Resolution enhancement in nonlinear

interferenceless COACH with point response

of subdiffraction limit patterns
MANI RATNAM RAI,1,* A. VIJAYAKUMAR,1 YUSUKE OGURA,2 AND JOSEPH
ROSEN1
1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box
653, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel
2
Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University, 1-5 Yamadaoka, Suita,
Osaka 565-0871, Japan
*maniratn@post.bgu.ac.il

Abstract: Interferenceless coded aperture correlation holography (I-COACH) is a non-

scanning, motionless, incoherent digital holography technique for 3D imaging. The lateral
and axial resolutions of I-COACH are equivalent to those of conventional direct imaging with
the same numerical aperture. The main component of I-COACH is a coded phase mask
(CPM) used as the system aperture. In this study, the CPM has been engineered using a
modified Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm to generate a random distribution of subdiffraction spot
arrays on the digital camera as a system response to a point source illumination. A library of
point object holograms is created to calibrate the system for imaging different lateral sections
of a 3D object. An object is placed within the calibrated 3D space and an object hologram is
recorded with the same CPM. The various planes of the object are reconstructed by a non-
linear cross-correlation between the object hologram and the point object hologram library. A
lateral resolution enhancement of about 25% was noted in the case of I-COACH compared to
direct imaging.

© 2018 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

1. Introduction
The search for imaging technologies with an improved lateral resolution is ongoing for about
two centuries [1–3]. The main obstacle towards reaching higher imaging resolution in the
optical regime is the diffraction limit [4]. Higher resolving power can be achieved by use of
electromagnetic sources with smaller wavelengths, resulting in an improved resolution limit.
This research direction of resolution improvement has inspired the developments of
microscopes in the spectral regime of ultraviolet [5] and x-ray [6]. However, such sources are
limited to certain applications. Techniques, such as structured illumination, suffer from other
limitations, as several images of the same object illuminated by several different gratings
must be captured to improve the resolution of a single image [7]. Notable fluorescence
imaging techniques such as stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM) [8] and
stimulated emission depletion microscopy (STED) [9], are limited for imaging fluorescent
specimens in a specific time-scheme. Other computational techniques such as Fourier
ptychography [10], pixel super-resolution [11], synthetic aperture [12], and compressive
imaging [13] make use of aperture engineering and digital post-processing. However, the
computational load, complexity and low time resolution limit the use of these techniques to
static scenes.
Incoherent digital holography techniques such as Fresnel incoherent correlation
holography (FINCH) [14–16], Fourier incoherent single channel holography (FISCH) [17]
and self-interference digital holography (SIDH) [18], have better imaging resolution than
direct imaging with the same numerical aperture. FINCH has also been used as a platform for
applying other super-resolution techniques such as synthetic aperture system [19] structured
illumination microscopy [20] and imaging with an input diffuser [21]. However, the need for
two-beam interference with a perfect overlap between them decreases the robustness of
FINCH. In 2016, an incoherent digital holography technique termed coded aperture
correlation holography (COACH) was developed to overcome the axial resolution limit of
FINCH [22]. COACH and FINCH belong to the same category of self-interference
holography systems, but with the dissimilarity of having a different optical aperture. In
FINCH, the object wave is modulated by a quadratic phase mask, while in COACH the same
wave is modulated by a pseudorandom coded phase mask (CPM). The pseudorandom CPM
improves the axial resolution of COACH compared to FINCH while exhibiting a lower lateral
resolution than FINCH. The optical characteristics of COACH was found to be similar to that
of lens-based direct imaging, but with the inherent capability of 3D imaging typical to general
digital holography.
Unlike FINCH, in COACH the 3D location of the object is encoded not only in the phase
of the object wave modulated by the CPM but also in its intensity distribution. This property
