Fast and robust misalignment correction of
Fourier ptychographic microscopy

arXiv:1803.00395v1 [cs.CV] 20 Feb 2018

Ao Zhou1,2 , Wei Wang3 , Ni Chen1,4,* , Edmund Y. Lam5 , Byoungho
Lee4 , and Guohai Situ1
1

Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
3
Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, 5A
Engineering Drive 1, 117411, Singapore.
4
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul
National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.
5
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
*
Corresponding author: nichen@siom.ac.cn
March 2, 2018
Abstract
Fourier ptychographic microscopy (FPM) is a newly developed computational imaging technique that can provide gigapixel images with both
high resolution (HR) and wide field of view (FOV). However, the position
misalignment of the LED array induces a degradation of the reconstructed
image, especially in the regions away from the optical axis. In this paper,
we propose a robust and fast method to correct the LED misalignment
of the FPM, termed as misalignment correction for the FPM (mcFPM).
Although different regions in the FOV have different sensitivity to the
LED misalignment, the experimental results show that the mcFPM is robust with respect to the elimination of each region. Compared with the
state-of-the-art methods, the mcFPM is much faster.

1

Introduction

As we all know, almost all of the conventional microscope has a trade-off between
its resolution and FOV. To solve this problem, a new computational imaging
technique called FPM has been proposed [19, 17]. In a typical FPM system, a
programmable LED array is used instead of the conventional microscope’s light
source for providing angularly variant illumination. After capturing a sequence
of low resolution (LR) images under different illumination angles, an iterative
phase retrieval process [5, 8, 2] is used to stitch together those LR images in
the Fourier space, and then an HR and high space-bandwidth product (SBP)
1

complex field of the sample can be recovered. Compared with the conventional
microscopy, the FPM can achieve HR, wide FOV and quantitative phase imaging [9]. Therefore, it has great potential in a variety of applications, such as
biomedical medicine [15, 6, 3], characterizing unknown optical aberrations of
lenses [1, 10].
The FPM shares its roots of ptychography [11, 4, 12]. In the conventional
ptychography, the mechanical scanning in the imaging process makes the position correction of the probe function essential. Similar to the conventional
ptychography, the position misalignment of the LED array in the FPM is of
great importance. Because the position of each LED determines the wavevector of the illumination, misalignment of it induces significant errors to the
pupil function in the reconstruction process. In the conventional ptychography,
a simulated annealing (SA) algorithm was adopted to correct the position errors of the probe function [7]. Similarly, to correct the LED misalignment in
the FPM, the SA algorithm has been introduced into each sub-iteration of the
reconstruction algorithm. An optimal shift of the pupil function in the Fourier
domain can be obtained during this process. However, this method may lead
to an algorithmic disorder of the LED array, resulting in the degradation of
the reconstruction [16]. To avoid this problem, a position correction approach,
named as pcFPM [13], has been proposed. It is based on the SA algorithm and
a non-linear regression technique. In the pcFPM, a global position misalignment model of the LED array was introduced to ensure the corrected LEDs are
positionally ordered. Although the pcFPM can effectively eliminate the LED
misalignment, the additional process of non-linear regression increases the algorithm complexity and computer load. Actually, during the FPM reconstruction
process, it usually requires to divide the captured images into many small segments. However, with these existing methods [16, 13], we find that the global
shift of the LED array corrected according to the central segment of the FOV
may not work for all of the segments. Influenced by the system errors and lens
aberration, it seems that different segment requires different global shift of the
LED array. Although these methods can correct the global shifts of different
segments respectively, they are heavily time consuming.
In this paper, we propose a simple and fast method to correct the global
shift of the LED array for the whole FOV. Rather than correcting the shift
errors of the pupil function in the Fourier domain, we introduce a global position
misalignment model, and then directly correct the global shift of the LED array.
The experimental results show the proposed mcFPM is robust and faster than
the other methods.
This paper is arranged as the following: In section 2, we will investigate the
problem of LED misalignment in the FPM and propose our mcFPM. In section
3, we will present experimental results to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
mcFPM. Finally, we will make a conclusion.

