on a science article undermining scientific definitions.
Semantics is important when you're trying to change the definition of a word that is rigorously defined
I'm not changing the meaning of "lens". First-of-all, I don't have that kind of authority. Second-of-all, the bumpy plastic is clearly being used as a lens.
The bumpy plastic is used to focus light onto the sensor array in a novel way that allows the resulting sensor image to be used to construct 2D and 3D images. A lens focuses or disperses light, normally to form an image. That's what is happening here in this device. Just because the lens shape is irregular, unplanned, and not a standard one you'd find in a camera shop doesn't mean it's not a lens.
reference material that is from something a bit more rigorous than ylighting's webpage
That was just one of many examples of references to "diffuser lens". Feel free to do some googling.
> You know those kids' books that have the bumpy plastic coating and when you turn the book one way you see one image - look at it from a different angle and you see another image?
Frosted glass can often be restored to transparency by putting a strip of clear tape over the rough side.
And I agree that your privacy-glass camera would be a fun project. The kicker is that it may even be able to reconstruct portions of the 3-d scene behind the window that would not have been visible through a clear window.
I recall seeing a project to create a camera that can see around corners by analyzing the diffuse reflections on surfaces visible to the camera. It would be almost the same principle.
I think "scanning" would imply compositing info gathered at different instances of time to reconstruct 3-D models ... e.g., LIDAR captures a point cloud with points measured at different times and tries to reconstruct objects from that point cloud. Perhaps the time it takes LIDAR to gather the whole point cloud is small, but objects will drift during that time and the reconstruction algorithm might need to account for this. On the other hand, the article's method captures all info in one instantaneous image and reconstructs based on the known, recorded, bias of the irregular lens and the implied 3-D locations of objects.
Actually that bumpy coating was the prior state of the art, this is instead a diffusing filter like scotch tape, and specifically works by not focusing light.
Brilliant and amazing. "This is a very powerful direction for imaging, but requires designers with optical and physics expertise as well as computational knowledge." It’s a little crazy to me how much can be accomplished by tackling hard problems in one domain by leveraging ideas and expertise from a seemingly unrelated[1], unexpected domain. Specialization is at the same time super important and a potential bottleneck to innovation. This fascinates me.
[1]Not that physics expertise in imagery is unrelated, but I feel like it’s being used in very non-traditional ways here.
This is really neat, it seems to me like they use a see through material of some sort that scatters light randomly as a filter in front of the camera. They then move around a small light and use that to figure out the pattern that the light is scattered in by the material?
Can someone explain why they can't apply the same reconstruction technique to the data that would be captured without a diffuser; i.e. why the diffuser is required?
It's a good question and I think strikes at the heart of the idea.
A lens transforms a family of rays to a pixel location. Given knowledge of that pixel's intensity there is a degenerate solution for the original ray (in terms of it's location and direction at some plane). This degeneracy is one thing that leads to blurry photos.
The micro lens camera referenced in the article spreads this family over more pixels in a known, analytic way to make the solution more unique. In principle it suffers from the same degeneracy but each micro lens limits the possible location of rays so if any of the pixels under it are hit then the general location is set and the exact pixel in the group determines the direction.
The diffuser works similarly but spreads direction and position location over many pixels and in a random way (seeded by the material and it's precise placement). While this spread can not be calculated it can be discovered through calibration with known point sources.
In both these latter cases one inverts this analytic or calibrated ray->pixel matrix and applies that to the measured pixels to reconstruct the rays that have likely caused the measurement.
In the case of the diffuse "lens", the required matrix inversion can be computationally expensive at best and impossible at worse. However, the methods of compressed sensing (in particular L1 regularization) allow an approximate inversion to be done in a relatively fast manner.
Ok, thank you. As I understand what you have written, the diffuser does as its name suggests, and spreads light rays over more pixels than they would otherwise have struck, making it easier to construct the pixel -> ray function.
As a matter of interest, do you think it would still be possible to apply the technique without the diffuser, presumably obtaining a lower-fidelity reconstruction, by leaning more heavily on the regularisation?
Without the diffuser, the only information you have is roughly "a light ray hit the sensor at location (x, y)". You can't derive from that information what direction the photon hit the sensor from.
This technique gives you "a light ray hit the sensor at locations (x1, y1) through (xn, yn)". You can deconvolve that list to get an approximate vector the ray hit the diffuser at.
Obviously there's a lot of calculation involved to apply this deconvolution over the entire image at once, but it's the same thing light field cameras have been doing for a while. The innovative bit here is working with a random diffuser, rather than a very precise lens configuration.
Ah yes, of course, I see what you mean. Presumably there is some minimal number of pixels required to stand any chance of resolving the orientation of a particular bundle of light rays (I would imagine 3)?
Also, would it be true to say that the more pixels you manage to spread a given ray bundle over, the better the reconstruction, and that the main trade-off is between the accuracy and the density of the reconstructed ray bundles, for a fixed number of pixels?
I have to admit you're moving past my level of knowledge on the topic. Both of your suppositions seem likely correct, but my understanding of the calculation technique involved is superficial at best.
Invertibility is not trivial, and because full-field imaging is typically shift-variant this is a hard sell compared to Hartmann mask ( or lenselets) approaches which have none of the calibration steps.
I work in this field. I think they are motivated by novelty.
Actually, lenslets/Hartmann mask are not shift-invariant, and getting depth info (3D) requires loss of shift invariance (see http://web.mit.edu/2.717/www/stein.pdf). Lenslet-based light field cameras also have very extensive calibration routines to align the lenslets on a per-pixel basis.
You can either build a system where the field lands on the detector in a known way, or build one where it lands in an unknown way and try to figure out what the heck happened. In light of many functional designs (for example, Phasics, Zygo) I don't see why your group introduces the unknown factor. Could this have been done by a camera from Phasics?