has enabled to record holograms without two-beam interference, a fundamental requirement
for recording phase distributions. Since two-beam interference is no longer necessary to
record holograms of 3D objects, a simpler version of COACH called interferenceless
COACH (I-COACH) could be applied [23]. I-COACH exhibits the same resolution
characteristics as that of COACH and of lens-based direct imaging. Moreover, I-COACH
requires at least two camera shots to reconstruct an image of the object with an acceptable
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). I-COACH with an adaptive non-linear reconstruction technique
has been developed recently to reconstruct objects with a single camera shot, without
compromising the SNR [24,25].
In general, the image in I-COACH is reconstructed by a cross-correlation between two
response patterns, the response to the object and the response to a single point. Therefore, the
smallest image point that can be resolved has the size of the correlation path, which is equal
to the smallest feature size in each of the correlated patterns. The smallest feature size on the
recorded pattern is inversely proportional to the diameter of the system aperture. Hence, in
ordinary circumstances, the resolution limits of I-COACH and direct imaging system are the
same and are inversely proportional to the diameter of the system aperture. On the other hand,
if the smallest feature size of the response patterns can be reduced without increasing the
aperture size and the NA, one can improve the resolution of I-COACH in comparison to a
direct imaging system with the same NA. Recently, a modified Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm
(GSA) [26] has been developed to design diffractive fan-out elements for the generation of
subdiffraction spots in a single as well as multiple planes [27,28]. In the present study, we
propose to use this technique of creating subdiffraction spots by a single CPM. The goal of
this procedure is to obtain point response pattern on the camera in a shape of a bunch of spots,
each of which is smaller than a regular diffraction-limited spot. In other words, we propose to
engineer the CPMs of I-COACH for generating subdiffraction spots with smaller feature size
than can be achieved by a regular CPM. The expected benefit of such technique is some
reduction in the correlation path and thus improvement of the lateral resolution beyond the
diffraction limit, without increasing the system aperture size and its NA. Hence, we term the
new technique Resolution Enhanced COACH (RE-COACH). The technique has many
advantages compared to other super resolution techniques. It helps to retain the
interferenceless and motionless characteristics of I-COACH with a configuration as simple as
that of regular lens-based imaging. Moreover, the technique does not demand any time-
consuming multiple intensity recordings and complex computational procedures. Note that
the techniques of I-COACH [23,24] and of generating subdiffraction spots [27,28] are
connected by the length of the correlation path. Explicitly, the modified method of creating
subdiffraction spots originally suggested in [27,28] reduces the characteristic correlation path
of the intensity responses in I-COACH of [23,24]. Hence, the shorter correlation paths are
translated to a resolution improvement in comparison to direct and to traditional I-COACH
imaging.
2. Methodology
The optical configuration of RE-COACH is identical to that of I-COACH shown in Fig. 1,
and the two systems differ only by the CPMs displayed on the spatial light modulator (SLM).
The principle of I-COACH is described as follows. Light from an incoherent source critically
illuminates an object using a refractive lens L1. The light diffracted from the object is
collimated by a refractive lens L2, and the collimated light is incident on the SLM. The CPM
synthesized using the modified GSA is displayed on the SLM, and the light modulated by the
CPM is recorded by an image sensor. The I-COACH system is calibrated using a point object,
which is axially translated along the Z-axis and the corresponding point spread hologram
(PSH) library is recorded [23]. Following the calibration phase, an object is placed inside the
defined 3D space and an object intensity pattern is recorded. The 3D object image is
reconstructed by non-linear cross-correlation of the object intensity pattern with the PSH
library [24].

Fig. 1. Optical configuration of I-COACH. L1, L2 – Refractive lenses: P- Polarizer; SLM -

Spatial light modulator; DL – Diffractive lens; CPM - Coded phase mask.