2
2.1

Principle
Forward imaging model of the FPM

Before introducing the impact of the LED array position misalignment in the
FPM, we first introduce the forward imaging model of it. As Fig. 1 shows,

2

Figure 1: The imaging process of the FPM.
in the imaging process, the LEDs are switched on sequentially, and the intensity images of the sample under different illumination angles are captured. Let
Aobject (x, y) represent the complex amplitude of the sample, Aoutput (x, y) represent the output complex amplitude of the sample, and h(x, y) represent the
coherent point spread function. When the mth row and nth column LED in the
array is on, this process can be modeled as [18]:


m,n
m,n
Aoutput (x, y) = Aobject (x, y) eikx x+iky y ⊗ h(x, y),
(1)
where (kxm,n , kym,n ) represents the wave-vector of the parallel light, and ⊗ the
2D convolution operator. In the Fourier domain, Eq. (1) can be written as

Goutput (kx , ky ) = Gobject kx − kxm,n , ky − kym,n H (kx , ky ) ,
(2)
where Gobject (kx , ky ) represents the object spectrum, Goutput (kx , ky ) the output
spectrum of the microscope, and H(kx , ky ) the coherent transform function of
the microscope. The image captured by the camera thus can be written as
m,n
Icaptured
(x, y) = F −1 {Goutput (kx , ky )}

2

(3)

where F −1 represents the inverse Fourier transform.
With a sequence of LR images captured under different illumination angles,
an HR image of the sample can be reconstructed. The recovery process of the
FPM follows the strategy of the phase retrieval technique [5, 8]. The algorithm
switches between the spatial and Fourier domains. In the spatial domain, the LR
intensity measurements are used as the object constraints to ensure the solution
convergence. In the Fourier domain, the confined coherent transfer function of
the objective lens is imposed as the support constraint. After several iterations,
both HR complex field of object and the pupil function will be obtained.

2.2

Global shift of the LED array in the FPM

In the FPM system setup, it requires that the central LED of the LED array is
on the optical axis. In the pcFPM [13], four global positional factors (rotation,
horizontal and vertical shifts) of the LED array were introduced. However,
compared with the other factors, the horizontal shift is hard to eliminate by
the hardware. Details will be shown in section 3. In this work, to simplify the
position model, a global model with two factors is proposed, as shown in Fig.2.
3

Figure 2: The global shift model of the LED array in the FPM setup.
The two factors that can determine the position of each LED, are marked as
∆x, ∆y. The position of each LED then can be written as
xm,n = md + ∆x,
ym,n = nd + ∆y,

(4)

where (xm,n , ym,n ) represents the position of the LED at the mth row and nth
column, and d the distance between two adjacent LED elements. The incident
wave-vector (kxm,n , kym,n ) for each segment can be written as [19]
xo − xm,n
2π
p
,
λ
(xo − xm,n )2 + (yo − ym,n )2 + s2
2π
yo − ym,n
=− p
,
λ
(xo − xm,n )2 + (yo − ym,n )2 + s2

kxm,n = −
kym,n

(5)

where (xo , yo ) is the central coordinate of the sample, λ is the central wavelength
of the LED, and s is the distance between the sample and the LED array.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3: A simulated reconstruction with a global shift of the LED array in
the FPM. (a) Amplitude and (b) phase profiles of the object, the reconstructed
(c) amplitude and (d) phase profiles with a global shift of LED array
From Eq. (5), we can find that the global shift of the LED array is a factor
that determines the incident wave-vector. Equation (2) shows that the error
of the incident wave-vector can cause a dislocation of the object spectrum. In
other words, during the FPM reconstruction process, the global shift can induce
a shift error to the pupil function in the Fourier domain. Figure 3 is a simulation

4

example. Figure 3(c) and 3(d) show the reconstructed amplitude and phase
profiles of the object with a global shift of the LED array. Compared with the
original amplitude and phase profiles in Fig. 3(a) and 3(b), we can obviously
observe the image degradation. This is similar to the reconstructed images in
the regions away from the optical axis we observed in the experiments.

