Frequency‐domain versus time‐domain imaging for photonics‐based broadband radar

Abstract

Photonics‐based radar enables a large operation bandwidth that is particularly favourable for high‐resolution synthetic aperture imaging. However, how to implement fast and high‐accuracy imaging with photonics‐based broadband radar is still an open question. In this Letter, the performance of photonics‐based inverse synthetic aperture radar imaging with frequency‐domain and time‐domain algorithms are experimentally investigated and compared. The results show that, frequency‐domain range–Doppler algorithm has fast imaging capability, but the image suffers from defocusing and distortions. Although migration compensation techniques can be applied to improve the imaging accuracy, the imaging speed is significantly reduced. On the other hand, using time‐domain back‐projection (BP) algorithm can achieve well‐focused images, and the imaging speed can be enhanced with fast BP methods. Therefore, the time‐domain imaging method is found to be the best choice for fast and high‐accuracy synthetic aperture imaging with photonics‐based broadband radars.

Radar Technology for River Flow Monitoring: Assessment of the Current Status and Future Challenges

“…The second category is special analysis methods, which generally comprise wavelet transforms and other analysis methods [68,69]. The third category is the frequency domain analysis methods [70,71], which use spectrum estimation methods to estimate the power spectrum of the signal, including the classical spectrum estimation and the modern spectrum estimation. However, not all of the aforementioned methods are appropriate for calculating river flow velocities.…”

Frequency‐domain multireceiver synthetic aperture sonar imagery with Chebyshev polynomials

“…At this point, the performance of the presented method is mainly compared to that of the traditional R-D algorithm [21]. Since back projection (BP) algorithm [22][23][24] is considered to be a precise method, its results are used as the benchmark. After processing, the imaging results are shown in Figure 3.…”