I Why is the Fourier transform of a sinusoid assumed as this?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the Fourier transform of sinusoidal illumination in structured illumination microscopy. It highlights that the Fourier transform of a sinusoid results in three impulses: one at the origin and two at the positive and negative spatial frequencies. The confusion arises from a comparison with a cosine function's Fourier transform, which yields only two delta functions. The additional impulse at the origin is attributed to the intensity being considered as the square of the signal, leading to a DC component. The conversation concludes with clarification on the mathematical derivation and the importance of the square of the cosine function in this context.
loginorsinup
Messages
54
Reaction score
2
Hello everyone.

I'm trying to better understand structured illumination microscopy and in the literature, I keep coming across bits of text like this.
Structured illumination is one such method where the object is illuminated with a sinusoidal pattern instead of the conventional uniform illumination. The Fourier transform of the intensity of a sinusoid is three impulses—one at the origin and the other two at the positive and negative spatial frequency of the sinusoid. Therefore, when a sinusoidal illumination is incident on an object, the Fourier transform of the image consists of three replicas of the object Fourier transform, each centered at one of the three impulses.

Source: http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/fienup/PUBLICATIONS/SAS_JOSAA09_PhShiftEstSupRes.pdf

From Fourier analysis, if I take the Fourier transform ##X(f)## of a time-varying function ##x(t)## that is a cosine, I get a pair of delta functions (quick derivation below).
\begin{align*}
X(f) & = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x(t)\exp(-i2\pi f t)\; dt\\
x(t) &= \cos(2 \pi f_0 t) = \frac{1}{2}\left[\exp(i2\pi f_0 t) + \exp(-i2\pi f_0 t)\right]\\
X(f) &= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2}\left[\exp(i2\pi f_0 t) + \exp(-i2\pi f_0 t)\right]\exp(-i2\pi f t)\; dt\\
&= \frac{1}{2}[\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp(i2\pi f_0 t)\exp(-i2\pi f t)\; dt + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp(-i2\pi f_0 t)\exp(-i2\pi f t)\; dt\\
&= \frac{1}{2}[\mathcal{F}\left\{\exp(i2\pi f_0 t)\right\} + \mathcal{F}\left\{\exp(-i2\pi f_0 t)\right\}]\\
\mathcal{F}\left\{\exp(i2\pi f_0 t)\right\} &= \delta(f-f_0)\\
\mathcal{F}\left\{\exp(-i2\pi f_0 t)\right\} &= \delta(f+f_0)\\
\therefore X(f) &= \frac{1}{2}[\delta(f-f_0) + \delta(f+f_0)]
\end{align*}
But the paper says that I should be getting three impulses. One at the origin, and the two I have detailed above. Where does the one at the origin come from?

My only hunch so far is it might have something to do with the fact that this derivation I just did was in 1D, and what they are describing is in 2D (a surface). Of course, the other minor difference is that they are describing spatial frequency and I am describing temporal frequency, but replacing ##t## with ##x## and ##f## with a scaled ##k## (spatial frequency) isn't a big deal.

Any tips?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
An aside: the argument for the exp function should have "i" in it. 2\pi ift etc.
 
  • Like
Likes loginorsinup
mathman said:
An aside: the argument for the exp function should have "i" in it. 2\pi ift etc.
You're right. I will fix that.
 
The word "intensity" usually means the square of the signal - from a quick glance at the paper they are indeed considering the square. Look at equation (1) in the paper, and note
<br /> \cos^2(x) = \frac{1}{2}(1 + \cos(2x))<br />
 
  • Like
Likes loginorsinup
jasonRF said:
The word "intensity" usually means the square of the signal - from a quick glance at the paper they are indeed considering the square. Look at equation (1) in the paper, and note
<br /> \cos^2(x) = \frac{1}{2}(1 + \cos(2x))<br />

That's exactly it. The "DC" term comes from the square-to-double-argument trigonometric identity. Got it. Thank you very much! The rest of it is straightforward. :)
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Back
Top