Author Affiliations
1School of Computer Science and Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430205, China2Hubei Key Laboratory of Intelligent Robot, Wuhan, Hubei 430205, China3School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Algorithm flow chart
Fig. 2. Relationship between viewpoint and projection point
Fig. 3. Experimental setup. (a) Light field microscope experimental table; (b) schematic diagram of light field microscopy device; (c) schematic diagram of light field microscope
Fig. 4. Calibration of microlens array. (a) Traditional calibration; (b) peak detection calibration
Fig. 5. Light field micrograph and perspective images. (a)(b) Light field micrograph; (c)(d) periodic perspective image; (e)(f) aperiodic perspective image
Fig. 6. Super-resolution perspective images. (a)(c) Aperiodic perspective image; (b)(d) super-resolution perspective image by proposed method; (e)-(h) local magnification views
Fig. 7. Distributions of pixel value for locust image. (a) Aperiodic perspective image; (d) super-resolution perspective image by proposed method; (b)(c)(e)(f) distributions of pixel value of Fig. (a) and (d), respectively
Fig. 8. Distributions of pixel value for resolution board. (a) Aperiodic perspective image; (d) super-resolution perspective image by proposed method; (b)(c)(e)(f) distributions of pixel value of Fig. (a) and (d), respectively
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental results of locust image. (a) Bicubic interpolation; (b) PCA method; (c) proposed method; (d)-(f) local magnification views
Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental results of resolution board. (a) Bicubic interpolation; (b) PCA method; (c) proposed method;(d)-(f) local magnification views
Item | Aperiodic perspective image | Super-resolution perspective image by proposed method |
---|
Resolution /mm | 5.0396 | 5.6568 |
|
Table 1. USAF-1951 image resolution
Item | Bicubic | PCAmethod | Proposedmethod |
---|
PSNR /dB | 36.42 | 37.50 | 38.22 | SSIM | 0.9510 | 0.9560 | 0.9620 |
|
Table 2. Image quality comparison