3.1. Structure Identification
The result of the structure identification process of the Schott FOIB for a projector ROI of 100 px × 100 px is illustrated in
Figure 5. The projection screen is located at a distance of approximately 10 mm, such that the projected ROI corresponds to an area of 1.3 mm × 1.3 mm. It is particularly apparent that the spatial structure is highly homogeneous compared to the Fujikura FOIB. Nevertheless, the individual fibers show significant differences in brightness.
A detailed analysis of the spatial structure is presented in
Figure 6. Starting from the structure image, the positions of the local intensity maxima are determined first. This is achieved through the implementation of an adaptive center of gravity search starting at each pixel in the structure image. The precise algorithm is outlined in Appendix
Figure A2. A simple binarization demonstrated limited robustness, primarily due to the substantial variation in the characteristics of the peaks, at least for the Fujikura FOIB.
Once the positions of the peaks are known, it is possible to determine the fiber layers. This is achieved by rotating the peak coordinates to an angle where the spread of their projected cluster on the y axis is minimized, meaning that the layers are aligned horizontally. By segmenting their cluster and rotating the coordinates back, the corresponding layer of each coordinate is known. As illustrated in
Figure 2, there are three possible directions, each with an offset of 60 ° due to the hexagonal structure. It is therefore necessary to specify an angular range for the algorithm. In this work, only one direction is utilized.
Figure 6a illustrates the determined peaks, as well as the least-square-fitted lines through the peaks of the inner layers. As the fringe patterns are adapted to the structure, it is essential that the layers have a high degree of homogeneity, as measured by their spread in distance
d and angle
. Therefore, the differences
d and
from the orthogonal mean layer distance of 5.5 px and the mean layer angle of 16.8 ° are analyzed in
Figure 6b. To avoid the influence of single outliers, the outer layers are not included.
The layer numbers are counted from the topmost layer downward. The maximum distance difference d does not exceed 0.3 px, while the angle difference is marginally higher than 0.3°. In general, no consistent trend is observable. Thus, the structure only changes randomly on a small scale. Additionally, it is not always possible to determine the exact center of a fiber, due to the discrete nature of the projector pixel. Following these cognitions, it is concluded that the spatial structure of the Schott FOIB is sufficiently homogeneous to allow the adaptation of fringe patterns.
As shown in
Figure 5, the fibers exhibit varying levels of intensity.
Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of the maximum brightness detected by the camera using the computed fiber centers. In
Figure 7a, a single bright pixel is used per fiber, while
Figure 7b utilizes five pixels arranged in a cross, offering a five-fold illumination area in a compact shape. These projection areas will also be used in further work. In both Figures, all values have been normalized to their maximum obtained value. One can see that the peak values are scattered in a range between 0.6 and 1.0. There is a significantly wider spread and more outliers particularly towards high intensity values. Comparing the 1 px and 5 px projection areas, it is noticeable that the overall distribution is shifted towards high intensities.
3.2. Peak Characterization
Up to this point, only the peak intensity values of the spots generated by individual fibers recorded by the camera have been examined. The subsequent section will address the precise characteristics of the spots in relation to the camera. To ensure the comparability between the different fibers as well as between the projection areas, all measurement series are recorded with the same camera exposure time and LED power. All camera intensities in this subsection are normalized to the maximum achieved intensity by the maximal bright fiber at a modulation of 1.0.
Figure 8 illustrates two examples of spots generated by individual fibers using a 5 px projection area. Both images are taken with a projector modulation of 0.45. On the left is the spot of the maximum bright fiber, on the right of the minimal bright fiber. Both examples will be taken up again later. Initially, both spots appear to have a Gaussian-like profile, while the peak values are exceeding a perspicuous difference in brightness. No signs of crosstalk are visible, like surrounding exited fibers.
