Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T20:26:12.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Optimum Deconvolution Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

C.R. Subrahmanya*
Affiliation:
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, BOMBAY 400005, INDIA

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An optimum solution to a deconvolution problem has to fulfil three general criteria: (a) an explicit recognition of the smoothing nature of convolution; (b) a statistical treatment of noise, e.g., using the least-squares criterion; and (c) requiring the solution to conform to all our prior knowledge about it. In the usual least-squares method, one minimises a variance of ‘residuals’, or the departures of the observed data from the values expected according to the recovered solution. However, this condition does not lead to a stable solution in the case of deconvolution, since the only stable solutions are those conforming to a criterion of ‘regularisation’ or smoothness (see, e.g., Tikhonov and Arsenin 1977). In our method, the stability is achieved by minimising the variance of the second-differences of the solution simultaneously with the fulfilment of the least-squares criterion. Such a procedure was first used by Phillips(1962). However, the solution thus obtained is still unsatisfactory since it usually does not conform to our a priori information. When we seek the brightness distribution of an object, the most frequent violation of our prior knowledge is that of positiveness. This motivated us to develop an Optimum Deconvolution Method (ODM) which constrains the solution to satisfy prior knowledge while retaining the features of least-squares and smoothness criteria.

Type
Part VI: Other Image Improvement Methods
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1979

References

Ables, J.G.: 1974, “Astron. Astrophys. Suppl.”, 15, p.383 Google Scholar
Fiacco, A.V. and McCormick, G.P.: 1970, “Nonlinear Programming”, (New York: Wiley)Google Scholar
Frieden, B.R.: 1975, in “Picture-processing and Digital Filtering”, (Ed.) Huang, T.S. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)Google Scholar
Kikuchi, R. and Soffer, B.H.: 1977, “J. Opt. Soc. Amer.”, 67, p.1656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, D.L.: 1962, “J. Assoc. Comp. Machy.”, 9, p.84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuer, P.A.G.: 1962, “Aust. J. Phys.”, 15, p.333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanya, C.R.: 1979, submitted to Astron. Astrophys.Google Scholar
Tikhonov, A.N. and Arsenin, V.Y.: 1977, “Solution of III-posed Problems” (Washington: Wisconsin)Google Scholar