I think the addition of the diffuser adds the 'depth response' to the camera. Imagine that you had two point light sources located some distance away from the sensor such that one is directly in front of the other. They're magical point light sources so the light from the rear one just passes through the front.
If you didn't have anything in front of the sensor, there would be no way to distinguish that there are two point sources, as opposed to a single point source with a non uniform output.
I think the diffuser ensures that there is a random distribution of incidence angle of photons. Then, if I understand, an optimisation is basically used to figure out what pixels correspond to what angles. I think the actual angle calculation is skipped and the reconstruction is done directly, but the "angle" concept is implicitly taken into account by the fact that it is needed for the 3D reconstruction to take place.
you could try but the amount of angle information in the data will be so small that noise will destroy the results. Said another way, the diffuser makes the forward model more invertible (better condition number).
To me this is the most major breakthrough I've heard in the recent years, which can and will hopefully affect everything. Using the extra CMOS Chip on your flagship smartphone will allow for taking 3D and soon Holographic pictures!
How Amazing! I remember there was an AI trained to turn 2D pictures into 3D [2], combining that with the NPU Chip on smartphones can truly make this happens very soon.
This could also be used to analyze some material used as the diffuser.
The 'shape' of the caustics captured by the sensor with a given electromagnetic 'lightsource' can probably yield some interesting information regarding the diffuser. Kinda like an spectrograph works.
Yes, I know, thanks, but at the end of the day the Lytro nice technology allows for focus and depth of field correction (besides some slight shift in pespective), but once the "wow" effect has faded away (I mean for "plain" photography), that's it.
For cinema, VR and CGI it is simply great of course.
In the movie, from a plain photography, the ESPER machine manages, somehow, to enter into a reflection, and then expand in the reflection, seeing things that are "not there" in the original image, in practice in the fiction the whole 3d space (even what is on the side of the door) is navigable and viewable:
TL;DR: this is an approach that simplifies the production of light field cameras (cameras that measure both color and angle of incoming light beams): instead of building a grid of microscopic lenses, you use a "random" piece of opaque plastic like scotch tape, and figure out how it modifies incoming light using a calibration phase.
Here is a similar approach using water droplets instead of a diffuse film, but they don't go as far as performing 3D reconstruction from the light field and the ray directions are not calibrated by a calibration pattern but by inferring a 3D model of the droplets: https://light.cs.uni-bonn.de/4d-imaging-through-spray-on-opt...
Could some middle-ground device exist where the lens is still manufactured for this use-case but still lower cost overall as the system has a high tolerance for quality/defects by implementing the calibration step?
Sounds reasonable. They basically proved that the worse possible lens they can manufacture can still provide the information they need. I have no idea what the size of the relative trade offs involved are - ie, if you loosen the tolerance of your lens manufacturing by X%, what increase in computation is required. Exciting times!
Article and especially the title are of pretty low quality.
Assuming the voxels are surface voxels, how is it even theoretically possible to turn 1 million pixels into 100 million voxels? This means you get 100x the xy resolution AND depth information out of this process. I'm sceptical of that claim.
As crusso already mentioned lenses and scanning are essential parts of image capture, a lens being needed to direct the light to the sensor somehow and scanning to actually read out the image.
"Using diffuse foils to replace microlens arrays" would probably be a more fitting and still teasing headline. Or "Diffuse foils can replace microlens arrays for 3D imaging", perhaps.
Article aide, the research seems very sound and very cool. It demonstrates another case of extracting high quality information from low quality sensors - something I think we'll be seeing a lot more of.
Another previously precisely manufactured piece of hardware is being replaced by a software-supported low-quality part through optimizations that in their spirit remind me of the Google Pixel's camera and that drone that can fly (steer) with one rotor.
We already have commercial systems which do this. See PhaseFocus for example (http://www.phasefocus.com/technology-virtual-lens/). This uses proprietary deconvolution algorithms to reconstruct a 3D volume from diffraction patterns in unfocussed (or partially focussed) 2D planes. See also X-ray crystallography, which samples in Fourier space and uses a computed transform to reconstruct the 3D image.
This new microlens technology is very neat, but the processing problem has been solved for several different applications for several years now. Reconstructing a 3D volume is absolutely possible, and while this new development will undoubtedly require new algorithms to work, it's already got a sound basis in existing technology in use today.
These are not just surface voxels, but occlusions will limit angle info. In the paper, it's explained how it is possible to extract 100 Million voxels of information out of 1 Million pixels measured - by using compressed sensing and assuming that the object has some structure (is not totally random 3D distribution). This compressed sensing trick is not new but is a large part of what distinguishes this work from light field cameras, which cannot extract so much information and so must trade resolution for depth info.
> This means you get 100x the xy resolution AND depth information out of this process.
How so? Isn't 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000
So it's the same x/y resolution with 100x the z resolution. They extract the z by figuring out the different direction that light hitting each sensel is coming from. (And probably doing additional processing.)
You know those kids' books that have the bumpy plastic coating and when you turn the book one way you see one image - look at it from a different angle and you see another image?
This is the same concept. They have a bumpy plastic coating that sends the incoming light in different directions. They do some processing on standard images to determine how the scattering works and then use that scattering pattern to reconstruct new images.
I would view the bumpy coating as a myriad of lenses that change the character of the incoming light.
We have one of those windows in our bathroom with the glass that is warped so that it breaks up the light so much that it gives you privacy. I've often thought that it would be a fun project to create a camera system that you could calibrate to decrypt that scattered image by placing a known image behind the window and pre-determining how the light waves are refracted. It's cool to see that someone implemented something similar.