Transform-based phase retrieval techniques from a single off-axis interferogram

Optical phase retrieval (OPR) methods are important because they are used to obtain the transverse phase profile information of a beam. Interference methods are extensively used to convert the phase information into an intensity pattern, which can then be processed further to retrieve the unknown ph...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied optics (2004) 2021-07, Vol.60 (19), p.5523
Main Authors: Chandraprasad T, Bagath, Vayalamkuzhi, Pramitha, Bhattacharya, Shanti
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Beads
Continuous wavelet transform
Error analysis
Fourier transforms
Frequency ranges
Hilbert transformation
Information retrieval
Interference
Phase retrieval
Polymethyl methacrylate
Wavelet transforms
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Optical phase retrieval (OPR) methods are important because they are used to obtain the transverse phase profile information of a beam. Interference methods are extensively used to convert the phase information into an intensity pattern, which can then be processed further to retrieve the unknown phase. The most widely used interference method involves the interference of the unknown object beam and a known reference beam with an angle between them. There are several algorithms that retrieve the phase information from such a single off-axis interference pattern. For a particular application, the choice of an algorithm for OPR is very important. Therefore, it is necessary to choose between them, depending on the requirements. Three entirely different noniterative, transform-based algorithms, namely the Fourier transform (FT) method, the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) method, and the Hilbert transform (HT) method, are explained in detail. A quantitative comparison is made using a combination of rms error and standard structural similarity measure. The advantages of using a standard unwrapping algorithm are also validated using the same combination of comparison metrics. We show that the HT method has a better response with object beam with higher spatial frequency content, but with the penalty of affected noise. The FT method and CWT method have better noise immunity, but have the limitation of the spatial frequency range of the object beam. The different constraints, advantages, and some practical limitations of the methods are discussed with the help of a quantitative phase imaging experiment of monodispersed polymethyl methacrylate beads.
ISSN:1559-128X
2155-3165
DOI:10.1364/AO.422900