Photography in South Wales 1840–60 ‘This beautiful art’

Abstract

The most transitory of things, a shadow, the proverbial emblem of all that is fleeting and momentary, may be fettered by the spells of our ‘natural magic’, and may be fixed for ever in the position which it seemed only destined for a single instant to occupy.¹     

Eigenvalue Beamforming Using a Multirank MVDR Beamformer and Subspace Selection

We derive eigenvalue beamformers to resolve an unknown signal of interest whose spatial signature lies in a known subspace, but whose orientation in that subspace is otherwise unknown. The unknown orientation may be fixed, in which case the signal covariance is rank-1, or it may be random, in which case the signal covariance is multirank. We present a systematic treatment of such signal models and explain their relevance for modeling signal uncertainties. We then present a multirank generalization of the MVDR beamformer. The idea is to minimize the power at the output of a matrix beamformer, while enforcing a data dependent distortionless constraint in the signal subspace, which we design based on the type of signal we wish to resolve. We show that the eigenvalues of an error covariance matrix are fundamental for resolving signals of interest. Signals with rank-1 covariances are resolved by the largest eigenvalues of the error covariance, while signals with multirank covariances are resolved by the smallest eigenvalues. Thus, the beamformers we design are eigenvalue beamformers, which extract signal information from eigen-modes of an error covariance. We address the tradeoff between angular resolution of eigenvalue beamformers and the fraction of the signal power they capture.     

A comparison of a similarity-based and a feature-based 2-D-3-D registration method for neurointerventional use.

Two-dimensional (2-D)-to-three-dimensional (3-D) registration can improve visualization which may aid minimally invasive neurointerventions. Using clinical and phantom studies, two state-of-the-art approaches to rigid registration are compared quantitatively: an intensity-based algorithm using the gradient difference similarity measure; and an iterative closest point (ICP)-based algorithm. The gradient difference approach was found to be more accurate, with an average registration accuracy of 1.7 mm for clinical data, compared to the ICP-based algorithm with an average accuracy of 2.8 mm. In phantom studies, the ICP-based algorithm proved more reliable, but with more complicated clinical data, the gradient difference algorithm was more robust. Average computation time for the ICP-based algorithm was 20 s per registration, compared with 14 min and 50 s for the gradient difference algorithm.