2.1 Synthesis of the coded phase mask

The RE-COACH system contains a CPM that generates subdiffraction-limit spots at
randomly designated positions. The CPMs are synthesized using our previously developed
algorithm which is based on the GSA with our own constraints [27]. An important operation
of our constraints is to control the phases of the spots. When the phase of a spot differs by π
from the phase of its adjacent spots, the spot size can be reduced by destructive interference
between the spots.
To achieve notable resolution enhancement, some subdiffraction-limit spots should be
arranged with a low density. Under such condition, most spots are isolated from others, and
the spot size tends to be large because destructive interference rarely occurs. To overcome
this problem, sets of 3 × 3 spots are arranged randomly over the Fourier plane of the CPM.
With this strategy, the central spot within 3 × 3 spots is surrounded by up to 4 spots with an
opposite phase on its left, right, top, and bottom, and thus the central spot becomes
substantially narrower.
In the design, the total number of pixels is 8192 × 8192. For the pixel size on the CPM
plane of 8.0 μm, the pixel size on the spot-generation plane is calculated to be 3.9 μm,
assuming the focal length of the Fourier lens is 40 cm and the wavelength is 635 nm. The
shape of a CPM is a circle with a radius of 512 pixels. The pixels out of the CPM contain zero
values. The spot-generation plane is divided into the spot-area and the surrounding area,
which is prepared to increase the flexibility of the optical-pattern generation within the spot-
area [27]. The spot-area, which is placed at the center of the spot-generation plane, is further
divided into 512 × 512 cells each of which consisting 6 × 6 pixels. Accordingly, the size of
the spot-area is 3072 × 3072 pixels. The cell size of 23.3 μm, is equivalent to 73% of the
full width at half maximum, 31.9 μm, of the diffraction limit spot, namely an Airy disc
generated using the experimental system with a clear disk-shape aperture with a radius of 512
pixels. Only the area of the central 256 × 256 cells is used to generate spots for avoiding
influence of the noisy optical pattern at the surrounding area outside the central area of 3072
× 3072 pixels. In addition, spots can be arranged at every two cells; thus, the number of
positions where spots can be placed is 128 × 128.
We designed several CPMs by changing the spot density to investigate the performance
and property of RE-COACH. Here the spot density is defined as the number of arranged spots
over the number of potential spot-positions (128 × 128). For example, when 164 sets of 3 × 3
spots are arranged, the spot density is approximately 164 × (3 × 3)/(128 × 128) = 0.01 × (3 ×
3) or 0.09. The CPMs were designed as a phase-only and Fourier-transform type masks. In
the experiments, the phase distribution of a diffractive Fourier lens with a focal length of zh is
added into the phase of the designed CPM.
2.2 Theoretical analysis
The theoretical analysis is carried out for a point object and extended by a superposition for a
multipoint object. A point object located at ( rs , − zs ) = ( xs , y s , − zs ) emits light with an
amplitude I s . The complex amplitude just before lens L2 is given as I s C0 Q (1 zs ) L(rs zs )
, where Q and L represent the quadratic and linear phase functions, given by
Q(a) = exp iπ aλ −1 ( x 2 + y 2 )  and L( s / z ) = exp i 2π ( λ z ) ( sx x + s y y )  , respectively and
−1
 
C0 is a complex constant. The complex amplitude just after lens L2 with a focal length of f2, is
given by I s C0 Q (1 zs ) L(rs zs )Q ( −1 f 2 ) . Assuming that the distance d between the lens L2
and the SLM is negligibly small, the complex amplitude after the SLM can be expressed as
I s C0 Q (1 z s −1 f 2 ) L( rs z s ) exp iΦ ( r )  Q ( −1 zh ) , where Φ ( r ) is the CPM synthesized
using the modified GSA and zh is the focal length of the diffractive lens attached to the CPM.
The CPM is multiplied by the diffractive lens Q(−1/zh) to match accurately the GSA condition
of Fourier relation between the SLM and the sensor planes. Therefore, the intensity pattern on
the image sensor located at a distance of zh from the SLM is given by,
2
r  1 1 1 1
I PSH ( r0 ; rs , z s ) = I s C0 L  s  exp iΦ ( r )  Q  - -  *Q   , (1)
 zs   z s f 2 zh   zh 

where the symbol '*' represents a two-dimensional convolution and r0 = ( u , v ) is the

transverse location vector on the plane of the image sensor. Equation (1) can be reduced into
a Fourier transform as the following [4],
2
 1    rs  
I PSH ( r0 ; rs , zs ) = ν   ℑ  I s C0 L   Q ( −ζ ) exp iΦ ( r )  
 λ zF    zs   (2)
 zh 
= I PSH  r0 − rs ; 0, zs  ,
 zs 
where
 ( zs − f 2 )( zs f 2 + zs zh − zh f 2 ) z s f 2 zh
ζ = , zF = (3)
( zs f 2 ) z s f 2 + z s zh − zh f 2
2