The adapted fringe patterns will later consist of the superposition of several spots. To ensure a low noise pattern, the peak values of the spots in the same layer should be identical. As shown in
Figure 2, this is achieved by modulating the fibers with different intensities. It is therefore of interest to know how the peak intensity behaves as a function of the projector modulation. It might be expected that the peak intensity of the spot would increase linearly, as the modulation only changes the time span during which the spot is displayed. But, as
Figure 9a shows, the behavior of the peak intensity of the spots is highly nonlinear. Basically, a 5 px projection area allows a higher brightness. It seems not to make a difference to the shape of the curve whether 1 px or 5 px projection is used. This can be clearly seen through the curves of the maximum bright fiber with 1 px and the minimum bright fiber with a 5 px projection area. The shape of the curve only seems to depend on the maximum brightness of the fiber, since the lowest curve also suffers the least from curvature.
As the peak intensity is not linear, the question arises of whether there are losses in the transmission of higher intensities.
Figure 9b shows the cumulated intensity of all pixels in each camera image. An almost linear curve is observable. It is also noticeable that the curves for the minimum and maximum bright fibers are very close to each other. This means that the total transmitted intensity is almost identical, although the peak intensity is excessively different. The spots must therefore be of a different shape or size for different bright fibers. As
Figure 10 shows, the overall spot sizes differ only slightly, mainly indicating that the spot shape is different. The less bright fiber produces only a slightly larger spot at high intensities. Another finding from
Figure 9b is namely that the overall transmitted intensity has only doubled, despite the five-fold increase in the pixel area. Nevertheless, a higher projection intensity has the advantage of shorter exposure, and as a result, more robustness to ambient light and movements during the measurement.
In order to obtain a better idea of the shape of the spots, vertical cross-sections are shown in
Figure 11. These include the spots illustrated in
Figure 8. On the left are spots with the same peak intensity for the different projection areas of the maximal bright fiber.
For the same peak intensity, approximately twice the modulated intensity is required. Apart from that, the spot shape seems to be independent of the projection area. On the right, the spots of the darkest and the brightest fiber are compared using 5 px projection area per fiber. Spots with the same modulated intensity of 0.45 begin similarly, but separate quickly for higher intensities. For equal peak intensities, the spots of the maximal bright fiber have a much narrower shape.
As following from the cumulated intensities in
Figure 9b, the spots referring to the cross sections in
Figure 11b for a modulated intensity of 0.45 should have a similar cumulated intensity. Due to the overlap of their cross-sections, this is not directly evident.
Figure 12 therefore shows the intensity distributions for these spots weighted by the corresponding intensities. The total sums of the bins thus corresponds to the sum of all pixels in
Figure 8, as well as to the cumulated intensities in
Figure 9b. The distribution clearly shows that the lower intensity values of the darker fiber spot contribute a slightly larger part to the total sum. As a result, the overall sums are similar, despite the much higher maximal peak intensity of the brighter spot.
To sum up this subsection, the main difference between the spots of the minimal and maximal bright fiber is their shape. The total transmitted intensities and the spot sizes differ only slightly. The peak intensities as a function of their modulated projector intensities appear to primarily depend on the maximum achievable intensity of the individual fiber.
3.3. Fringe Pattern Adaption
With the investigation of the FOIB structure and the characterization of the fiber spots, the basis for the adaptation of the fringe pattern has been created. The adaption algorithm used in this work is shown in
Figure 13. The steps required to create new pattern are shown in the orange box. All steps apart from that only need to be carried out once. These include the determination of the fiber centers and the identification of the layers. In addition, the maximal peak intensities of the fibers and the curves of the peak intensities have to be recorded. The peak intensities are determined for each fiber, while the intensity curves are just recorded for around 20 fibers with different maximum peak intensities. As described in the previous subsection, the shape of the intensity curve seems to only depend on the maximum peak intensity. Therefore, the recorded curves are interpolated and filtered as a function of the modulated intensity and the maximum achievable peak intensity. This function is carried out for projection areas of 1 px and 5 px, and enables the adjustment of arbitrary fiber intensities. Once all the required data have been collected, the fiber layers are set to their ideal discrete cosine values depending on the desired frequency and phase shift, and are then adjusted depending on the maximum peak intensity.
The visualizations of the ideal modulated values for different frequencies are shown in
Figure 14. The central layer is assumed to be the origin. Since no shifts are analyzed in this work, all patterns are starting at this layer.