2.3

Proposed LED misalignment correction method

Figure 4: The flow chart of the mcFPM.
The flowchart of the proposed mcFPM is shown in Fig. 4. Actually, the
conventional FPM algorithm is a part of the proposed mcFPM, as the part
within the yellow dashed rectangle in Fig. 4. It is sketched as follows [19, 14]:
Step 1. Initialize the Fourier spectrum of the reconstructed HR object
Oj (kx , ky ) and the pupil function Pj (kx , ky ).
Step 2. Generate an LR image corresponding to the mth row and nth column

5

LED with the incident wave-vector of (kxm,n , kym,n ) by the below equation

Ψjm,n (kx , ky ) = Oj kx − kxm,n , ky − kym,n Pj (kx , ky ) ,

(6)

where Ψjm,n (kx , ky ) represents the Fourier spectrum of the LR image obtained
by illuminating the sample by the mth row and nth column LED.
Step 3. Impose the intensity constraint with the captured images with
v
u m,n
u Icaptured (x, y) m,n
m,n
(x, y) ,
(7)
φj (x, y) = t m,n
2 ψj
ψj (x, y)
(x, y) and ψjm,n (x, y) are the complex field of the LR images with
where φm,n
j
and without the intensity constraint respectively, and

(8)
ψjm,n (x, y) = F −1 Ψjm,n (kx , ky ) .
At this time, the updated Fourier spectrum of the LR image is

Φ (kx , ky ) = F φm,n
(x, y) ,
j

(9)

Step 4. Update the object and the pupil functions with


Pj kx + kxm,n , ky + kym,n Pj∗ kx + kxm,n , ky + kym,n
 ∆1 ,

Oj+1 (kx , ky ) = Oj (kx , ky ) +
2
|Pj (kx , ky )|max |Pj (kx + kxm,n , ky + kym,n )| + δ1


Oj kx − kxm,n , ky − kym,n Oj∗ kx − kxm,n , ky − kym,n


Pj+1 (kx , ky ) = Pj (kx , ky ) +
∆2 ,
2
|Oj (kx , ky )|max |Oj (kx − kxm,n , ky − kym,n )| + δ2
(10)
where δ1 and δ2 are two regularization constants used to ensure numerical stability, which are set as δ1 = 1, δ2 = 1000 in this work, and ∆1 and ∆2 are
defined as


∆1 = Φ kx + kxm,n , ky + kym,n − Oj (kx , ky ) Pj kx + kxm,n , ky + kym,n ,

∆2 = Φ (kx , ky ) − Oj kx − kxm,n , ky − kym,n Pj (kx , ky ) .
(11)
Step 5. Repeat steps 2-4 for all of the LEDs. The LED updating range is
S1 = {(m, n) | m = −(R1 + 1)/2, ...(R1 + 1)/2, n = −(R1 + 1)/2, ...(R1 + 1)/2},
where R1 is the number of the LEDs in each side of the LED array.
Step 6. Repeat steps 2-5 until the algorithm converges.
In order to illustrate the mcFPM better, we first introduce the conventional
SA method [7, 16]. In the conventional SA method, it assumes that each LED
has an independent shift. After step 2 of the above FPM algorithm, the SA
module is added to search the deviation of the illumination wave vector ∆kxm,n ,
∆kym,n , and the corresponding pupil function with the cost function is defined
as
E1 =

min

m,n
,∆kym,n
∆kx

X

m,n
Icaptured
(x, y) − ψjm,n x, y, ∆kxm,n , ∆kym,n

x,y

6



2 2

, (12)

where ψjm,n (x, y, ∆kxm,n , ∆kym,n ) is the calculated complex field of the LR image
according to Eq. (8). During the SA process, the updated wave-vectors are
kxm,n = kxm,n + ∆kxm,n ,
kym,n = kym,n + ∆kym,n .

