Fig. 1. Principles of single-pixel imaging with different orthogonal bases. （a1）‒（a3） LGSI; （b1）‒（b3） FSI; （c1）‒（c3） HSI

Fig. 2. Intensity and phase distributions of different LG modes at positions of z=0mm and z=600mm. (a) Intensity distributions;

Fig. 3. Comparison of transmission in different modulated light fields. （a1）‒（a3） Complex amplitude interference light field (z0=0mm); （b1）‒（b3） pure amplitude interference light field (z0=0mm); （c1）‒（c3） complex amplitude interference light field (z0=-600 mm)

Fig. 4. Different sampling strategies. (a) Zigzag path; (b) circular path; (c) intensity distribution of LG080; (d) intensity distribution of LG400

Fig. 5. [in Chinese]

Fig. 6.

(c) SSIM

Fig. 7. Simulation results of Cameraman. (a) Simulated reconstruction results of Cameraman at different sampling rates; (b) regions corresponding to the evaluation metrics; (c) magnified views of the dashed box areas in Fig. 7 (a)

Fig. 8. Evaluation metrics corresponding to the Cameraman simulation reconstruction results. (a) RMSE; (b) PSNR; (c) SSIM

Fig. 9. Simulation reconstruction results of a Siemens star at different sampling rates

Fig. 10. Evaluation metrics corresponding to the simulation reconstruction results of the Siemens star. (a) RMSE; (b) PSNR; (c) SSIM

Fig. 11. Simulation reconstruction results of the USAF1951 resolution plate at different sampling rates

Fig. 12. Evaluation metrics corresponding to the simulation reconstruction results of the USAF1951 resolution plate. (a) RMSE;

Fig. 13. Comparison of Cameraman simulation reconstruction results under different SNRs

Fig. 14. Evaluation metrics corresponding to the simulation reconstruction results of Cameraman under different SNRs. (a) RMSE;

Fig. 15. Experimental setup

Fig. 16. [in Chinese]

Fig. 17. Experimental reconstruction results of Cameraman under different sampling rates

Fig. 18. Experimental reconstruction results of Siemens star under different sampling rates

Fig. 19. Experimental reconstruction results of USAF1951 resolution plate under different sampling rates

Fig. 20. Comparison of the optical field intensities at different distances in the LGSI experiment. (a) Projection process; (b) complex amplitude interference optical field (z0=0mm); (c) pure amplitude interference optical field (z0=0mm); (d) complex amplitude interference optical field after distance compensation (z₀=-600 mm)

Fig. 21. Reconstruction results at different distances. (a1)(a2) Pure amplitude LGSI; (b1)(b2) FSI; (c1)(c2) HSI; (d1)(d2) CLGSI; (e) reconstruction results of CLGSI at z0=600mm after distance compensation

Fig. 22. Reconstruction results of LGSI under different waist radii. (a) ω0=0.4; (b) ω0=0.5; (c) ω0=0.6