Photoelectric Detection Technology in Underwater Vehicles
Underwater photoelectric detection technology is used for target detecting and imaging in the environment of underwater, using electro-optic detection method. Compared with acoustic detection techniques, photoelectric detection has the advantages of high resolution ratio, no near-field blind area, and fast and convenient for target identification. At present, the underwater photoelectric detection methods include range-gated imaging detection, laser line scanning imaging detection, polarization imaging detection, modulation/demodulation imaging detection, structured light imaging detection, etc. (Cao et al. 2011).
Compared with land photoelectric imaging system, underwater photoelectric imaging and detection system work in special environment. There are mainly three...
- Cao F-m, Jin W-q, Huang Y-w, Li H-l, Wang X, Chu K-l, Liu J (2011) Review of underwater opto-electrical imaging technology and equipment (I) underwater laser range-gated imaging technology. Infrared Technol 33(2):63–69Google Scholar
- Chen C, Yang H-r, Wu L, Li G-p (2011) Underwater target detection with electro-optical system. J Appl Opt 32(6):1059–1066Google Scholar
- Jin W-q, Wang X, Cao F-m, Huang Y-w, Liu J, Li H-l, Xu C (2011) Review of underwater opto-electrical imaging technology and equipment. Infrared Technol (II) 33(3):125–132Google Scholar
- Shirai K, Fujimoto T, Harada T (2000). Underwater imaging system using acoustic holography. In: Proceedings of the 2000 international symposium on underwater technology (Cat. No.00EX418), Tokyo, pp 122–126Google Scholar
- Yuan T (2013) The study of the underwater laser imaging system. Thesis, Chuangchun University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Zhang H, Rong J, Li T, Tian L, Tang L, Liang G (2011) Simulation analysis of modulated lidar on optical carrier for target detection in deep-ocean. Infrared Laser Eng 40(12):2408–2412Google Scholar
- Zhao Y, Gai Z-g, Zhao J, Chu S-b (2014) Research on range-gated underwater laser imaging technology. Logist Eng Manag 36(241):270–271Google Scholar