Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of Time-of-Flight non-line-of-sight (ToF NLOS) imaging techniques, unifying various methods under a common forward model and hardware setup. It explores the relationship between simplified forward/inverse models and Radon transforms, connecting them to phasor-based virtual line-of-sight imaging. Experimental evaluation reveals that existing methods exhibit similar limitations in spatial resolution, visibility, and noise sensitivity when subjected to identical hardware constraints, highlighting the impact of method-specific parameters.
Despite diverse formulations, ToF NLOS imaging methods hit similar performance walls in resolution and noise sensitivity when hardware is held constant, suggesting diminishing returns from algorithmic improvements alone.
Time-of-Flight non-line-of-sight (ToF NLOS) imaging techniques provide state-of-the-art reconstructions of scenes hidden around corners by inverting the optical path of indirect photons scattered by visible surfaces and measured by picosecond resolution sensors. The emergence of a wide range of ToF NLOS imaging methods with heterogeneous formulae and hardware implementations obscures the assessment of both their theoretical and experimental aspects. We present a comprehensive study of a representative set of ToF NLOS imaging methods by discussing their similarities and differences under common formulation and hardware. We first outline the problem statement under a common general forward model for ToF NLOS measurements, and the typical assumptions that yield tractable inverse models. We discuss the relationship of the resulting simplified forward and inverse models to a family of Radon transforms, and how migrating these to the frequency domain relates to recent phasor-based virtual line-of-sight imaging models for NLOS imaging that obey the constraints of conventional lens-based imaging systems. We then evaluate performance of the selected methods on hidden scenes captured under the same hardware setup and similar photon counts. Our experiments show that existing methods share similar limitations on spatial resolution, visibility, and sensitivity to noise when operating under equal hardware constraints, with particular differences that stem from method-specific parameters. We expect our methodology to become a reference in future research on ToF NLOS imaging to obtain objective comparisons of existing and new methods.