ℑ is the operator of 2D Fourier transform and ν is the scaling operator defined by the relation
ν[α]f(x) = f(αx). The intensity on the sensor plane is a shifted version (by rs zh/zs) of the
intensity response for a point object located on the optical axis ( rs = 0 ) . Equation (3)
indicates that for zs = f2 the value of ζ is zero and thus Q ( −ζ ) = 1 in Eq. (2). In other words,
the PSH for a point located at (0,0,-zs = -f2) is a scaled Fourier transform of the CPM.
Therefore, the CPM is synthesized by the GSA to yield the subdiffraction spots only for
points located at the input plane zs = f2. The CPM cannot guarantee a response of
subdiffraction spots for points outside this plane of zs = f2. Consequently, one can conclude
that the expected gain of resolution is guaranteed only for 2D objects displayed on the front
focal plane of lens L2. Other lateral planes of a 3D object can still be imaged since according
to Eq. (2) the shift-invariance property is maintained regardless of the values of ζ and zs, but
the gain of resolution is no longer guaranteed.
A 2D object illuminated by a spatially incoherent light and located at the same distance zs
from the lens L2 can be considered as a collection of N uncorrelated object points given as,
N
o ( rs ) =  a j δ ( r − rs , j ). (4)
j

Since the system is linear, the intensity distribution for the 2D object on the sensor plane
is a sum of all the shifted point responses, given by,

 z 
I OBJ ( r0 ; zs ) =  a j I PSH  r0 − h rs , j ;0, zs  (5)
j  zs 
In the first report of I-COACH [23], three intensity recordings with different
pseudorandom phase masks for the point object, as well as for the object, were captured in
order to remove the bias and the background noise during reconstruction. Later a phase-only
filtering technique was employed to reduce the background noise further [29]. In the
subsequent studies [30–32], the optical configuration of I-COACH was improved, and the
number of intensity recordings was decreased to two. As mentioned in the introduction,
recently, a non-linear reconstruction (NLR) technique was developed, which reduced the
number of intensity recordings to one [24]. In the NLR technique, the magnitudes, Iˆ and OBJ

IˆPSH , are raised to the power of o and r, respectively, where IˆOBJ and IˆPSH are the Fourier
transforms of IOBJ and IPSH given in Eqs. (2) and (5), respectively. In the NLR optimization
procedure, only the spectral magnitudes of the object, and of the reconstructing function, are
raised to the power of o and r, while the phase information remains intact. For an object of a
point located at ( rs , z s ) , the Fourier transform of the cross-correlation between the object and
the PSH-based reconstructing function is,
Cˆ = ℑ { I OBJ ′ } = IˆOBJ
′ ⊗ I PSH ′ ⋅ IˆPSH
′∗
o
= IˆPSH exp i (ϕ PSH + 2π zh rs ⋅ν zs )  IPSH exp [ −iϕ PSH ]
r
(6)
o r
= IˆPSH exp [i 2π zh rs ⋅ν zs ] IˆPSH ,
where IˆOBJ
′ and IˆPSH
′ are the Fourier transforms of I OBJ
′ and I PSH
′ , respectively. I OBJ
′ and
′ are the patterns I OBJ and I PSH , respectively, after the nonlinear operations described
I PSH
above. Since the object is a point, its ideal reconstruction is a delta function. Hence
theoretically, the condition o + r = 0 yields uniform Ĉ and consequently a reconstructed image
of an ideal point. However, the noise in any practical system produces other optimal values
for o and r, which usually do not satisfy the above-mentioned condition. Note that the
procedure expressed in Eq. (6) is valid for a point object and because of the non-linearity of
the power raising, one cannot show the validity of this procedure for general multipoint
object. Nevertheless, many experiments in various conditions indicate that practically the
NLR method works quite well for an arbitrary multipoint object.
In order to find the optimal values of o and r, we change them, in some predefined step, in
the range ( −1 ≤ o ≤ 1, −1 ≤ r ≤ 1) . The entropy is calculated for each value of o and r and the
optimal reconstruction in the sense of minimum entropy value is extracted. Entropy is a blind
figure-of-merit and therefore it is not necessary to a priory recognize the object before its
image is reconstructed. The entropy corresponding to the normalized intensity distribution
function φ ( m, n ) of the output reconstructed matrix R(m,n) is given as,

S ( o, r ) = − φ (m, n) log [φ (m, n) ], (7)

