skip to main content
research-article

Differential Frequency Heterodyne Time-of-Flight Imaging for Instantaneous Depth and Velocity Estimation

Published:14 September 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this study, we discuss the imaging of depth and velocity using heterodyne-mode time-of-flight (ToF) cameras. In particular, Doppler ToF (D-ToF) imaging utilizes heterodyne modulation to measure the velocity from the Doppler frequency shift, which uniquely facilitates the instantaneous radial velocity estimation. However, theoretical discussion on D-ToF is limited to orthogonal frequency and sinusoidal waveform modulation. This study extends the formulation of the D-ToF imaging, and proposes an arbitrary-frequency, arbitrary-waveform framework considering a phase-compensated, symmetrical two-dimensional correlation map. With the proposed framework, the optimal heterodyne frequency for frequency decoding is found. A differential frequency sampling and decoding method is then proposed, which computes the frequency and phase from as few as four simultaneously captured images. With an experiment platform we built, it is confirmed that the minimum velocity sensing error is half that of the orthogonal frequency method, and the sensible phase range is approximately 2.5 times larger. The conclusions in this study allow the ToF velocity imaging to be applied at the optimal sample frequencies for a wide range of ToF sensors. This pushes one step further to the practical use of ToF velocity imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 2008. Guides to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Retrieved December 28th, 2021 https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM-introduction.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Besl P. J. and McKay Neil D.. 1992. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 14, 2 (1992), 239256. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bhandari Ayush, Barsi Christopher, and Raskar Ramesh. 2015. Blind and reference-free fluorescence lifetime estimation via consumer time-of-flight sensors. Optica 2, 11 (Nov. 2015), 965973. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bhandari Ayush, Kadambi Achuta, Whyte Refael, Barsi Christopher, Feigin Micha, Dorrington Adrian, and Raskar Ramesh. 2014. Resolving multipath interference in time-of-flight imaging via modulation frequency diversity and sparse regularization. Optics Letter 39, 6 (Mar. 2014), 17051708. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bhandari Ayush and Raskar Ramesh. 2016. Signal processing for time-of-flight imaging sensors: An introduction to inverse problems in computational 3-D imaging. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 33, 5 (2016), 4558. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Buttgen Bernhard, Mechat M’Hamed-Ali El, Lustenberger Felix, and Seitz Peter. 2007. Pseudonoise optical modulation for real-time 3-D imaging with minimum interference. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 54, 10 (2007), 21092119. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Conroy Richard M., Dorrington Adrian A., Künnemeyer Rainer, and Cree Michael J.. 2009. Range imager performance comparison in homodyne and heterodyne operating modes. Three-Dimensional Imaging Metrology 7239, (Jan. 2009), 723905. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Ferriere Richard, Cussey Johann, and Dudley John M.. 2008. Time-of-flight range detection using low-frequency intensity modulation of a cw laser diode: Application to fiber length measurement. Optical Engineering 47, 9 (2008), 093602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Grootjans R., Tempel W. Van der, Nieuwenhove D. Van, Tandt C. de, and Kuijk M.. 2006. Improved modulation techniques for time-of-flight ranging cameras using pseudo random binary sequences. In 11th Annual Symposium of the IEEE/LEOS Benelux Chapter. 217.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta Mohit, Velten Andreas, Nayar Shree K., and Breitbach Eric. 2018. What are optimal coding functions for time-of-flight imaging? ACM Transactions on Graphics 37, 2 (Feb. 2018), Article 13, 18 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Heide Felix, Heidrich Wolfgang, Hullin Matthias, and Wetzstein Gordon. 2015. Doppler time-of-flight imaging. ACM Transactions on Graphics. 34, 4 (July 2015), Article 36, 11 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Heide Felix, Xiao Lei, Heidrich Wolfgang, and Hullin Matthias B.. 2014a. Diffuse mirrors: 3D reconstruction from diffuse indirect illumination using inexpensive time-of-flight sensors. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’14).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Heide Felix, Xiao Lei, Kolb Andreas, Hullin Matthias B., and Heidrich Wolfgang. 