{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01680244399185336, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.506622516556291, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of digital holography and iterative phase retrieval methods for wavefront reconstruction

An experimental comparison of four methods of wavefront reconstruction is presented. We considered two iterative and two holographic methods with differences in mathematical models and reconstruction algorithms. The first two of these methods do not use the reference wave in the recording scheme that reduces the need of setup stability. A set of spatial intensity measurements of a volume scattered field plays the main role in phase retrieval in such methods. The obtained data are sequentially used for iterative wavefront reconstruction. Iterative approach involves numerical wavefront propagation between various planes of the volume scattered fiels. Throughout this procedure the phase information of the wavefront is retained while the calculated amplitudes is replaced by the square root of the intensity distributions measured in corresponding planes. In the first compared phase retrieval method (FRIM), a two-dimensional Fresnel transform and iterative calculation in the object plane are used as a mathematical model. In the second method (SBMIR), the angular spectrum is used for numerical wavefront propagation, and iterative calculation is made only between closely spaced planes for data registration. Two methods of digital holography, which we compared, differ from each other in algorithm of a waverfont reconstruction. The first holographic method (CWR-DH) uses the conception of spatial phase steps for complex wave retrieval, and the second method (FT-DH) is a widespread Fourier transformation method. All methods provide satisfactory capacity for image reconstruction. The results of the comparison showed that FRIM produces better quality of reconstruction, but a diffraction artifacts takes place at the boundaries of the reconstructed image. Taking this into account we can conclude that the CWR-DH method is the best among considered.