M N

where m,n are the pixel coordinates of the image and φ (m, n) is given by,

R ( m, n )
φ (m, n) = . (8)
 M N
R ( m, n )

The NLR reconstruction procedure is adaptive to the various experimental conditions and
thus it finds optimal values of o and r for each experiment.
3. Experiments and results
Different experiments described in the next subsections were carried out to evaluate the
capabilities of the method of resolution enhancement in I-COACH.
3.1 2D Super-resolution imaging
The experimental verification of the proposed RE-COACH was carried out using a digital
holography setup shown in Fig. 2. The experimental setup consists of two illumination
channels with identical LEDs emitting light at a wavelength of 635 nm (Thorlabs LED635L,
170 mW, λ = 635 nm, Δλ = 15 nm). Two identical lenses L1A and L1B were used to critically
illuminate the objects. In channel 1, a pinhole with a size of 10 μm was mounted for capturing
the PSH. In channel 2, Groups 5, 6 and 7 of United States Air Force (USAF) resolution target
was illuminated using the second LED. The object and the pinhole were positioned at the
front focal plane of lens L2 at a distance of 17.5 cm from L2. The distance between the lens L2
and the phase-only reflective SLM (Holoeye PLUTO, 1920 × 1080 pixels, 8 μm pixel pitch,
phase-only modulation) was 20.5 cm. The distance between the lens L2 and the beam splitter
BS2 was 15 cm. The distance between the SLM and the image sensor (Thorlabs 8051-M-
USB, 3296 × 2472 pixels, 5.5 μm pixel pitch, monochrome) was zh = 40 cm. A bandpass filter
with (λc = 632.8 nm and Δλ = 5 nm) was mounted between the SLM and the image sensor.
 Fig. 2.
2 Experimental seetup. BS1 and BS S2 – Beam splitterrs; SLM – Spatiaal light modulator;;
USAF F – United States Air Force; L1A, L1B and L2 – Reffractive lenses; LE ED1 and LED2 –
Identiical light emitting diodes; CPM – Co oded phase mask; QPM – Quadraticc phase mask; BPF F
– Bannd pass filter (λc = 632.8 nm and Δλ Δ = 5 nm); P- Poolarizer; - Polariization orientationn
perpen ndicular to the plaane of the page.

The phasee pattern displaayed on the SL LM is obtainedd by modulo-22π phase additiion of the
CPM with a quadratic
q phasee mask (QPM) of 40 cm focaal length. Each CPM is synthesized by
the modified GSA
G and the QPM
Q is used to
o satisfy the Foourier relation oof the GSA bettween the
SLM and the sensor plane. The T PSHs weree recorded usinng CPMs with different spot densities.
The images of o the CPM, PSH P and objecct holograms ffor spot densitties 0.009 and 0.09 are
shown in Fig. 3. Image reconstructions fo or different sppot densities ussing NLR are shown in
Fig. 4. In ordeer to determinee the optimal spot density in the sense of m maximum resolution, we
consider seveeral measures. The plots of averaged
a line pprofile are obtaained by averaaging one
horizontal an nd one verticaal gratings of the same US SAF object. T The dip perceentage of
minimum from m maximum and a visibility arre calculated aand shown in F Fig. 5, for the eelement 2
of group 6 (in ndicated on Fig g. 4 by red fraames) with a ggrating line spaacing of 6.96 μμm. From
Fig. 5, it is seen
s that the CPM
C synthesizzed with a spoot density = 0..036 has the m maximum
lateral resoluttion. A comparrison of the ressolution limits between threee methods of im maging is
demonstrated in Fig. 6. The resolution limit for RE-CO OACH, regulaar I-COACH aand direct
imaging are 6.96
6 μm (Group p 6 element 2), 7.82 μm (Grooup 6 element 1) and 8.77 μm m (Group
5 element 6), respectively as shown in red boxes off Fig. 6. RE-C COACH has sshown an
improvement in lateral reso maging and 1.12 against
olution by a facctor of 1.26 aggainst direct im
the regular I-C
COACH respecctively.

Fig. 3. Images of the CPM, PSH and ob

bject Hologram forr spot densities off 0.009 and 0.09.
Fig. 4.
4 Reconstruction results of USAF Target
T (Group 6 eelement 2) for spoot densities 0.009,
0.018, 0.036, 0.054, 0.0
072 and 0.09. Miniimum resolvable fe
feature is shown inn red box.

