Acta Photonica Sinica, Volume. 53, Issue 8, 0801003(2024)
Subspot Background Noise Removal Method Based on Bezier Surface Fitting
Figures & Tables(28)
Fig. 2. The influence of the position and number of control points on the fitting results
Fig. 3. Selected control points for Bessel surface fitting with a single sub-aperture
Fig. 5. Denoising results of each method under skylight background only
Fig. 7. The result of processing the spot image under the interference of sky light background by different methods
Fig. 8. Error of centroid calculation by different methods when BSR is 100
Fig. 9. BSR of spot array diagram with different off-axis angles of the sun
Fig. 13. The denoising results of each method are obtained when there is only background noise
Fig. 14. The influence of actual sub-spot on surface fitting results
Fig. 15. Image processing results with both background noise and light spots
Fig. 16. Experimental results of background separation of spot array image
Table 1. The influence of the position and number of control points on structural similarity
View tableView in ArticleTable 1. The influence of the position and number of control points on structural similarity
Specific situation More control point Less control point Control point on the spot Control point not on the spot SSIM 0.200 9 0.088 1 0.132 2 0.132 2
Table 2. Simulation parameters
View tableView in ArticleTable 2. Simulation parameters
Wavelength/nm Pixel size/μm Number of sub-apertures Target pixel Number of effective sub-apertures Focal length/cm 635 6.4 16 16 992 992 192 4.23
Table 3. Residual RMS fitted by each method
View tableView in ArticleTable 3. Residual RMS fitted by each method
Method IM PS BS RMS/Gray value 0.003 0 0.017 5 0.017 3
Table 4. The mean error of each method's fitting results
View tableView in ArticleTable 4. The mean error of each method's fitting results
Method IM PS BS Mean value/Gray value 0.162 0 0.695 0 0.177 0
Table 5. Peak light intensity of the affected photon spot
View tableView in ArticleTable 5. Peak light intensity of the affected photon spot
Method IM PS BS Peak light intensity/Gray value 1.1 104 1.015 1 107 8.052 106
Table 6. The structural similarity between the affected and unaffected sub-spots
View tableView in ArticleTable 6. The structural similarity between the affected and unaffected sub-spots
Method IM PS BS SSIM 4.5 10-5 0.44 0.30
Table 7. Wavefront residual RMS recovered by different methods
View tableView in ArticleTable 7. Wavefront residual RMS recovered by different methods
Method PS IM Windowing AT BS RMS/ 0.045 8 0.043 2 0.039 1 0.139 0 0.025 2
Table 8. Parameters of the experimental device
View tableView in ArticleTable 8. Parameters of the experimental device
Wavelength/nm Pixel size/μm Number of sub-apertures Target pixel Number of effective sub-apertures Focal length/cm Microlens array size/μm 635 6.4 16 16 992 992 192 4.23 396.8
Table 9. The residual RMS was fitted to the data collected by each method
View tableView in ArticleTable 9. The residual RMS was fitted to the data collected by each method
Method IM PS BS RMS/gray value 0.056 0 0.438 0 0.416 2
Table 10. The peak light intensity after the real photon spot is affected
View tableView in ArticleTable 10. The peak light intensity after the real photon spot is affected
Method IM PS BS Peak light intensity/gray value 0.738 53.71 43.54
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Han GUO, Wang ZHAO, Shuai WANG, Ping YANG, Lisong YAN, Shenghu LIU, Hongli GUAN, Chensi ZHAO. Subspot Background Noise Removal Method Based on Bezier Surface Fitting[J]. Acta Photonica Sinica, 2024, 53(8): 0801003
Paper Information
Category:
Received: Dec. 9, 2023
Accepted: Jan. 31, 2024
Published Online: Oct. 15, 2024
The Author Email: Shuai WANG (wangshuai@ioe.ac.cn)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20