2014b. Imaging in scattering media using correlation image sensors and sparse convolutional coding. Optics Express 22, 21 (2014), 2633826350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Horn Berthold K. P. and Schunck Brian G.. 1981. Determining optical flow. Artificial Intelligence 17, 1-3 (1981), 185203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hu Yunpu, Miyashita Leo, Watanabe Yoshihiro, and Ishikawa Masatoshi. 2017. Robust 6-DOF motion sensing for an arbitrary rigid body by multi-view laser Doppler measurements. Optics Express 25, 24 (Nov. 2017), 3037130387. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jo Kensei, Gupta Mohit, and Nayar Shree K.. 2015. SpeDo: 6 DOF ego-motion sensor using speckle defocus imaging. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kadambi Achuta, Whyte Refael, Bhandari Ayush, Streeter Lee, Barsi Christopher, Dorrington Adrian, and Raskar Ramesh. 2013. Coded time of flight cameras: Sparse deconvolution to address multipath interference and recover time profiles. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 32, 6 (2013), 110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kirmani A., Hutchison T., Davis J., and Raskar R.. 2009. Looking around the corner using transient imaging. In 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision. 159166. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Li Fengqiang, Willomitzer Florian, Rangarajan Prasanna, Gupta Mohit, Velten Andreas, and Cossairt Oliver. 2018. SH-ToF: Micro resolution time-of-flight imaging with superheterodyne interferometry. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP’18). 110. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Lickfold C. A., Streeter L., Cree M. J., and Scott J. B.. 2019. Frequency based radial velocity estimation in time-of-flight range imaging. In 2019 International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand (IVCNZ’19), 16. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Liu Ce, Yuen Jenny, Torralba Antonio, Sivic Josef, and Freeman William T.. 2008. Sift flow: Dense correspondence across different scenes. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2842.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Miyashita Leo, Yonezawa Ryota, Watanabe Yoshihiro, and Ishikawa Masatoshi. 2015. 3D motion sensing of any object without prior knowledge. ACM Transactions on Graphics 34, 6 (Oct. 2015), Article 218, 11 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Naik Nikhil, Zhao Shuang, Velten Andreas, Raskar Ramesh, and Bala Kavita. 2011. Single view reflectance capture using multiplexed scattering and time-of-flight imaging. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIGGRAPH Asia Conference (SA’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, Article 171, 10 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Shrestha Shikhar, Heide Felix, Heidrich Wolfgang, and Wetzstein Gordon. 2016. Computational imaging with multi-camera time-of-flight systems. ACM Transactions on Graphics 35, 4 (July 2016), Article 33, 11 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Streeter Lee. 2017a. Methods for linear radial motion estimation in time-of-flight range imaging. In Videometrics, Range Imaging, and Applications XIV, Remondino Fabio and Shortis Mark R. (Eds.), Vol. 10332. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 7077. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Streeter Lee. 2017b. Stochastic calculus analysis of optical time-of-flight range imaging and estimation of radial motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 34, 7 (2017), 10631072.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Streeter Lee. 2020. Frequency estimation from limited samples: Nonlinearizing time-of-flight radial velocity estimation. IEEE Sensors Letters 4, 10 (2020), 14. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Streeter Lee and Dorrington Adrian A.. 2014. Coded exposure correction of transverse motion in full-field range imaging. Optical Engineering 53, 10 (2014), 102109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Velten Andreas, Willwacher Thomas, Gupta Otkrist, Veeraraghavan Ashok, Bawendi Moungi G., and Raskar Ramesh. 2012. Recovering three-dimensional shape around a corner using ultrafast time-of-flight imaging. Nature Communications 3, 1 (2012), 18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Whyte Refael, Streeter Lee, Cree Michael J., and Dorrington Adrian A.. 2015. Application of lidar techniques to time-of-flight range imaging. Applied Optics 54, 33 (Nov. 2015), 96549664. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Differential Frequency Heterodyne Time-of-Flight Imaging for Instantaneous Depth and Velocity Estimation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
        ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 42, Issue 1
        February 2023
        211 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/3555791
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 September 2022
        • Online AM: 11 July 2022
        • Accepted: 25 June 2022
        • Revised: 4 June 2022
        • Received: 8 October 2021
        Published in tog Volume 42, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format