Fig. 5.
5 Line Profile, Viisibility Plot and dip
d of minima perrcentage from maaxima for differentt
spot densities.
d
 Fig. 6.
6 Object reconstru
uction results for RE-COACH, reguular I-COACH annd direct imaging.
The minimum
m resolvablle feature is shown
n in the red box.

3.2 3D imaging
For the experriment of 3D im maging, a pinh hole with a diaameter of 10 μμm was used. T The PSHs
for the optimaal spot density wo different axxial locations of the pinhole, separated
y of 0.036 at tw
by a distance of 4 mm, were recorded. Tw wo objects: objject ‘4’ (Groupp 4 & Plane A A) and ‘1’
(Group 3 elem ment 1 & Plan ne B) of Unitted States Air Force (USAF F) were mountted in the
channels 1 annd 2 respectively at the same axial locationss of the pinholle where the PS SHs were
recorded. Thee 3D image was reconstructed d by a cross-coorrelation of thee same object hhologram
with the PSH Hs of the two planes A and d B using the NLR techniquue. Figure 7 shows the
reconstruction
n results for different axial pllanes. When pllane A is reconnstructed, the oobject ‘4’
is in focus an
nd the other obbject ‘1’ is defo
focused and vicce versa in thee other case off plane B.
Hence, by th his experimentt, it is concluded that the 33D imaging ccapability of rregular I-
COACH is retained in the RE-COACH
R tecchnique.

Fig. 7.
7 Reconstruction results
r of (a) planee A, (b) plane B seeparated by a distaance of 4 mm from
m
a sing
gle camera shot of RE-COACH. (c) Direct
D imaging whhen plane A was inn focus.

In an add ditional experriment, the ax xial response of RE-COAC CH was measuured and
compared agaainst the respo onse of direct imaging.
i In thiis experiment, the PSH was recorded
for a pinhole located at z = 0,0 and the location of the pinhhole was varieed between z = −2 cm to
z = 2 cm in stteps of 0.5 cm.. The recorded d PSHs IPSH(z) wwere cross-corrrelated with IPPSH(z = 0)
using the nonn-linear filter (rr = 0.3, o = 0.6) and the corrrelation resultss are plotted aggainst the
axial location
n of the pinholle as shown in n Fig. 8. The ggraph is compaared with that of direct
imaging using g the same po oint object and d z distances. The axial widdth was determ mined by
calculating th
he FWHM of th he normalized response plotss as shown in Fig. 8. The axxial width
of RE-COAC CH was found to t be 1.653 mm m whereas the direct imagingg has an axial rresolution
of 2.12 mm, which
w indicatee that the axial response of RRE-COACH is narrower by a factor of
1.28 than the direct imaging g.
 Fig
g. 8. Plots of the ax
xial response curvees for RE-COACH
H (blue) and directt imaging (red).

3.3 Imaging of greyscale objects

From applicattion point of viiew, the objectts used in real--world imagingg are not alwayys binary.
In this sectioon, we have imaged
i greysccale objects ussing the RE-C COACH technnique. To
display a greyyscale object, we
w used an amp plitude SLM (H Holoeye LC20012, 1024 × 7668, 36 μm
pixel pitch) with
w greyscale values from 200 2 to 256 in step of 8. Thhe amplitude S SLM was
mounted in on ne of the channnels of the exp
perimental setuup and the holoogram of spot ddensity of
0.036 was reccorded. A recon nstructed imagge and direct immaging results of the object aare shown
in Fig. 9. As seen
s Fig. 9, REE-COACH can n reconstruct thhe objects of alll grey scale vaalues that
can be registeered in the direcct imaging.

