Comparison of maximum-likelihood image and wavefront reconstruction using conventional image, phase diversity, and lenslet diversity data

An image reconstruction approach is developed that makes joint use of image sequences produced by a conventional imaging channel and a Shack-Hartmann (lenslet) channel. Iterative maximization techniques are used to determine the reconstructed object that is most consistent with both the conventional and Shack-Hartmann raw pixel-level data. The algorithm is analogous to phase diversity, but with the wavefront diversity provided by a lenslet array rather than a simple defocus. The log-likelihood cost function is matched to the Poisson statistics of the signal and Gaussian statistics of the detector noise. Addition of a cost term that encourages the estimated object to agree with a priori knowledge of an ensemble averaged power spectrum regularizes the reconstruction. Techniques for modeling FPA sampling are developed that are convenient for performing both the forward simulation and the gradient calculations needed for the iterative maximization. The model is computationally efficient and accurately addresses all aspects of the Shack-Hartmann sensor, including subaperture cross-talk, FPA aliasing, and geometries in which the number of pixels across a subaperture is not an integer. The performance of this approach is compared with multi-frame blind deconvolution and phase diversity using simulations of image sequences produced by the visible band GEMINI sensor on the AMOS 1.6 meter telescope. It is demonstrated that wavefront information provided by the second channel improves image reconstruction by avoiding the wavefront ambiguities associated with multiframe blind deconvolution and to a lesser degree, phase diversity.

[1]  D. Fried,et al.  Dependence of the Knox–Thompson transfer function on the difference of spatial frequencies , 1990 .

[2]  Michael Lloyd-Hart,et al.  Sensing wave-front amplitude and phase with phase diversity. , 2002, Applied optics.

[3]  Robert K. Pina,et al.  BAYESIAN IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION: THE PIXON AND OPTIMAL IMAGE MODELING , 1993 .

[4]  J. Conan,et al.  MISTRAL: a myopic edge-preserving image restoration method, with application to astronomical adaptive-optics-corrected long-exposure images. , 2004, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[5]  Brandoch Calef,et al.  Phase diverse wavefront estimation and image restoration with a magnification change between imaging channels , 2005, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[6]  Franck Marchis,et al.  Myopic deconvolution of Adaptive Optics Images , 1999 .

[7]  Timothy J. Schulz,et al.  Multiframe blind deconvolution of astronomical images , 1993 .

[8]  T. Schulz,et al.  Multiframe blind deconvolution with real data: imagery of the Hubble Space Telescope. , 1997, Optics express.

[9]  David J. Lee,et al.  Supersampling multiframe blind deconvolution resolution enhancement of adaptive optics compensated imagery of low earth orbit satellites , 2002 .

[10]  Richard L. White,et al.  Image restoration using the damped Richardson-Lucy method , 1994, Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation.

[11]  Charles L. Matson,et al.  Weighted-least-squares phase reconstruction from the bispectrum , 1991 .

[12]  Timothy J. Schulz Estimation-Theoretic Approach to the Deconvolution of Atmospherically Degraded Images With Wavefront , 1993 .

[13]  Karl-Heinz Hofmann,et al.  Image reconstruction from the bispectrum using an iterative algorithm and applications of the method to astronomical objects , 1990, Other Conferences.

[14]  Sailes K. Sengijpta Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory , 1995 .

[15]  Douglas J. Granrath,et al.  Fusion of images on affine sampling grids , 1998 .

[16]  Éric Thiébaut,et al.  Avoiding the photon-counting hole in speckle imaging by means of cross-correlation techniques , 1997 .

[17]  M C Roggemann,et al.  Algorithm to increase the largest aberration that can be reconstructed from Hartmann sensor measurements. , 1998, Applied optics.

[18]  Brandoch Calef,et al.  Regularization for non-linear image restoration using a prior on the object power spectrum , 2005, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[19]  Michael C. Roggemann,et al.  Partially compensated speckle imaging: Fourier phase spectrum estimation , 1991, Optics & Photonics.

[20]  M C Roggemann,et al.  Joint processing of hartmann sensor and conventional image measurements to estimate large aberrations: theory and experimental results. , 1999, Applied optics.

[21]  Charles L. Matson,et al.  Multiframe blind deconvolution and bispectrum processing of atmospherically degraded data: a comparison , 2002, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[22]  Zia-ur Rahman,et al.  Information-theoretic assessment of sampled imaging systems , 1999 .

[23]  J. Christou,et al.  Restoration of Astronomical Images by Iterative Blind Deconvolution , 1993 .

[24]  K. Knox,et al.  Recovery of Images from Atmospherically Degraded Short-Exposure Photographs , 1974 .

[25]  D. Voelz,et al.  First astronomical application of postdetection turbulence compensation : images of α Aurigae , 2008 .

[26]  David W. Tyler,et al.  Practical Considerations in Restoring Images from Phase‐Diverse Speckle Data , 2002 .

[27]  C L Matson,et al.  Deep-space satellite-image reconstructions from field data by use of speckle imaging techniques: images and functional assessment. , 1997, Applied optics.

[28]  J. C. Dainty,et al.  Iterative blind deconvolution method and its applications , 1988 .

[29]  Michael C. Roggemann,et al.  Joint processing of image plane and wavefront sensor information to measure large aberrations in optical systems , 1998, Optics & Photonics.

[30]  Jérôme Primot,et al.  Deconvolution from wave-front sensing: a new technique for compensating turbulence-degraded images , 1990 .

[31]  Fionn Murtagh,et al.  Deconvolution in Astronomy: A Review , 2002 .

[32]  Byron M. Welch,et al.  Comparison of image reconstruction algorithms using adaptive optics instrumentation , 1998, Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation.

[33]  É. Thiébaut,et al.  Strict a priori constraints for maximum-likelihood blind deconvolution , 1995 .

[34]  J. C. Dainty,et al.  Knox–Thompson and triple-correlation imaging through atmospheric turbulence , 1988 .

[35]  Michael I. Miller,et al.  The Use of Sieves to Stabilize Images Produced with the EM Algorithm for Emission Tomography , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[36]  David H. Bailey,et al.  The Fractional Fourier Transform and Applications , 1991, SIAM Rev..