Slashdot Mirror
Single Pixel Camera Takes Images Through Breast Tissue
KentuckyFC writes Single pixel cameras are currently turning photography on its head. They work by recording lots of exposures of a scene through a randomising media such as frosted glass. Although seemingly random, these exposures are correlated because the light all comes from the same scene. So its possible to number crunch the image data looking for this correlation and then use it to reassemble the original image. Physicists have been using this technique, called ghost imaging, for several years to make high resolution images, 3D photos and even 3D movies. Now one group has replaced the randomising medium with breast tissue from a chicken. They've then used the single pixel technique to take clear pictures of an object hidden inside the breast tissue. The potential for medical imaging is clear. Curiously, this technique has a long history dating back to the 19th century when Victorian doctors would look for testicular cancer by holding a candle behind the scrotum and looking for suspicious shadows. The new technique should be more comfortable.
Curiously, this technique has a long history dating back to the 19th century when Victorian doctors would look for testicular cancer by holding a candle behind the scrotum and looking for suspicious shadows. The new technique should be more comfortable.
I think we've determined who should never, ever write grant proposals.
You aren't even mentioning if the chicken breast is deep fried.
Some people pay good money to have a candle held behind their scrotum.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Its chicken breast tissue.... thats just blatant click bait. However you want to look at it.
Not really a single pixel camera, more of a single pixel light absorption meter taken over an area...
Way to waste a fine camera there.
Doctor holding a CANDLE behind your scrotum... (ball sack)
fails basic grammar too.
Victorian doctors would look for testicular cancer by holding a candle behind the scrotum
I hope that they actually held the candle in front of the scrotum and looked from behind.
you had me at c.
A 40 megaray light sensor may be interesting in such applications?
http://www.lytro.com/
Recording more than just intensity per pixel...
Maybe it's because I've been drinking since 10am, but I just cannot wrap my head around how these single-pixel cameras work.
Any nice person out there feel like explaining it so a stupid person can understand?
Bonus points if you explain why a chicken breast was involved. Seriously, maybe I have brain damage because I've read the summary three times and it might as well be written in Middle Egyptian for all I'm getting.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It exploits Helmholtz reciprocity to swap the camera view with the light view. If light is modeled as rays/photons, the path between the light source and a camera pixel is the same going from the light to the pixel, or the pixel to the light. Hence reciprocity.
Why is Snark Required?
While I'm sure this will work nicely as a breast cancer scanner, I think there's much more potential in implanting an array of these to make Spy Boobies.
Probably just a scanning lightsource instead of those patterns would work even better.
"Chicken chest! Chicken chest!" -- Archie Bunker
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I feel there's a joke lurking in there somewhere but my mind's swimming in rum and eggnog right now.
"so It's* possible", not "its possible".
It's = it is.
Learn this.
They are working with 6 mm samples. They need to improve that by a factor of 5. Only a small percentage of women at risk for breast cancer can tolerate having their breasts compressed to 30 mm for imaging, but it is a large enough percentage to start doing human test trials. Assuming the image quality is high enough.
With existing xray based mammogram machines the more the breast is compressed, the better the image. There is abundant research on breast compression for imaging, just a google away.
Perhaps in a few years, this technique will be refined to the point where it can image through 3 cm of tissue in a reasonable amount of time, and produce a clinically useful image. Then we will hear about this technique again. Hopefully, it will be improved to the point where it is suitable for use on the entire population.
You know, on chickens, breast tissue is usually called breast meat. I've only seen it called breast tissue on mammals, and then usually only on females.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
"a randomising media"
You mean MEDIUM.
Of course! Research going on in these areas is great and hopefully these sorts of tests become more bearable for women however.
Also I wonder whatever happed to terrahertz scanners that were all the rage a few years back among researchers? They were supposed to be the holy grail of imaging etc.. supposedly as good as an MRI + CAT scan. Apparently these are used in airports... but you just don't hear a whole lot about the tech like a few years ago....
...you feeling a little nuts?!?
The eye has evolved quite a bit since Victorian era (19th century), I'm quite sure I have a multi-pixeled eye...
I wonder how many pixels an eye had in the dark ages?
or maybe my logic is very off, it could actually have been a genius one eyed doctor who was half-blind on the other eye (could detect light) holding up a candle doing some number crunching to detect...
Instead of having one picture taken with several pixels, they have to take hundreds of pictures while the subject is not allowed to move.
Currently they are testing with 6mm thick tissue. What's the thickness of commonly tested human parts? Will the switch to super sensitive sensors or will they ramp up the light source? I hope they will not switch to X-rays for that amount of pictures.
Typical slashdot reply. Doesn't understand the topic, tries to respond snarkily to seem intelligent.
I have a feeling this technology will be first used to examine breast tissue hidden behind objects.
Isn't the process of taking a photo of breast tissue called a mammogram? Just asking.
Self-important Slashdoter tries to show off his intelligence without bothering to do a ten-second search to ensure he actually has an accurate understanding of the concepts involved - comment suggests he has only the most limited understanding of the concepts of "pixel" and "camera", and no apparent knowledge of the advances in single-pixel imaging in the last several years.
Seriously dude - if a scientific/technological claim sounds preposterous there's a pretty good chance it's because you're simply unaware of the recent advances and/or subtleties of the field. Even if you're an expert in a closely related field, a quick google search before you dress down others for their ignorance will go a long way in making you seem more intelligent.
Or as a wise man once said "It's better to hold your silence and be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
comment suggests he has only the most limited understanding of the concepts of "pixel" and "camera", and no apparent knowledge of the advances in single-pixel imaging in the last several years.
The correct definition of a Pixel.
http://www.epi-centre.com/basi... , take clear note of the single pixel example at the top.
Now, if you guys with cameras want to use existing terminology and spin it to suit your needs, surly your the one with "no apparent knowledge of the advances in computing in the last 40+ years."
Go fuck yourself and your camera. ;)
That is an incredibly limited definition. Any image processing specialist will tell you that a pixel is best treated as a single geometric point sample - treating them as rectangular blocks is the source of many a horrible scaling algorithm. Plus there's not a piece of hardware on the planet that actually represents (or records) a pixel as a single square sampling point. (well, not with *color* anyway). And in fact if you want maximum quality from an image processing algorithm then you need to consider the geometric arrangement of the sub-pixels in your sensor/screen or you'll introduce artifacting.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.