24 ms·
This article the first instance I've heard of placing the mask directly on the sensor. I'd always had the impression that the coded aperture would be substitut
by michrassena 9y ago
This article the first instance I've heard of placing the mask directly on the sensor. I'd always had the impression that the coded aperture would be substituted for the original lens aperture. And the images I've found online seem to indicate that the aperture is macro-scale. This is something which could be imaged on lith film or hard-dot film.
I'd really like to play around with these techniques, but I don't know where to start. The only deconvolver I could find used Mathematica, so I'm not sure how useful making a coded aperture would be if I couldn't see the results.
- robbystk 9y agoYou can do deconvolution using ImageJ, but getting a model of the PSF for an arbitrary aperture is the tricky part. https://imagej.net/Deconvolution https://imagej.net/Deconvolution
- michrassena 9y agoWould it be as simple as imaging a point with the system and using that as the source for the PSF?
- lp251 9y agomore or less; the flatcam paper has a section on the calibration method (finding the psf)
- michrassena 9y agoIn this article, they talk about encoded blur. http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/Mask/ http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/Mask/ About halfway down the page you can see the out-of-focus point source looks identical to the coded aperture. While not lensless photography, this seems like a good starting point for those interested in these techniques, especially if I can load the PSF into ImageJ.