(13)

Because the conventional SA method assumes that the shifting value of each
LED is independent, it does not provide any constraint on the LEDs’ positions.
After several iterations in the SA, the LED position coordinate may become
disordered in the algorithm, especially in the edge regions of the LED array [16].
Besides, for each sub iterations, the SA process is used for every LED position
correction, which is heavily time consuming.
In the proposed mcFPM, rather than correcting the wave-vector (kxm,n , kym,n )
of each LED in the Fourier domain, we directly correct the global shift of the
LED array.
The global shift of the LED array in the mcFPM has been defined in Sec.
2.3. According to Eq. (4), the position of each LED with the global shift is
(xm,n , ym,n ) = (md + ∆x, nd + ∆y). Considering the distance between two adjacent LEDs is d, the ranges of the global shifts ∆x and ∆y are set to [−d, d]. As
Fig. 4 shows, in the mcFPM, the initial values of ∆x and ∆y are 0 mm respectively. According to Eq. (5), the updated incident wave vectors of (kxm,n , kym,n )
is
kxm,n = −

xo − md − ∆x
2π
p
,
λ
(xo − md − ∆x)2 + (yo − nd − ∆y)2 + s2

kym,n = −

2π
yo − nd − ∆y
p
.
λ
(xo − md − ∆x)2 + (yo − nd − ∆y)2 + s2

(14)

To improve the efficiency, only the incident vectors (kxm,n , kym,n ) within the
bright field of the objective are calculated. The LED updating range is S2 =
{(m, n) | m = −(R2 + 1)/2, ...(R2 + 1)/2, n = −(R2 + 1)/2, ...(R2 + 1)/2} during
the FPM reconstruction process. The value of R2 is determined by the number
of rows or columns of those central LEDs that correspond to the bright field of
the objective. The cost function for searching ∆x and ∆y is defined as
E2 = min

∆x,∆y

XX

2

m,n
Icaptured
(x, y) − IFm,n
P M (x, y, ∆x, ∆y) ,

(15)

m,n x,y

where IFm,n
P M (x, y, ∆x, ∆y) is the corresponding calculated intensity image using
the conventional FPM algorithm (step 1-6) with a global shift. Compared with
E1 , E2 is the summation of all LEDs within the bright field of the objective.
Therefore the time that the mcFPM calls the optimization algorithm is much
less than the conventional method.
Different from the FPM reconstruction process of the conventional SA method,
only R2 × R2 central LR images are used in the mcFPM, since these LR images contain mainly information of the sample. The procedure of the FPM
reconstruction process in the mcFPM only iterates 5 times (J = 5). After the
fast FPM reconstruction process finishes (j = J), the cost function E2 can be
calculated according to Eq. (8).
To minimize the cost function E2 , there are several searching methods, such
as SA algorithm and genetic algorithm. In order to compare with the existing
7

methods, we use the SA algorithm to search ∆x and ∆y in our mcFPM. This
loop continues until the cost function reaches a minimal value. After correcting
the global shift of the LED array, all LR images are used to reconstruct the HR
images of the sample using the conventional FPM algorithm. In some cases, after
correcting the global shift of the LED array using the mcFPM, one iteration of
the conventional SA is used to correct the inherent local subtle position error
of each LED. Finally, the degradation of the reconstructed HR amplitude and
phase caused by the LED misalignment can be eliminated.

