Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Image division design scheme.

(the four regions of intensity are I(0°), I(45°), I(90°) and I(R)).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Schematic diagram of the bilinear interpolation method.

(To get the gray value value of the unknown pixel point at the point P).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Image processing method based on bilinear interpolation.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Schematic diagram of micro-polarizer split-focal plane polarization imaging.

((a)Micropolarizer array distribution model (b)The micropolarizer array corresponds to the photosensitive chip one by one).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The effect of grating period on TM transmittance.

(simulated picture).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Effect of duty cycle on TM transmittance and extinction ratio.

((a) The effect of duty cycle on TM transmittance (b) The effect of duty cycle on extinction ratio)).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Effect of grating slot depth on TM transmittance and extinction ratio.

((a) Effect of grating slot depth on TM transmittance(b) Effect of grating slot depth on extinction ratio).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Target polarization map using Newton’s interpolation algorithm.

((a) Original image(b) Newton polynomial interpolation).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Block diagram of system composition.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Physical diagram of multispectral polarization detection.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Physical view of polarization imaging in smoke simulation environment.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Target image without MPA in visible smoke environment.

((a)Intensity images(b) V image(c) DOP image(d) DOCP image(e) AOP image).

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Target images obtained using a haze transmission polarization imaging detection system in a visible smoke environment.

((a)Intensity images(b) V image(c) DOP image(d) DOCP image(e) AOP image).

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Comparison of contrast between target image with MPA and without MPA.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Comparison of unbiased external field and polarization experimental images in the visible range under foggy weather conditions.

((a) Normal camera intensity(b) DOP(c) AOP(d) DOCP).

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Comparison of unbiased external field and polarization experimental images in the short-wave infrared range under foggy weather conditions.

((a) Normal camera intensity(b) DOP(c) AOP(d) DOCP).

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Comparison of unbiased external field and polarization experimental images in the long-wave infrared range with foggy weather conditions.

((a) Normal camera intensity(b) DOP(c) AOP(d) DOCP).

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Fig 18.

Comparison of visible light unbiased external field and polarization experimental images in foggy weather condition.

((a) Normal camera intensity(b) DOP(c) AOP(d) DOCP).

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

Comparison of short-wave infrared unbiased external field and polarization experimental images under foggy weather conditions.

((a) Normal camera intensity(b) DOP(c) AOP(d) DOCP).

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

Comparison of long-wave infrared unbiased external field and polarization experimental images under foggy weather conditions.

((a) Normal camera intensity(b) DOP(c) AOP(d) DOCP).

More »

Fig 20 Expand

Table 1.

Evaluation indexes of intensity camera target images in the first group of experiments.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Evaluation indexes of DOP images of different wavelengths of targets in the first group of experiments.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Evaluation indexes of intensity camera target images in the second group of experiments.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Evaluation indexes of DOP images of different wavelengths of targets in the second group of experiments.

More »

Table 4 Expand