Computational ghost imaging versus imaging laser radar for 3D imaging

TL;DR

This paper compares computational ghost imaging and imaging laser radar for 3D remote sensing, analyzing their resolutions and noise performance under atmospheric turbulence to identify their respective advantages.

Contribution

It provides a direct performance comparison between ghost imaging and laser radar for 3D imaging in turbulent atmospheres, highlighting their trade-offs and scenarios of advantage.

Findings

Ghost imaging can outperform laser radar in certain turbulence conditions.

Spatial resolution and SNR depend on system parameters.

Ghost imaging shows advantages in specific remote sensing scenarios.

Abstract

Ghost imaging has been receiving increasing interest for possible use as a remote-sensing system. There has been little comparison, however, between ghost imaging and the imaging laser radars with which it would be competing. Toward that end, this paper presents a performance comparison between a pulsed, computational ghost imager and a pulsed, floodlight-illumination imaging laser radar. Both are considered for range-resolving (3D) imaging of a collection of rough-surfaced objects at standoff ranges in the presence of atmospheric turbulence. Their spatial resolutions and signal-to-noise ratios are evaluated as functions of the system parameters, and these results are used to assess each system's performance trade-offs. Scenarios in which a reflective ghost-imaging system has advantages over a laser radar are identified.