Advertisement

Understanding Camera Trade-Offs through a Bayesian Analysis of Light Field Projections

  • Anat Levin
  • William T. Freeman
  • Frédo Durand
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5305)

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 Reconstruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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. 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. 3.
    Adelson, E.H., Wang, J.Y.A.: Single lens stereo with a plenoptic camera. PAMI (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 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. 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. 6.
    Dowski, E., Cathey, W.: Single-lens single-image incoherent passive-ranging systems. App. Opt. (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levoy, M., Hanrahan, P.M.: Light field rendering. SIGGRAPH (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodman, J.W.: Introduction to Fourier Optics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Chai, J., Tong, X., Chan, S., Shum, H.: Plenoptic sampling. SIGGRAPH (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isaksen, A., McMillan, L., Gortler, S.J.: Dynamically reparameterized light fields. SIGGRAPH (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ng, R.: Fourier slice photography. SIGGRAPH (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seitz, S., Kim, J.: The space of all stereo images. In: ICCV (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grossberg, M., Nayar, S.K.: The raxel imaging model and ray-based calibration. In: IJCV (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kak, A.C., Slaney, M.: Principles of Computerized Tomographic ImagingGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker, S., Kanade, T.: Limits on super-resolution and how to break them. PAMI (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 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)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Roth, S., Black, M.J.: Fields of experts: A framework for learning image priors. In: CVPR (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levin, A., Sand, P., Cho, T.S., Durand, F., Freeman, W.T.: Motion invariant photography. SIGGRAPH (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schechner, Y., Kiryati, N.: Depth from defocus vs. stereo: How different really are they. IJCV (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anat Levin
    • 1
  • William T. Freeman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frédo Durand
    • 1
  1. 1.MIT CSAIL 
  2. 2.Adobe Systems 

Personalised recommendations