3
3.1

Experimental verification
Mechanical alignment of the FPM system

z y
0

x

(b)

(a)

(c)

Figure 5: (a) is the experimental setup. (b) shows how we install the LED
array (the yellow box of (a)) on the microscope. (c) shows a method to adjust
the central LED (the red box of (a)) along the optical axis (the z-axis in (b)).
The system setup in this work is shown in Fig. 5(a). We built an FPM
system by replacing the light source of an Olympus IX 73 inverted microscope
with a programmable LED array (32 × 32 LEDs, 4 mm spacing) controlled by
an Arduino. The LEDs have a central wavelength of 629 nm and a bandwidth
of 20 nm. All samples were imaged with a 4× 0.1 NA objective and a scientific
complementary metal oxide semiconductor (sCMOS) camera (PCO. edge 4.2).
The pixel size of the sCMOS camera is 6.5 µm. The distance between the sample
and the LED array is 113.5 mm. In the experiment, the central 17 × 17 LEDs
were switched on sequentially to capture 289 LR intensity images, in which only
8

the LR images of the central 5 × 5 LEDs are within the bright field range of the
objective. This means that R1 = 17 and R2 = 5 in this work.
Coarse adjustment for the position of the LED array was first performed
before the image acquisition. After capturing all the LR images, the proposed
algorithm was applied to realize fine correction in the image reconstruction
process. As Fig. 5(b) shows, in order to avoid the position error caused by the
rotation of the LED array, we used a set of rods and buckles to fix it on the
microscope stage. Then, a level instrument was used to make the sample plane
and the LED array plane parallel. Figure 5(c) shows the principle of the coarse
adjustment to make the central LED on the optical axis (the z-axis in (b)).
First, we turned on the central LED (the red box of Fig. 5(a)) without a sample
placed on the stage. Then we adjusted the stage along the x-axis and y-axis to
find four critical positions x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 respectively. The light spot is tangential
to the image borders of the camera (the blue box of Fig. 5(a)) at these positions.
Finally, we moved the stage to the coordinate of ((x1 +x2 )/2, (y1 +y2 )/2). After
this process, the rotation effect is almost eliminated.
b
c
d
e

40 µm
f
(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

g

500 µm
(a)

Figure 6: The reconstructions influenced by the global shift of the LED array in the FPM. (a) is one of the original captured images. (b)-(g) are the
reconstructed HR intensity images corresponding to the different segments of
(a) respectively.

3.2

The reconstructions influenced by the global shift of
the LED array

To observe the influence of the global shift in the FPM, we reconstructed the
segments of the sample in different regions within the FOV. The FPM reconstruction algorithm we used in this study is adapted from the open source code
published in Ref. [14]. Figure 6 shows the reconstructed results using the FPM
algorithm without any position correction. Figure 6(a) is the captured original
image of a young plant root sample. Figure 6(b)-6(g) are the reconstructed HR
intensity images in the different regions of Fig. 6(a). From the reconstructed
results, we can find that the central regions ((e) and (f)) are much better than
that of the edge regions ((b) and (c)). In the edge regions, obvious stripes are
clearly observable. Based on the phenomenon shown by Fig. 3, we speculate
9

that different global shifts occur at different regions of the FOV. In our coarse
adjustment, we carefully aligned the LED array and the camera so that the
central LED was imaged to the center of the camera, therefore the influence of
global shift near the center regions of the reconstructed image is small. But for
the edge regions, aberration of the objective may also affect the reconstruction.
This global shift can not be corrected by the FPM algorithm with a correct
pupil function.

3.3

Performance verifications of the proposed mcFPM

30 µm

30 µm

(a)

(e)

(b)

(f)

500 µm
(d)

(c)

(g)

Figure 7: Experimental results of two segments of a USAF resolution target
reconstructed with the conventional FPM and the mcFPM. (a) and (e) are the
enlargement of the yellow box in (d) the original captured image, (b) and (f)
are the reconstructed HR intensity images using the conventional FPM without
the position correction, (c) and (g) are the reconstructed HR intensity images
using the mcFPM.
To verify the feasibility of the proposed method, we compare the reconstructed results of different samples with and without LED position correction.
Figure 7 shows the recovered images of two segments of a USAF resolution target. Figure 7(d) is the original captured image, fig. 7(a) and 7(e) show the
enlargement of two different parts (128 × 128 pixels) of it. Figure 7(b) and 7(f)
10