Fig. 9.
9 Reconstruction results of the RE
E-COACH methodd and direct imagging for greyscalee
objectts.
4. Summary and conclusions
A modified Gerchberg–Saxton algorithm which generates subdiffraction spot arrays have
been implemented in the RE-COACH system for resolution enhancement. In this system,
subdiffraction spots were randomly distributed over the sensor area, where each array
contains 3 × 3 subdiffraction spots. CPMs with different spot densities from 0.009 to 0.09
were synthesized and the corresponding object and point-spread holograms were recorded
and then reconstructed using the NLR technique. To determine the spot density having best
reconstruction result, visibility plot, Rayleigh dip and line profile for the minimum resolvable
object were plotted and the reconstruction result for the spot density of 0.036 has
demonstrated the highest resolution.
The RE-COACH method was compared to the regular I-COACH and direct imaging and
the minimum feature resolved were 6.96 μm, 7.82 μm and 8.77 μm, respectively. These results
show that the RE-COACH method has a resolution enhancement of about 1.26 over direct
imaging and 1.12 over the conventional I-COACH. In further experimentation, 3D imaging
property and reconstruction results for greyscale objects were tested. Hence, it can be
concluded that RE-COACH method has all intrinsic properties of regular I-COACH but with
the additional advantage of imaging with improved resolution.
As a final remark, let us briefly regard to the well-known incoherent digital holography
technique, called FINCH mentioned in the introduction with its special resolution properties
[14–16]. FINCH has a superior lateral resolution of about 1.5 times higher than an equivalent
direct imaging system [16]. However, it has been shown that FINCH has lower axial
resolution and therefore it is difficult to use FINCH for imaging thick objects. COACH and I-
COACH were developed to improve the lower axial resolution problem of FINCH at the
expense of some loss of the higher lateral resolution. With this advancement of the RE-
COACH technique, improved lateral resolution can be achieved together with other
advantages; The 3D scene is captured by a single camera shot, and there is no need to any
interferometric setup. The axial resolution of RE-COACH, as reflected from the axial
response of Fig. 8, is at least as good as the direct imaging. Hence, in comparison to FINCH
and other self-interference digital holography methods, RE-COACH is more robust, with a
higher power efficiency, better time resolution and relaxed temporal coherence requirements.
With all these benefits, we believe that RE-COACH technique can be used for 3D biomedical
imaging, fluorescence microscopy and 3D imaging through scattering media.
Funding
Israel Science Foundation (ISF) (Grant No. 1669/16) and the Israel Ministry of Science and
Technology (MOST).
Acknowledgment
Part of this study was done during a Research Stay of JR at the Alfried Krupp
Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald.
References
1. H. Wang, C. J. R. Sheppard, K. Ravi, S. T. Ho, and G. Vienne, “Fighting against diffraction: apodization and
near field diffraction structures,” Laser Photonics Rev. 6(3), 354–392 (2012).
2. B. Huang, “Super-resolution optical microscopy: multiple choices,” Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14(1), 10–14
(2010).
3. B. O. Leung and K. C. Chou, “Review of super-resolution fluorescence microscopy for biology,” Appl.
Spectrosc. 65(9), 967–980 (2011).
4. J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics (W. H. Freeman, 2017).
5. A. V. Baez, “Fresnel zone plate for optical image formation using extreme ultraviolet and soft X radiation,” J.
Opt. Soc. Am. 51(4), 405–412 (1961).
6. G. C. Yin, Y. F. Song, M. T. Tang, F. R. Chen, K. S. Liang, F. W. Duewer, M. Feser, W. Yun, and H. P. D.
Shieh, “30 nm resolution x-ray imaging at 8 keV using third order diffraction of a zone plate lens objective in a
transmission microscope,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 89(22), 221122 (2006).
7. M. G. L. Gustafsson, “Surpassing the lateral resolution limit by a factor of two using structured illumination
microscopy,” J. Microsc. 198(Pt 2), 82–87 (2000).
8. M. J. Rust, M. Bates, and X. Zhuang, “Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction
