Fig. 1. Comparison of the trade-off strategies by different light field imaging methods. (a) MLA-based light field microscopy; (b) image-coding-based light field microscopy; (c) aperture-coding-based light field microscopy.

Fig. 2. The imaging systems of the proposed aperture-coding-based light field microscopy. (a) Primal configuration; (b) dual configuration.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Fig. 4. The reconstruction process of perspective images (2448 pixel × 2048 pixel). (a) Images captured by the camera; (b1)–(b3) 1D intensity sequences recorded by the camera pixels (1858,465), (1229,891), and (592,1365), respectively; (c1)–(c3) Fourier spectral images reconstructed based on the 1D intensity sequences shown in (b1)–(b3); (d1)–(d3) perspective images reconstructed by extracting the values on the same points from the spectral images and rearranging according to the camera pixel coordinate; (e1)–(e3) zoomed-in views of (d1)–(d3).

Fig. 5. Results of the T. japonicus sample reconstructed by different methods. (a) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) of a 28-image stack spanning a 270 µm depth range obtained by our method; (b1)–(b3) optical-sectioning images obtained by our method; (c1)–(c3) zoomed-in views of (b1)–(b3); (d) MIP of a 28-image stack spanning a depth range obtained by the aperture-coding light field microscopy using S-matrix; (e1)–(e3) optical-sectioning results obtained by the S-matrix; (f1)–(f3) zoomed-in views of (e1)–(e3).

Fig. 6. Results of the USAF resolution target at different focal depths obtained using three different methods. (a1)–(a7) Traditional wide-field microscopy; (b1)–(b7) our method; (c1)–(c7) aperture-coding-based light field microscopy using S-matrix; (d1)–(d3) zoomed-in views of (a4)–(c4); (e) comparison of the contrast of the results obtained using different methods; (f) comparison of the DOFs of the results obtained using different methods.

Fig. 7. Results of the USAF resolution target at different depths reconstructed by changing the sampling rates when the size of the modulation unit is 120 pixel × 120 pixel of the SLM. (a1)–(a9) SR = 100%; (b1)–(b9) SR = 60%; (c1)–(c9) SR = 30%; (d1)–(d9) SR = 15%. (e1)–(e9) Intensity curves obtained using different sampling rates; (f) comparison of the DOFs of the results obtained using different methods. (SR: sampling rate).

Fig. 8. Results of the swimming T. japonicus sample obtained by different methods. (a1)–(e1) Images obtained by traditional wide-field microscopy; (a2)–(e2) images obtained by the proposed method at a 100% SR and refocused at z=−80μm; (a3)–(e3) images obtained by the proposed method at a 60% SR and refocused at z=−80μm. (See Visualization 1.)