show the reconstructed HR intensity images using the FPM algorithm without
any position correction. Figure 7(c) and 7(g) show the reconstructed results
using the mcFPM. Compared with Fig. 7(b) and 7(f), Fig. 7(c) and 7(g) have
much higher visible image quality.
To test the robustness of the mcFPM in different segments of the FOV, we
recovered an HR image with full FOV of a young plant root sample. The full
FOV images (8112×8112 pixels) were reconstructed as Fig. 8 shows. Figure 8(a)
shows the reconstructed images using the conventional FPM algorithm without
any position corrections. The image quality in the center FOV is good while the
stripes become obvious in the edge regions. Therefore, the ability of gigapixel
imaging with the FPM is seriously decreased because of the regionally dependent global shift of the LED array. Figure 8(b) shows the reconstructed result
with our proposed mcFPM. Compared with the reconstructed results without
position correction, we can find that the stripes in the edge regions of the FOV
are significantly eliminated, and the image quality is improved greatly as well.
This clearly demonstrates the robustness of the proposed mcFPM.

500 µm

500 µm
(a)

(b)

Figure 8: The reconstructed wide FOV and HR images using (a) the conventional FPM without any position correction and (b) the mcFPM.
Furthermore, we compare the proposed mcFPM with the other existing techniques (conventional SA and pcFPM). The experimental LR images in the edge
regions of the sample were chosen as the test data. The pixel sizes of the LR images and the reconstructed HR images are 128 × 128 and 512 × 512 respectively.
The codes were run with MATLAB R2015b on a Windows 10 Enterprise Edition
operation system (Inter i7-6700 CPU @3.40Ghz, 8 GB DDR4 memory). The
SA algorithm terminates when the average change of the cost function is less
than 10−3 , or the number of iterations exceeds 100. Figure 9 shows the reconstructed results using different methods. The left images of each sub figure are
the reconstructed amplitude profiles and the right ones are the phase profiles.
Figure 9(a) shows stripes on both of the amplitude and phase. As shown from
Fig. 9(b), conventional SA method can reconstruct a good HR amplitude, but
the stripes in the phase still exist. Besides, it takes 246 s for one segment. The
reason is that it calls SA algorithm once for each LED. As Fig. 9(c) shows, the
pcFPM removes the stripes in both the amplitude and phase, however, it takes
11

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 9: The reconstructed results using different methods: (a) FPM without
position correction, (b) Conventional SA method, (c) pcFPM, (d) mcFPM.
728 s. Figure 9(d) shows the reconstructed results using the mcFPM. Compared
with the previous methods, the mcFPM takes the least time to run, which is
only 40 s. On the whole, the conventional SA method is time consuming, and
breaks the physical constraint of the LED array. The pcFPM takes the physical constraint into account, but it takes more time because of the additional
optimization process. Our method directly correct the global shift of the LED
array, which is the most efficient among all the testing algorithms.

4

Conclusion

In the FPM, the misalignment limits its capability to realize gigapixel imaging.
By analyzing the experimental data, we found that different regions of the FOV
have different global LED position shifts. This produces observable stripes in
the reconstructed HR images. To eliminate the global shift of the LED array, we have proposed the mcFPM algorithm. Rather than correcting the shift
errors of the pupil function in the Fourier domain, we introduced a global position misalignment model of the LED array with two factors, and then directly
corrected the global shift of the LED array. Experimental results have shown
that the mcFPM performs robustly in different regions of the FOV. The experiments have shown the mcFPM is more efficiently than all of the state-of-the-art
techniques.

Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (61327902, 61705241);
Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (NSFS) (17ZR1433800); and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (QYZDB-SSW-JSC002).

