Abstract
This paper performs an experimental investigation on the TOF imaging profile which strongly influences the quality of reconstruction to accomplish accurate range sensing. From our analysis, the reflected intensity profile recorded appears to deviate from Gaussian model which is commonly assumed and can be perceived as a mixture of noises and actual reflected signal. Noise-weighted Average range calculation is therefore proposed to alleviate noise influence based on the signal detection threshold and system noises. From our experimental result, this alternative range solution demonstrates better accuracy as compared to the conventional weighted average method and proven as a para-axial correction to improve range reconstruction in 3D gated imaging system.
Highlights
Laser ranging technology has developed rapidly to become one of the crucial sensorial assets in industrial and day-to-day applications
Due to the high speed and long range capability offered by laser, it has been deployed in miscellaneous fields such as remote sensing, machine vision, 3D imaging, etc [2]–[4]
We reveal that the TOF imaging profile in 3D range gated reconstruction exhibits non-Gaussian characteristics under noise influences
Summary
Laser ranging technology has developed rapidly to become one of the crucial sensorial assets in industrial and day-to-day applications. Range r can be determined from the two-way travel time t and the speed of light c This approach controls the pulsed laser in conjunction with the camera’s shutter speed to capture the reflectivity images from the target scene. System parameters can be analysed from the laser profile, for instance, the laser and receiver models, atmospheric effects, which are helpful for result interpretation and prediction. In this context, energy profile in term of variation and redistribution of laser pulse energy needs to be well understood to perform accurate range computation. Alternative range computation is suggested based on the TOF imaging profile and noise analysis with accuracy comparison to the conventional weighted average method
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the European Optical Society-Rapid Publications
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
