Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Every mainstream deflection estimator in two- and three-dimensional background-oriented schlieren is a nested approximation of one exact vector identity, with closed-form systematic errors governed by boundary refractive index and viewing a

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:55 UTC pith:BTMZHQDL

load-bearing objection A careful, useful unification of BOS deflection estimators with closed-form bias formulas, solid for thin phase objects but not yet validated for thick or strongly refracting flows. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15567 v1 pith:BTMZHQDL submitted 2026-07-17 physics.flu-dyn physics.optics

Unified Deflection Estimation and Error Analysis for Background-Oriented Schlieren

Jiawei Li , Xiang Li , Chong Pan , Yuan Xiong This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn physics.optics
keywords Background-Oriented Schlierendeflection estimationgeometrical opticsray tracingsystematic errorrefractive index boundary conditionstomographic BOSunified framework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper claims that the two historically separate ways of estimating light-ray deflection in background-oriented schlieren—the intuitive 2D deflection angle and the rigorous 3D deflection vector from the ray equation—are special cases of a single trigonometric framework. The true deflection vector ε = n_out d_out − n_in d_in is approximated by three nested schemes: M1A1 assumes only that the refracting object is thin, so the incoming ray can be replaced by a straight estimate; M2A2 additionally assumes a uniform boundary refractive index n0 at all object edges; M3A4 adds the paraxial approximation (rays stay nearly parallel to the optical axis) and requires the deflection vector to be perpendicular to the optical axis. For each scheme the paper derives closed-form absolute and relative error formulas, showing that M2A2's bias is governed by the boundary index difference (n_out − n_in) while M3A4's is governed by the off-axis viewing angle β0 and n0. These formulas are validated against high-fidelity nonlinear ray tracing on chirp and turbulent phase objects, giving BOS users a way to predict, compare, and reduce the systematic error of any estimator. A sympathetic reader would care because the error expressions turn method selection and experimental design—camera angles, boundary conditions—into quantitative decisions.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a hierarchy: the exact ray-integrated deflection ε = ∫_S ∇n ds = n_out d_out − n_in d_in is approximated through three estimators of increasing simplification. M1A1 keeps the actual boundary indices and the estimated incoming-ray direction, giving ε_y^{M1A1} = n_out sin β_out − n̂_in sin β̂_in; M2A2 replaces both boundary indices by a single n0, giving n0(sin β_out − sin β̂_in); M3A4 collapses the trigonometric form to tan β_out − tan β̂_in, which is the familiar displacement-over-distance formula. In 3D the same hierarchy is written with direction cosines, and M3A4 is shown to discard the z-component of the deflection vector. The paper then derives closed-fo

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the exact deflection vector ε = n_out d_out − n_in d_in, obtained by integrating the ray equation ∇n along the optical path. Around it the paper builds a three-level approximation ladder distinguished by which of four assumptions are in force: thin phase object, uniform boundary refractive index, paraxial rays, and perpendicularity between the deflection vector and the optical axis. Each estimator is written in the same boundary-index/ray-angle variables—M1A1 uses assumption 1 only, M2A2 uses 1 and 2, M3A4 uses 1, 2, 3, and 4—so the same trigonometric identities yield closed-form absolute and relative errors. The same variables carry the framework into 3D, where the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in Sec. 4.1, is that the M1A1 deflection estimate is indistinguishable from the true ray-traced deflection, so every relative-error formula derived in the paper uses M1A1 in place of ground truth; this is verified only for the 1 mm-thin phase objects tested, and would lose its basis for thick or strongly refracting objects where ray curvature inside the phase object is significant.