microscopy (STORM),” Nat. Methods 3(10), 793–795 (2006).
9. S. W. Hell and J. Wichmann, “Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-
emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy,” Opt. Lett. 19(11), 780–782 (1994).
10. G. Zheng, R. Horstmeyer, and C. Yang, “Wide-field, high-resolution Fourier ptychographic microscopy,” Nat.
Photonics 7(9), 739–745 (2013).
11. W. Luo, Y. Zhang, A. Feizi, Z. Göröcs, and A. Ozcan, “Pixel super-resolution using wavelength scanning,”
Light Sci. Appl. 5(4), e16060 (2016).
12. G. Indebetouw, Y. Tada, J. Rosen, and G. Brooker, “Scanning holographic microscopy with resolution
exceeding the Rayleigh limit of the objective by superposition of off-axis holograms,” Appl. Opt. 46(6), 993–
1000 (2007).
13. E. McLeod and A. Ozcan, “Unconventional methods of imaging: computational microscopy and compact
implementations,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 79(7), 076001 (2016).
14. J. Rosen and G. Brooker, “Digital spatially incoherent Fresnel holography,” Opt. Lett. 32(8), 912–914 (2007).
15. J. Rosen and G. Brooker, “Non-scanning motionless fluorescence three-dimensional holographic microscopy,”
Nat. Photonics 2(3), 190–195 (2008).
16. J. Rosen, N. Siegel, and G. Brooker, “Theoretical and experimental demonstration of resolution beyond the
Rayleigh limit by FINCH fluorescence microscopic imaging,” Opt. Express 19(27), 26249–26268 (2011).
17. R. Kelner and J. Rosen, “Spatially incoherent single channel digital Fourier holography,” Opt. Lett. 37(17),
3723–3725 (2012).
18. J. Hong and M. K. Kim, “Single-shot self-interference incoherent digital holography using off-axis
configuration,” Opt. Lett. 38(23), 5196–5199 (2013).
19. B. Katz and J. Rosen, “Could SAFE concept be applied for designing a new synthetic aperture telescope?” Opt.
Express 19(6), 4924–4936 (2011).
20. Y. Kashter, A. Vijayakumar, Y. Miyamoto, and J. Rosen, “Enhanced super resolution using Fresnel incoherent
correlation holography with structured illumination,” Opt. Lett. 41(7), 1558–1561 (2016).
21. Y. Kashter, A. Vijayakumar, and J. Rosen, “Resolving images by blurring: superresolution method with a
scattering mask between the observed objects and the hologram recorder,” Optica 4(8), 932–939 (2017).
22. A. Vijayakumar, Y. Kashter, R. Kelner, and J. Rosen, “Coded aperture correlation holography-a new type of
incoherent digital holograms,” Opt. Express 24(11), 12430–12441 (2016).
23. A. Vijayakumar and J. Rosen, “Interferenceless coded aperture correlation holography-a new technique for
recording incoherent digital holograms without two-wave interference,” Opt. Express 25(12), 13883–13896
(2017).
24. M. R. Rai, A. Vijayakumar, and J. Rosen, “Non-linear adaptive three-dimensional imaging with interferenceless
coded aperture correlation holography (I-COACH),” Opt. Express 26(14), 18143–18154 (2018).
25. S. Mukherjee and J. Rosen, “Imaging through scattering medium by adaptive non-linear digital processing,” Sci.
Rep. 8(1), 10517 (2018).
26. R. W. Gerchberg and W. O. Saxton, “A practical algorithm for the determination of phase from image and
diffraction plane pictures,” Optik (Stuttg.) 35(2), 227–246 (1972).
27. Y. Ogura, M. Aino, and J. Tanida, “Design and demonstration of fan-out elements generating an array of
subdiffraction spots,” Opt. Express 22(21), 25196–25207 (2014).
28. Y. Ogura, M. Aino, and J. Tanida, “Diffractive fan-out elements for wavelength-multiplexing subdiffraction-
limit spot generation in three dimensions,” Appl. Opt. 55(23), 6371–6380 (2016).
29. A. Vijayakumar, Y. Kashter, R. Kelner, and J. Rosen, “Coded aperture correlation holography system with
improved performance [Invited],” Appl. Opt. 56(13), F67–F77 (2017).
30. M. Ratnam Rai, A. Vijayakumar, and J. Rosen, “Single camera shot interferenceless coded aperture correlation
holography,” Opt. Lett. 42(19), 3992–3995 (2017).
31. M. R. Rai, A. Vijayakumar, and J. Rosen, “Extending the field of view by a scattering window in an I-COACH
system,” Opt. Lett. 43(5), 1043–1046 (2018).
32. M. Kumar, A. Vijayakumar, and J. Rosen, “Incoherent digital holograms acquired by interferenceless coded
aperture correlation holography system without refractive lenses,” Sci. Rep. 7(1), 11555 (2017).