4.6 Article

Merit functions and measurement schemes for single parameter depolarization models

期刊

OPTICS EXPRESS
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 18382-18407

出版社

Optica Publishing Group
DOI: 10.1364/OE.425295

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focuses on modeling and fitting Mueller polarized bi-directional scattering distribution functions (pBSDFs), relating the weights between an ideal depolarizer and a Fresnel matrix to a single depolarization parameter. By simplifying parameters, a one-dimensional merit function is proposed to replace the 16-dimensional matrix norm for fitting pBSDFs. Experimental results show that under specific conditions, a Mueller matrix can be within the span of a Fresnel matrix and an ideal depolarizer.
Mueller polarized bi-directional scattering distribution functions (pBSDFs) are 4 x 4 matrix-valued functions which depend on acquisition geometry. A widely used backscattering pBSDF model proposed by Priest and Meier [Opt. Eng. 41, 988 (2002)] is a weighted sum between a Fresnel matrix and an ideal depolarizer. This work's main contribution is relating the relative weight between an ideal depolarizer and Fresnel matrix to a single depolarization parameter. Rather than a 16-dimensional matrix norm, this parameter can form a one-dimensional merit function. Then, instead of a full Mueller matrix measurement, a scheme for pBSDF fitting to only two polarimetric measurements is introduced. Depolarization can be mathematically expressed as the incoherent addition of coherent states [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30, 691 (2013)]. This work shows that, for a Mueller matrix to be in the span of a Fresnel matrix and an ideal depolarizer, the weights in the incoherent addition are triply degenerate. This triple degeneracy is observed in five different colored opaque plastics treated with nine different surface textures and measured at varying acquisition geometries and wavebands. (C) 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据