What would settle it

Run high-fidelity nonlinear ray tracing on a thick (e.g., 10 mm) phase object with strong refractive-index gradients and non-uniform boundary conditions, then compare the M1A1 estimate to the true ray-integrated deflection; if the difference is a substantial fraction of the deflection (say >1%), the relative-error formulas in Eqs. (36), (39), and (45) that treat M1A1 as ground truth will fail, and the paper's central error analysis is invalid for such cases.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • BOS users can predict the systematic bias of any estimator from boundary refractive indices and viewing geometry without running a simulation.
  • M2A2 is the recommended fallback when boundary indices are unavailable, since it avoids M3A4's extra paraxial and perpendicularity error.
  • Multi-camera tomographic setups can now quantify the accuracy penalty from tilted background planes through the 3D error formulas.
  • The closed-form error expressions give a foundation for uncertainty quantification and for optimizing experimental parameters such as off-axis viewing angle and boundary uniformity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An immediate testable extension: applying the derived relative-error expressions as per-pixel correction factors to existing BOS deflection fields should reduce systematic bias; this is not demonstrated in the paper but follows naturally from Eqs. (39) and (45).
  • The hierarchy implies a practical diagnostic: comparing M1A1, M2A2, and M3A4 estimates on the same data isolates whether bias comes from boundary-index mismatch or viewing obliquity, which could be used to validate boundary conditions in an experiment.
  • The authors leave thick, strongly refracting phase objects to future work; if the thin-object proxy breaks down there, the relative-error formulas would need replacing, but the unified trigonometric classification itself may still hold.
  • A similar approximation ladder might apply to other quantitative optical diagnostics that reconstruct refractive-index fields from ray deflection, such as synthetic schlieren or holographic interferometry, where the same boundary-index and obliquity variables appear.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a unified framework for estimating light-ray deflection in Background-Oriented Schlieren (BOS). It groups the commonly used estimators into three nested approximations of the exact ray-deflection vector: M1A1 (thin phase object only), M2A2 (thin object plus uniform boundary refractive index), and M3A4 (thin object, uniform boundary index, paraxial approximation, and deflection perpendicular to the optical axis). The paper derives closed-form expressions for the absolute and relative systematic errors of each estimator in terms of boundary refractive indices and ray angles (e.g., Eqs. 29, 36, 39, 44–45), and validates them against nonlinear ray tracing for 1-mm-thin chirp-type and DNS-based turbulent phase objects with uniform and non-uniform boundary conditions. The central claims are that all mainstream BOS deflection estimators reduce to one trigonometric hierarchy and that their systematic errors are predictable from boundary n-values and viewing angle.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a valuable conceptual unification: it makes the assumptions behind 2D BOS angle-based methods and 3D tomographic deflection-vector methods explicit and directly comparable, and it produces quantitative, parameter-free error expressions that are falsifiable against ray tracing. The validation against an independent nonlinear ray-tracing simulation, with no fitted constants, is a genuine strength, as is the use of both idealized chirp fields and realistic turbulent DNS fields. The taxonomy itself (M1A1/M2A2/M3A4) is likely to be useful to practitioners for method selection and experimental design. However, the quantitative generality of the relative-error formulas is currently established only for thin, weakly refracting phase objects, and one of the key derivations relies on a Snell-law step whose interface convention is not stated. These issues affect the load-bearing quantitative claims rather than the taxonomy alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Eqs. (31), (36), (39), (45)] The relative-error expressions are derived by replacing the true ray-traced deflection ε_RTS with the M1A1 estimate in the denominator. The text states this explicitly: 'Without mentioning, we assume the deflection estimation based on the M1A1 method can replace the ground truth deflection.' This substitution is valid only when ε_M1A1 is negligible compared with the error being characterized. It is verified only for L = 1 mm, L/Z_B ≈ 5.6×10^-4. For thicker or more strongly refracting phase objects, ε_M1A1 itself grows with the integrated ray curvature inside the object, so Eqs. (36), (39), and (45) no longer describe the true relative error. The Conclusion's caveat ('Challenges remain for thick, strongly refracting...') identifies precisely this unvalidated regime. Please either give a quantitative condition (e.g., a bound on L·max|∇n| or on the accumulated bending angle) under which the
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (42)] Equation (42) invokes Snell's law in the form n_in cosβ_in = n_out cosβ_out and uses it to obtain the small-deflection formula δ ≈ (n_out−n_hatin) cosβ0 / ((n_out+n_hatin) sinβ0) in Eq. (43). In the coordinate convention of the main text, β is the angle between the ray and the optical axis (z). For a phase-object boundary normal to z, the standard Snell invariant for the tangential component is n sinβ, not n cosβ; for an effective 'thin deflection interface' with a different orientation, that orientation must be specified and its equivalence to the integrated ray equation demonstrated. Without this, Eqs. (44)–(45) for the non-uniform-boundary M3A4 error rest on an unstated interface model and are not derivations from geometric optics as presented.
  3. [Appendix A/B vs. Eqs. (15)–(17)] The symbol β is used with two different meanings. In the main text (Eq. (15), Fig. 2), β is the angle between the ray and the z-axis, so ε_y = n_out sinβ_out − n_hatin sinβ_hatin. In Appendix A, β is defined as the angle between the ray and the Y-axis, so ε_y = n_out cosβ_out − n_hatin cosβ_hatin (Table A1). The same symbol therefore produces sinβ0 in Eq. (29) and cosβ0 in Eq. (B21) for the same physical component. This makes the 3D appendix difficult or impossible to check against the 2D results without re-deriving everything. Use distinct symbols for the two angle conventions, or rewrite the appendix in the main-text convention.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Fig. 10 caption] The text describes epsilon_M2A2_y and hat{epsilon}_M2A2_y in Fig. 10, but the caption lists (c) as hat{epsilon}_z; this appears to be a typo. Also, Sec. 4.2 refers to the 'global parabolic trend for hat{epsilon}_z' where hat{epsilon}_y seems intended.
  2. [Table A1, M1A1 row] The z-direction entry for M1A1 reads 'n_out cosγ_out − hat{n}_in coshat{β}_in'; the last cosine should be hat{γ}_in.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The statement that non-uniform-n BCs give ε_z = 0 'due to the uniform extension of n slices in the z-direction' is correct for the integrated ray equation, but the boundary refraction at the z-normal faces is not discussed; a one-sentence justification would help.
  4. [Sec. 4, relative-error definition] Division-by-zero issues in hat{epsilon}_z are handled by low-pass filtering and thresholding. Because these operations can affect the comparison with analytical formulas, please state the filter parameters and threshold values, or show the raw data for a representative case.
  5. [General] The data availability statement says the data are 'not publicly available at this time'. Given that the paper's validation relies on a simulation platform and specific phase-object fields, making at least the chirp fields and the RTS-derived deflection fields available would substantially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; only an explicit M1A1-as-ground-truth approximation limits relative-error generality.