The highest achievable frequency results from the alternating layers of a modulation of 1 and 0. For all lower frequencies with an odd number of fiber layers, it is more difficult to determine ideal values, as it is not possible to sample both the maximum and the minimum of the cosine function with equidistant steps. In this work, the maxima are scanned exactly. As a consequence, there are always two layers next to the minima. After an adjustment of the dynamic range, the lowest values are set to zero. This definition leads to a better contrast for the projected images. The corresponding function is
where
is the modulated intensity,
is the number of layers used in one amplitude cycle, and
u is the layer number. In that sense, for frequencies with an even number of fiber layers, the cosine function is also discretized such that the sampled points are always located besides the minima:
Now that the ideal modulated intensities are known, they have to be adapted to their fibers’ maximal peak intensity. The result of the interpolation over the different intensity curves for the 5 px projection area is shown in
Figure 15. Here, all values were normalized to the maximum peak intensity of the darkest fiber. It is not reasonable to use any values greater than one, as they would exceed the maximum possible brightness of the darkest fiber. Therefore, the colormap is scaled to a maximum value of 1.0. A slight ripple is visible at the upper edge, which is caused by the noise in the intensity curves. Apart from that, the correlation between the intensity curves for different maximum peak fiber intensities seems deterministic. In order to adjust the modulated intensity, it is first necessary to determine the intensity curve corresponding to the maximum fiber intensity. Based on the desired camera peak intensity, it is then possible to find the needed modulation intensity.
The generated projector image, as an outcome of the adaption process corresponding to
Figure 13, is shown in
Figure 16. The ideal layer values are equal to
Figure 14b. 1 px per fiber is used on the left, 5 px on the right. For better contrast, all pixels with a value of zero are illustrated in gray. It is well recognizable that the middle layers are on average brighter than the two outer layers. The brightness in each layer varies due to the adaption process caused by the different fibers’ maximum peak intensities.
Camera image sections of 60 px × 80 px of the adapted fringe pattern for a 5 px projection area are shown in
Figure 17 and
Figure 18. This section’s size refers to a size on the projection screen of approximately 0.7 mm × 0.9 mm. The highest possible frequency and the third highest frequency are shown, the latter of which corresponds to
Figure 16b. For comparison, the unadapted standard fringe pattern is shown, as well as the spatially only adapted pattern. In contrast to the previous subsection, camera exposures are now adjusted, while the LED power stays the same. Since the layers of the FOIB are not horizontally orientated, the fringes are not only rotated in the projector image, but also in the camera image. Appendix
Figure A3 shows the full camera image for the highest frequency. Here, the rotation of the fringes is clearly visible. For further analysis, the images of the adapted patterns are each rotated by a fixed angle.
In
Figure 17a, almost no fringes are recognizable. A much better result is obtained with the spatially adjusted pattern. The fringes are clearly visible; however, due to the high background brightness, the amplitude is quite small. This is an effect of the spots spread of the individual fibers. As one can see, the pattern repeats in a cycle of about 15 px. The total width of the spots exceeds approximately 40 px according to
Figure 8. This means that the amplitude between the maxima cannot drop to zero. Here, the low-pass behavior of the system arises. Compared to the intensity adapted image in
Figure 17c, the values in
Figure 17b appear smaller overall. This is because single fibers are much brighter and the remaining fibers appear darker due to the normalization. In contrast, the peak values in
Figure 17c are more homogeneous, but the variation in spot size is greater, making the edges of the stripes appear unclean. At this point, reference is drawn to
Figure 11b, where the narrower spot shape of the brighter fiber for the same peak intensity is visible.
With half the maximum projector frequency, the standard fringe pattern is easily recognizable, as can be seen in
Figure 18a. However, the amplitude is significantly lower compared to the adapted patterns. Furthermore, the structure of the fiber layer appears, especially in the lowest stripe. In
Figure 18b, individual brighter fibers are apparent due to the lack of intensity adaption. Yet, the effect appears to be lowered by the two adjacent bright fiber layers. In the additional intensity adapted image in
Figure 18c, the intensity in the fringes appears much more homogeneous. The edges also appear much cleaner compared to
Figure 18a. Nevertheless, these patterns also still suffer from background intensity.
