Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Sherif Kishk

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
The phase of the host 3D object hologram is distorted by a uniformly distributed noise. Fig. 2. Block diagram of the proposed system (a) Transmitter (b) Receiver

Figure 2 The phase of the host 3D object hologram is distorted by a uniformly distributed noise. Fig. 2. Block diagram of the proposed system (a) Transmitter (b) Receiver

Related Figures (16)

Fig. 3. 3D object reconstructed at different distances from the output plane
Fig. 3. 3D object reconstructed at different distances from the output plane
Fig. 3. 3D object reconstructed at different distances from the output plane
Fig. 3. 3D object reconstructed at different distances from the output plane
Fig. 6. The Reconstructed 3D objects from the double phase encoded watermarked holograr without distortions (a) the 3D host object(b) The 3D hidden object Fig. 7. The reconstructed 3D host object using uniform quantization (a) 8 bits (b) 2 bits
Fig. 6. The Reconstructed 3D objects from the double phase encoded watermarked holograr without distortions (a) the 3D host object(b) The 3D hidden object Fig. 7. The reconstructed 3D host object using uniform quantization (a) 8 bits (b) 2 bits
Table 1. error when using a uniform quantizer Fig. 6. The Reconstructed 3D objects from the double phase encoded watermarked holograr without distortions (a) the 3D host object(b) The 3D hidden object
Table 1. error when using a uniform quantizer Fig. 6. The Reconstructed 3D objects from the double phase encoded watermarked holograr without distortions (a) the 3D host object(b) The 3D hidden object
Fig. 8. The reconstructed 3D hidden object using uniform quantization (a) 8 bits (b) 2 bits
Fig. 8. The reconstructed 3D hidden object using uniform quantization (a) 8 bits (b) 2 bits
Fig. 12. The reconstructed 3D objects using an optimum quantizer with 4 bits quantization and 25% of the holograms (a) host object (b) hidden object
Fig. 12. The reconstructed 3D objects using an optimum quantizer with 4 bits quantization and 25% of the holograms (a) host object (b) hidden object
Fig. 11. The effect of number of quantization levels and occluding parts of the transmitted double phase encoded watermarked hologram when using a uniform quantizer
Fig. 11. The effect of number of quantization levels and occluding parts of the transmitted double phase encoded watermarked hologram when using a uniform quantizer
Fig. 13. The error when using an optimum quantizer compared to the error when using < uniform quantizer, 25% of the hologram is used.
Fig. 13. The error when using an optimum quantizer compared to the error when using < uniform quantizer, 25% of the hologram is used.
Fig. 13. The error when using an optimum quantizer compared to the error when using < uniform quantizer, 25% of the hologram is used. Fig. 14. Effect of blind decoding on the hidden object (a) only the hidden object spatial domair phase code is unknown. (b) only the hidden object Fourier domain phase code is unknown.
Fig. 13. The error when using an optimum quantizer compared to the error when using < uniform quantizer, 25% of the hologram is used. Fig. 14. Effect of blind decoding on the hidden object (a) only the hidden object spatial domair phase code is unknown. (b) only the hidden object Fourier domain phase code is unknown.
where E,[.] is the ensemble average over the random variable n, and E,,[.] is the ensemble average over the random variable n,. It is straight forward to prove that:
where E,[.] is the ensemble average over the random variable n, and E,,[.] is the ensemble average over the random variable n,. It is straight forward to prove that:
Related topics:
Digital HolographyMathematical AnalysisOptical physicsHidden InformationElectrical and Electronic Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved