4 ms·
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
by mrow84 9y ago
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?
- chowells 9y agoWithout 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.
- mrow84 9y agoAh 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?