ECCV 2008: Computer Vision – ECCV 2008 pp 88-101 | Cite as
Understanding Camera Trade-Offs through a Bayesian Analysis of Light Field Projections
Abstract
Computer vision has traditionally focused on extracting structure, such as depth, from images acquired using thin-lens or pinhole optics. The development of computational imaging is broadening this scope; a variety of unconventional cameras do not directly capture a traditional image anymore, but instead require the joint reconstruction of structure and image information. For example, recent coded aperture designs have been optimized to facilitate the joint reconstruction of depth and intensity. The breadth of imaging designs requires new tools to understand the tradeoffs implied by different strategies.
This paper introduces a unified framework for analyzing computational imaging approaches. Each sensor element is modeled as an inner product over the 4D light field. The imaging task is then posed as Bayesian inference: given the observed noisy light field projections and a prior on light field signals, estimate the original light field. Under common imaging conditions, we compare the performance of various camera designs using 2D light field simulations. This framework allows us to better understand the tradeoffs of each camera type and analyze their limitations.
Keywords
Sensor Element Stereo Camera Depth Discontinuity Band Limited Signal Joint ReconstructionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Levin, A., Fergus, R., Durand, F., Freeman, W.: Image and depth from a conventional camera with a coded aperture. SIGGRAPH (2007)Google Scholar
- 2.Veeraraghavan, A., Raskar, R., Agrawal, A., Mohan, A., Tumblin, J.: Dappled photography: Mask-enhanced cameras for heterodyned light fields and coded aperture refocusing. SIGGRAPH (2007)Google Scholar
- 3.Adelson, E.H., Wang, J.Y.A.: Single lens stereo with a plenoptic camera. PAMI (1992)Google Scholar
- 4.Ng, R., Levoy, M., Bredif, M., Duval, G., Horowitz, M., Hanrahan, P.: Light field photography with a hand-held plenoptic camera. Stanford U. Tech. Rep. CSTR 2005-02 (2005)Google Scholar
- 5.Bradburn, S., Dowski, E., Cathey, W.: Realizations of focus invariance in optical-digital systems with wavefront coding. Applied optics 36, 9157–9166 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Dowski, E., Cathey, W.: Single-lens single-image incoherent passive-ranging systems. App. Opt. (1994)Google Scholar
- 7.Levoy, M., Hanrahan, P.M.: Light field rendering. SIGGRAPH (1996)Google Scholar
- 8.Goodman, J.W.: Introduction to Fourier Optics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1968)Google Scholar
- 9.Zemax: http://www.zemax.com
- 10.Chai, J., Tong, X., Chan, S., Shum, H.: Plenoptic sampling. SIGGRAPH (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Isaksen, A., McMillan, L., Gortler, S.J.: Dynamically reparameterized light fields. SIGGRAPH (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Ng, R.: Fourier slice photography. SIGGRAPH (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Seitz, S., Kim, J.: The space of all stereo images. In: ICCV (2001)Google Scholar
- 14.Grossberg, M., Nayar, S.K.: The raxel imaging model and ray-based calibration. In: IJCV (2005)Google Scholar
- 15.Kak, A.C., Slaney, M.: Principles of Computerized Tomographic ImagingGoogle Scholar
- 16.Baker, S., Kanade, T.: Limits on super-resolution and how to break them. PAMI (2002)Google Scholar
- 17.Scharstein, D., Szeliski, R.: A taxonomy and evaluation of dense two-frame stereo correspondence algorithms. Intl. J. Computer Vision 47(1), 7–42 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Levin, A., Freeman, W., Durand, F.: Understanding camera trade-offs through a bayesian analysis of light field projections. MIT CSAIL TR 2008-049 (2008)Google Scholar
- 19.Roth, S., Black, M.J.: Fields of experts: A framework for learning image priors. In: CVPR (2005)Google Scholar
- 20.Levin, A., Sand, P., Cho, T.S., Durand, F., Freeman, W.T.: Motion invariant photography. SIGGRAPH (2008)Google Scholar
- 21.Schechner, Y., Kiryati, N.: Depth from defocus vs. stereo: How different really are they. IJCV (2000)Google Scholar