12

References
[1] Zichao Bian, Siyuan Dong, and Guoan Zheng. Adaptive system correction
for robust Fourier ptychographic imaging. Optics Express, 21(26):32400–
32410, 2013.
[2] Ni Chen, Jiwoon Yeom, Keehoon Hong, Gang Li, and Byoungho Lee∗ .
Fast converging algorithm for wavefront reconstruction based on a sequence
of diffracted intensity images. Journal of the Optical Society of Korea,
18(3):217–224, 2014.
[3] Jaebum Chung, Xiaoze Ou, Rajan P Kulkarni, and Changhuei Yang.
Counting white blood cells from a blood smear using Fourier ptychographic
microscopy. PLOS One, 10(7):e0133489, 2015.
[4] H. M. L. Faulkner and J. M. Rodenburg. Movable aperture lensless transmission microscopy: a novel phase retrieval algorithm. Physical Review
Letters, 93(2):023903, 2004.
[5] James R Fienup. Phase retrieval algorithms: a comparison. Applied Optics,
21(15):2758–2769, 1982.
[6] Roarke Horstmeyer, Xiaoze Ou, Guoan Zheng, Phil Willems, and
Changhuei Yang. Digital pathology with Fourier ptychography. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 42:38–43, 2015.
[7] A.M. Maiden, M.J. Humphry, M.C. Sarahan, B. Kraus, and J.M. Rodenburg. An annealing algorithm to correct positioning errors in ptychography.
Ultramicroscopy, 120:64–72, 2012.
[8] Andrew M. Maiden and John M. Rodenburg. An improved ptychographical phase retrieval algorithm for diffractive imaging. Ultramicroscopy,
109(10):1256–1262, 2009.
[9] Xiaoze Ou, Roarke Horstmeyer, Changhuei Yang, and Guoan Zheng. Quantitative phase imaging via Fourier ptychographic microscopy. Optics Letters, 38(22):4845–4848, 2013.
[10] Xiaoze Ou, Guoan Zheng, and Changhuei Yang. Embedded pupil function
recovery for Fourier ptychographic microscopy. Optics Express, 22(5):4960–
4972, 2014.
[11] J. M. Rodenburg and R. H. T. Bates. The theory of super-resolution
electron microscopy via wigner-distribution deconvolution. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, 339(1655):521–553, 1992.
[12] J. M. Rodenburg, A. C. Hurst, A. G. Cullis, B. R. Dobson, F. Pfeiffer,
O. Bunk, C. David, K. Jefimovs, and I. Johnson. Hard-x-ray lensless imaging of extended objects. Physical Review Letters, 98(3):034801, 2007.
[13] Jiasong Sun, Qian Chen, Yuzhen Zhang, and Chao Zuo. Efficient positional misalignment correction method for Fourier ptychographic microscopy. Biomedical Optics Express, 7(4):1336–1350, 2016.

13

[14] Lei Tian, Xiao Li, Kannan Ramchandran, and Laura Waller. Multiplexed
coded illumination for Fourier ptychography with an led array microscope.
Biomedical Optics Express, 5(7):2376–2389, 2014.
[15] Anthony Williams, Jaebum Chung, Xiaoze Ou, Guoan Zheng, Siddarth
Rawal, Zheng Ao, Ram Datar, Changhuei Yang, and Richard Cote. Fourier
ptychographic microscopy for filtration-based circulating tumor cell enumeration and analysis. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 19(6):066007–066007,
2014.
[16] Li-Hao Yeh, Jonathan Dong, Jingshan Zhong, Lei Tian, Michael Chen,
Gongguo Tang, Mahdi Soltanolkotabi, and Laura Waller. Experimental
robustness of Fourier ptychography phase retrieval algorithms. Optics Express, 23(26):33214–33240, 2015.
[17] Guoan Zheng. Breakthroughs in photonics 2013: Fourier ptychographic
imaging. IEEE Photonics Journal, 6(2):1–7, 2014.
[18] Guoan Zheng. Fourier ptychographic imaging.
ence (IPC), 2015, pages 20–21. IEEE, 2015.

In Photonics Confer-

[19] Guoan Zheng, Roarke Horstmeyer, and Changhuei Yang. Wide-field, highresolution Fourier ptychographic microscopy. Nature Photonics, 7(9):739–
745, 2013.

14

