Comparison of three-dimensional particle tracking and sizing using plenoptic imaging and digital in-line holography

Elise M. Hall; Brian S. Thurow; Daniel R. Guildenbecher

doi:10.1364/AO.55.006410

Applied Optics
Vol. 55,
Issue 23,
pp. 6410-6420
(2016)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.55.006410

Comparison of three-dimensional particle tracking and sizing using plenoptic imaging and digital in-line holography

Elise M. Hall, Brian S. Thurow, and Daniel R. Guildenbecher

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Elise M. Hall, Brian S. Thurow, and Daniel R. Guildenbecher, "Comparison of three-dimensional particle tracking and sizing using plenoptic imaging and digital in-line holography," Appl. Opt. 55, 6410-6420 (2016)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Imaging Systems
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: May 3, 2016
- Revised Manuscript: July 7, 2016
- Manuscript Accepted: July 7, 2016
- Published: August 8, 2016

Accepted Manuscript
Download Accepted Manuscript
Access to this article is made available via and is subject to OSA Publishing Terms of Use.

Abstract

Digital in-line holography (DIH) and plenoptic photography are two techniques for single-shot, volumetric measurement of 3D particle fields. Here we present a comparison of the two methods by applying plenoptic imaging to experimental configurations that have been previously investigated with DIH. These experiments include the tracking of secondary droplets from the impact of a water drop on a thin film of water and tracking of pellets from a shotgun. Both plenoptic imaging and DIH successfully quantify the 3D nature of these particle fields. This includes measurement of the 3D particle position, individual particle sizes, and three-component velocity vectors. For the initial processing methods presented here, both techniques give out-of-plane positional accuracy of approximately 1–2 particle diameters. For a fixed image sensor, digital holography achieves higher effective in-plane spatial resolutions. However, collimated and coherent illumination makes holography susceptible to image distortion through index of refraction gradients, as demonstrated in the shotgun experiments. In contrast, plenoptic imaging allows for a simpler experimental configuration and, due to the use of diffuse, white-light illumination, plenoptic imaging is less susceptible to image distortion in the shotgun experiments.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

High-speed (20 kHz) digital in-line holography for transient particle tracking and sizing in multiphase flows

Daniel R. Guildenbecher, Marcia A. Cooper, and Paul E. Sojka
Appl. Opt. 55(11) 2892-2903 (2016)

Uncertainty characterization of particle location from refocused plenoptic images

Elise M. Hall, Daniel R. Guildenbecher, and Brian S. Thurow
Opt. Express 25(18) 21801-21814 (2017)

Three-dimensional measurement of a particle field using phase retrieval digital holography

Hangjian Ling
Appl. Opt. 59(12) 3551-3559 (2020)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (15)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (3)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (8)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Approximate Fall Height (mm)	Initial Diameter, $d_{0}$ (mm)	Impact Velocity, $v_{0}$ (m/s)	Nondimensional Time ( $τ$ )	Impact Weber Number ( $W e$ )
600	$3.36 \pm 0.005$	$3.50 \pm 0.03$	$2.08 \pm 0.01$ , $4.16 \pm 0.03$ , $6.25 \pm 0.04$	$545 \pm 8$
900	$3.29 \pm 0.007$	$4.24 \pm 0.02$	$2.57 \pm 0.01$ , $5.14 \pm 0.03$ , $7.72 \pm 0.04$	$783 \pm 9$
1250	$3.28 \pm 0.016$	$4.93 \pm 0.03$	$3.01 \pm 0.02$ , $6.02 \pm 0.04$ , $9.03 \pm 0.06$	$1054 \pm 14$

Approximate Fall Height (mm)	Delay Time (ms)	Standard Deviation of the $x$ -Model Error (mm)	Standard Deviation of the $z$ -Model Error (mm)	$z$ - Uncertainty (mm)
600	233	0.275	0.392	0.116
	235	0.110	0.341	0.232
	237	0.070	0.354	0.285
900	318	0.437	0.445	0.008
	320	0.263	0.411	0.148
	322	0.103	0.373	0.271
1250	402	0.312	0.393	0.081
	404	0.182	0.365	0.183
	406	0.093	0.347	0.255

	Advantages	Challenges
Plenoptic imaging	• Simple experimental setup requiring limited optical access	• Lower effective spatial resolution
	• Can utilize diffuse, white-light illumination sources	• Data processing techniques are not fully developed
		• Requires custom imaging hardware
Digital in-line holography	• Well-established technique, including mature data processing methodology	• Requires collimated laser illumination, which increases experimental complexity and can cause unwanted artifacts
	• High spatial resolution
	• Utilizes commercial hardware, including possibility of high-speed imagers

Approximate Fall Height (mm)	Initial Diameter, $d_{0}$ (mm)	Impact Velocity, $v_{0}$ (m/s)	Nondimensional Time ( $τ$ )	Impact Weber Number ( $W e$ )
600	$3.36 \pm 0.005$	$3.50 \pm 0.03$	$2.08 \pm 0.01$ , $4.16 \pm 0.03$ , $6.25 \pm 0.04$	$545 \pm 8$
900	$3.29 \pm 0.007$	$4.24 \pm 0.02$	$2.57 \pm 0.01$ , $5.14 \pm 0.03$ , $7.72 \pm 0.04$	$783 \pm 9$
1250	$3.28 \pm 0.016$	$4.93 \pm 0.03$	$3.01 \pm 0.02$ , $6.02 \pm 0.04$ , $9.03 \pm 0.06$	$1054 \pm 14$

Approximate Fall Height (mm)	Delay Time (ms)	Standard Deviation of the $x$ -Model Error (mm)	Standard Deviation of the $z$ -Model Error (mm)	$z$ - Uncertainty (mm)
600	233	0.275	0.392	0.116
	235	0.110	0.341	0.232
	237	0.070	0.354	0.285
900	318	0.437	0.445	0.008
	320	0.263	0.411	0.148
	322	0.103	0.373	0.271
1250	402	0.312	0.393	0.081
	404	0.182	0.365	0.183
	406	0.093	0.347	0.255

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (15)

Tables (3)

Equations (8)

Applied Optics