Fig. 1. Comparison of optical angle memory effect between PDLC and diffusers

Fig. 2. Normalized patterns of PDLC scattering speckle at different driving voltages

Fig. 3. Comparison of objects viewed by the naked eye through commercial PDLC and experimental diffusers. (a) Experimental setup of labeling plate and fixture, with 2 cm between them; (b)-(c) Observation of the object with PDLC in scattering and transparent state, respectively; (d)-(f) Observation of the object through diffusers with diffusion angles of 0.5°, 10°, and 40°, respectively

Fig. 4. Imaging of speckle focused by the lens through scattering medium. (a)-(f) Imaging taken without lens focusing through scattering medium; (g)-(l) Imaging taken by lens focusing through scattering medium

Fig. 5. Experimental setup and recovered image through single PDLC. (a) Experimental setup; (b) Original image of the object; (c) Scattering image without lens; Recovered image by lens with (d) 1.28 μW and (e) 0.68 μW incident light source

Fig. 6. Recovered image by lens through PDLC and diffusers. (a) Original image of the subject; Recovered image by lens through (b) single and (c) double PDLC; Recovered image through diffusers with diffusion angles of (d) 0.5° , (e) 10° , and (f) 40°

Fig. 7. (a)-(d) Direct imaging plots with or without PDLC and color filters against a white light backgroud; (e)-(h) The corresponding image of cross-sectional intensity distribution curves for (a)-(d)

Fig. 8. Experimental setup and recovered results of scattering image based on deconvolution. (a) Experimental setup; (b) Original image of the object; (c)-(e) Speckle patterns, PSF and recovered result of diffusers with 10° diffusion angle; (f)-(h) Speckle patterns, PSF and recovered result of PDLC