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.
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...
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.
It depends how far behind.
(Though I would guess the closer the better from a diagnostic imaging perspective.)
I don't want him to come near me with a candle either. If I were to make a list of places that I don't ever want set on fire, after my face and the rest of my head I think that would be next.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
How about s'more beans, Mr. Taggart?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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?
Your priorities are clearly backwards.
Probably just a scanning lightsource instead of those patterns would work even better.
Not necessarily. He mentioned his head... he just didn't clarify which one he was referring to.
#DeleteChrome
You're thinking too small. Used on lottery scratch tickets it would provide resources to then buy boobies and a beer to boot.
Someone had to do it.
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!
I have a feeling this technology will be first used to examine breast tissue hidden behind objects.
Why does every self-righteous pedant on the net always assume such mistakes are a lack of knowledge, rather than a typo? Personally I've known my itses, thereses and yourses since grade school, but when I'm busy trying to type a tenth as fast as I think homophones slip through from time to time. And if I'm bothering to re-read my post before submission to a discussion forum I'm probably only skimming for conceptual coherency, sew I'll likely miss at least sum of the words that seam okay in passing, be they homophones or minor typos.
And by this point I think it's well established that whatever the Slashdot "editors" do, it's nothing related to verifying the summary is event vaguely accurate, much less grammatically correct.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
In fairness the "with a computer" part is often really stupid - for single-pixel imaging though it's pretty much vital. I don't think any living thing on the planet uses visual single-pixel imaging techniques, and the math is so involved you can't do it by hand practically. Whale sonar might qualify as a two-pixel sonic analogue, at least some appear to have incredibly detailed imaging capacity, and so far as I can tell they only have the two ears with which to receive the return signal. But I don't believe we have any concrete idea how they accomplish it.
--- 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.