Lensless Imaging via Blind Ptychography Modulation and Wavefront Separation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors proposed a novel lensless imaging approach based on ptychography and wavefront separation, which shows rapid convergence and high-quality imaging compared with original amplitude constraint expended PIE (ac-ePIE). In the method proposed in this paper, an amplitude modulator is inserted between the light source and the sample for light wave modulation. By laterally translating this unknown modulator to different positions, they acquire a sequence of modulated intensity images for quantitative object recovery. Some experimental results are shown in the manuscript.
This work is inspired by ref 19 and ref 20, so the authors scan the diffuser and then record a couple of diffraction patterns (1 or 2) without modulation to further accelerate the convergence. From the simulation results, the main advantage of this method is that similar results can be achieved with 6+2 diffraction patterns, while 12 diffraction patterns are needed for ac-ePIE. However, the disadvantages are that the camera needs to be moved additionally, and the specific distance of movement needs to be corrected. Therefore, the advantages of this method are not obvious. Before been accepted, I would recommend a major revision to this manuscript considering the following comments:
1. Unmodulated patterns: in the simulation, two unmodulated intensities are used (line 131, ‘…the number of unmodulated patterns is fixed to 2…’), while in the experiment, only one unmodulated intensity are used. Why not be consistent? Is there any difference for the update procedures for these two cases.
2. Step size: what’s the step size in the experiment? Could you explain how to choose the step size?
3. Figure 7: could you also analyze the resolution of phase object?
4. Equations 6-7: is there any reference for the update function or give more calculation details for them.
5. Line 155: could you give more details for the last sentence of the first paragraph of section 4 (‘… there is a relative deviation of position between the two pictures, and we use the cross-correlation to correct the problem of position deviation…’).
6. All figures: I’ll suggest the authors to add more details in figures’ captions.
7. In terms of ‘rapid convergence’ and ‘high-quality’, the authors only compare the proposed method with ac-ePIE. Could you also explain or show the difference of scanning the diffuser and scanning the sample [e.g. JOSA A, 2011, 28(4): 604-612]. In terms of operation, the latter only needs to move the sample, which seems easier, and even can achieve a resolution smaller than the diffraction limit (in this paper, the resolution is only ~2 times diffraction limit).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have answered all the questions I cared about, so I would recommend the manuscript be published.