3 ms·
If I were trying to solve this problem, I would Fourier transform and look to see at what spatial frequency the signal stops being larger than photon shot noise
by doubleunplussed 7y ago
If I were trying to solve this problem, I would Fourier transform and look to see at what spatial frequency the signal stops being larger than photon shot noise. Seems like the obvious first attempt at an approach.
But that's not what they're doing - they're doing something about "image partial phase autocorrelation", which are all words I know but not together. I wonder why the naive method isn't adequate.
- jacquesm 7y agoThe usual approach is to assume that those that have dedicated a good chunk of their life to a problem have tried the obvious. Aka as the 'why don't you' fallacy. It's a good approach to entering a new field, and sometimes (rarely) it actually gets results. But the normal situation is that those in the know have thought of, tried and probably reject all the approaches that a newcomer would come up with in the first 10 minutes.
- doubleunplussed 7y agoI'm not implying my obvious approach is better and that anyone is stupid for not doing it instead. People downvoting me for implying that are not being charitable. On the contrary, the fact that they did not use it is good evidence that it is inadequate, given they spent a long time on the problem and I'm sure simpler solutions occurred to them. So I'm agreeing with you here. I'm just expressing interest it knowing why it isn't adequate. Though for what it's worth I do work a lot with image processing (of trapped atoms though, not biological samples), so my first thoughts are also coming from someone who's spent a decent chunk of time considering these things.