Effect of additive noise on phase measurement in digital holographic microscopy

Pandey, Nitesh; Hennelly, Bryan M.

doi:10.1007/3dres.01(2011)6

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[3][4][5][6] The goal of this work is to derive expressions to get a type B evaluation of the local standard uncertainty of both the complex amplitude of the reconstructed field and the phase-change maps resulting from the application of singleexposure digital holographic interferometry techniques to Fourier transform holograms, as well as to verify that, under repeatability conditions, the estimations of the uncertainty calculated with the resulting expressions match those resulting of type A evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propagation of the measurement uncertainty in Fourier transform digital holographic interferometry

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The derivation of expressions to evaluate the local standard uncertainty of the complex amplitude of the numerically reconstructed field as well as of the phase-change measurements resulting from Fourier-and quasi-Fourier transform digital holographic interferometry is presented. Applying the law of propagation of uncertainty, as defined in the "Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement," to the digital reconstruction of holograms by Fourier transformation and to the subsequent calculation of the phase change between two such reconstructions results in a set of expressions, which allow the evaluation of the uncertainties of the complex amplitude and of the phase change at every pixel of the reconstruction in terms of the measured values and their standard uncertainty in the pixels of the original digital holograms. These expressions are increasingly simplified by first assuming a linear dependence between the squared uncertainty and the local value of the original holograms, and then considering that the object beam is a speckle pattern. We assess the behavior of the method by comparing the predicted standard uncertainty with the sample variance obtained from experiments conducted under repeatability conditions, and find a good agreement between both quantities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propagation of the measurement uncertainty in Fourier transform digital holographic interferometry

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This value can be considered as a typical phase error introduced by holographic imaging, which is susceptible to various sources of noise, including quantization noise, shot noise, thermal noise, vibrations and sometimes even speckle [14]. Accordingly, aberration introduced by RSE has been compensated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Rolling Shutter Effect aberration compensation in Digital Holographic Microscopy

Monaldi

Romero

Cabrera

et al. 2016

Optics Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2, the primary sources of noise in the DHM are shot noise, which is related to the intrinsic variability in photons incident on the CCD camera, and Gaussian noise, which is the combined effects from numerous intrinsic and extrinsic sources [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Given that the findings in this study evaluated the global uncertainty in measurements, it is not possible to reliably state which source (or sources) of noise is the primary cause of the quantified uncertainty.…”

Section: Sources Of Noisementioning

confidence: 94%

“…1e), with sub-nanometer vertical accuracy being reported [22]. However, one complication of the technique is the presence of inherent (intrinsic and extrinsic) noise [23][24][25][26][27][28][29], which has not undergone a rigorous analysis to relate it to uncertainty in the measured phase (and therefore height) data. Furthermore, recent studies have utilized reflection DHM 1 to track in situ surface topography changes of dissolving mineral phases in static and flowing water [13,14], but it is inconclusive from those studies how the presence of water (or any solution) or the use of flowing water conditions affects the noise and uncertainty in the measurement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase Uncertainty in Digital Holographic Microscopy Measurements in the Presence of Solution Flow Conditions

Brand¹

2017

J. RES. NATL. INST. STAN.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital holographic microscopy (DHM) is a surface topography measurement technique with reported sub-nanometer vertical resolution. Although it has been made commercially available recently, few studies have evaluated the uncertainty or noise in the phase measurement by the DHM. As current research is using the DHM to monitor surface topography changes of dissolving materials under flowing water conditions, it is necessary to evaluate the effect of water and flow rate on the uncertainty in the measurement. Uncertainty in this study was concerned with the temporal standard deviation per pixel of the reconstructed phase. Considering the effects of solution flow rate, magnification, objective lens type (air or immersion), and experimental configuration, measurements under static conditions in air and in water with an immersion lens yielded the smallest amount of uncertainty (mean of ≤ 0.5 nm up to 40× magnification). Increasing the water flow rate resulted in an increase in mean uncertainty to ≤ 0.6 nm up to 40× with an immersion lens. Observations of a sample through a glass window at 20× magnification in flowing water also yielded increasing uncertainty, with mean values of ≤ 0.5 nm, ≤ 0.8 nm, and ≤ 1.1 nm for flow rates of 0 mL min ) did not significantly impact the uncertainty in the phase. Collecting holograms in single-wavelength versus dual-wavelength modes did impact the uncertainty, with the mean uncertainty at 10× magnification for the same wavelength being ≤ 0.5 nm from the single-wavelength mode compared to ≤ 1.5 nm from the dualwavelength mode. When the quantified uncertainty was applied to simulated dissolution data, lower limits of measured dissolution rates were found below which the measured data may not be distinguishable from the uncertainty in the measurement. The limiting surface-normal dissolution velocity is −10 −11.7 m s ) flowing water conditions in experiments with a glass window, respectively. The data presented by this study will allow for better experimental design and methodology for future dissolution or precipitation studies using DHM and will provide confidence in the data produced in postprocessing.

show abstract

Effect of additive noise on phase measurement in digital holographic microscopy

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 20 publications

References 20 publications

Propagation of the measurement uncertainty in Fourier transform digital holographic interferometry

Propagation of the measurement uncertainty in Fourier transform digital holographic interferometry

Rolling Shutter Effect aberration compensation in Digital Holographic Microscopy

Phase Uncertainty in Digital Holographic Microscopy Measurements in the Presence of Solution Flow Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About