From a subjective assessment, the adaption provides improvement in the pattern quality. In order to quantify this improvement, signal amplitude and noise are calculated over the various frequencies using sections like the ones previously shown. To separate signal and noise, SciPy’s sosfiltfilt function for second-order section (SOS) forward/backward filtering [
21]. SOS filters offer high numerical stability, while forward/backward filtering avoid a phase offset in the filtered signal [
22]. The challenge in this task is that the noise is largely attributable to the FOIB structure, manifesting primarily within a specific frequency range. For the highest frequency, it is exactly the same frequency range for the signal amplitude. Additionally, it is necessary to filter not only noise but also global brightness gradients, which overlap with lower frequencies. Consequently, the filter needs the capability of effectively separating frequency bands from each other. While a simple mean value filter is primarily suitable for suppressing random noise, an ideal sinc filter introduces noise in the time period [
23]. A Butterworth filter, which has moderately fast band separation without a ripple in the pass or stop band, is a good compromise [
24].
To bypass the problem of the separation of signal and noise, a simple assumption is made: Apart from a global brightness gradient, the intensity values per row should remain constant. Therefore, all the rows of the input image are highpass filtered and recombined into a noise image afterwards, as shown in
Figure 19a. To create the signal image, the noise image is first subtracted from the original image. Then, each column is highpass filtered to get rid of any global brightness gradients. The amplitude is calculated by determining the minima and maxima values for each column and averaging them for the whole image. For both filtering operations, a third-order filter is used. The cut-off frequency refers to half a amplitude cycle.
The noise image in
Figure 19a shows several minima and maxima. As intended, the rows in
Figure 17c containing the maxima show less noise. Yet, the areas between the minima and maxima are sources for the highest noise deviation due to differing spotshapes. Apart from that, there is no recognizable structure and the noise shows a random character. In contrast, the signal image in
Figure 19b does not longer show any signs of noise. The only particularity is the slightly lower amplitude in the upper part of the image compared to the lower part. However, this effect is also visible in
Figure 17c.
The filtering procedure is now applied to four different image datasets in a projector frequency range from 20 to 70 amplitude cycles (Corresponding to the total projector resolution of 768 px × 768 px). The datasets include unadapted standard fringes, spatially adjusted patterns for 1 px projection area, and a spatially and intensity-adapted pattern for the 1 px, and 5 px projection area.
Figure 20 visualizes the amplitude of the signal image across the frequencies while
Figure 21 shows the SNR, which results from the ratio of the amplitude and the standard deviation of the corresponding noise image.
Since the adapted patterns are tied to the fiber layers in their frequencies, less sample points are available. Nevertheless, it becomes clear that the adaption of the pattern significantly contributes to an increased amplitude, especially for higher frequencies. In the lower frequency range, the curves begin to converge. Nevertheless, the amplitudes of the adapted patterns remains above the standard pattern, even for the lowest frequency of 20 amplitude cycles. The only spatially adapted pattern with the 1 px projection area performs the best. However, in practical applications, these would not be preferred since the light output is significantly lower and the amplitude only slightly higher compared to the 5 px projection area. Regarding the amplitude, the adaptation of fiber intensities seems to have almost no effect. The amplitude of the intensity adapted 1 px projection area pattern exceeds only slightly better values, caused by absent intensity outliers affecting the normalization.
This is different in case of the SNR. Here, the intensity adapted curves show an improved behavior. Compared to the amplitude, the curves in the SNR start to merge around a frequency of about 36 amplitude cycles. Since the amplitude of the adapted fringes is still much higher at this point, the noise must have increased too. This effect is visible in
Figure 18, where the single fibers are more distinctly visible for the adapted fringes, as the image of the standard fringes seems to have a stronger lowpass effect. Nevertheless, the adapted curves remain slightly above the standard patterns. Additionally, the projection screen is located in the best possible focus position. Using a slight defocus on purpose, the SNR could exceed much better values for the same amplitude as the standard pattern. As observed before, no significant differences are visible between the projection areas.