full rationale

The paper's central framework is definitional and algebraic rather than circular: Eqs. (15)–(17) define M1A1, M2A2, and M3A4 as successive trigonometric simplifications, and the error expressions (Eqs. 22–29, 34, 38–45) are derived from these definitions, small-angle expansions, and Snell's law. No fitted parameter is introduced and then relabeled as a prediction; the derivations are checked against independent nonlinear ray tracing. Self-citations to the authors' prior RTS-based work are implementation references, not load-bearing external results. The one point requiring explicit flagging is Sec. 4.1: 'Without mentioning, we assume the deflection estimation based on the M1A1 method can replace the ground truth deflection,' which is then used in Eqs. (28), (31), (37), and (39). This makes the closed-form relative errors expressions relative to the M1A1 estimate rather than directly to the true ray-traced deflection, unless M1A1 error is negligible. The paper validates this for the thin (L = 1 mm) phase objects studied, and the Conclusion itself concedes the limitation for thick, strongly refracting POs. This is an explicit, scoped approximation and a generalizability caveat, not a circular definition or a fitted-input-called-prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; everything in the synthetic test cases is prescribed. The central framework assumes standard geometric optics, a pinhole camera, and a thin phase object. The M1A1-as-ground-truth approximation is a stated but unevidenced-for-thick-objects premise in the error analysis.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Light rays obey the geometric-optics ray equation d/ds(n dr/ds)=∇n (Eq. 4).
    Starting point for the deflection vector definition Eq. (5); no proof needed in physical optics.
  • domain assumption The pinhole camera and the geometric layout with known distances Z_B, Z_d (Fig. 1, Table 2) are accurate for BOS.
    Used in Eq. (1)-(2) and (17) to convert displacements to angles; approximate for real lenses but standard in BOS.
  • domain assumption Thin phase object: the incident ray direction may be replaced by the undeflected reference direction d_in≈d_hat_in (Eq. 6).
    Foundational for M1A1 and all derived error formulas; justified only for L/Z_B≈5.6e-4 in the validation.
  • ad hoc to paper M1A1 output may replace the true ray-traced deflection when computing relative errors (Sec. 4.1: 'Without mentioning, we assume...').
    Load-bearing for relative-error expressions (Eqs. 31, 37, 39); verified only for thin, weakly refracting POs.
  • domain assumption Small-angle linearizations: δ≪1, β0 small, n0≈1 (Eqs. 23, 24, 29, B17-B28).
    Used to turn trigonometric forms into the closed-form error estimates; restricts validity to weak deflections.
  • domain assumption Snell's law applied at a thin interface approximates the ray-path integral through the PO (Eqs. 43, B24-B26).
    Converts boundary refractive indices into deflection angles δ; consistent with thin-PO architecture.
  • domain assumption Uniform boundary refractive index n_in=n_out=n0 for M2A2 (Eq. 7).
    One of the four deconstructed assumptions; defines the M2A2 method and is relaxed in non-uniform BC cases.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19821 in / 15298 out tokens · 169770 ms · 2026-08-01T22:55:38.661071+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Background-Oriented Schlieren (BOS) has become a versatile quantitative diagnostic for density-varying flows, in which estimating the light-ray deflection from the measured displacement is the essential step linking the recorded images to the underlying refractive-index field. Two-dimensional BOS traditionally treats this through the intuitive deflection angle, whereas three-dimensional tomographic BOS relies on the rigorous deflection vector derived from the ray equation. These descriptions have evolved largely independently, and the assumptions bridging them, together with the systematic errors they introduce, have not been examined in a unified manner. Based on geometric optics, this study establishes a unified deflection estimation framework that reconciles the mainstream two- and three-dimensional methods into a single mathematical structure and exposes the hierarchy of approximations underlying each. By deconstructing four key assumptions, namely the thin phase object, the uniform boundary refractive index, the paraxial approximation, and the perpendicularity between the deflection vector and the optical axis, we derive rigorous unified deflection expressions in both two- and three-dimensional space and categorize the mainstream methods accordingly. Using phase objects constructed from one-dimensional chirp signals and two-dimensional turbulent fields from Direct Numerical Simulation, combined with high-fidelity nonlinear ray tracing as the ground truth, we quantitatively characterize and analytically interpret the deflection estimation error of each method under both uniform and non-uniform refractive-index boundary conditions. This work provides a theoretical toolkit for assessing and enhancing the accuracy of quantitative BOS diagnostics.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Physics of Fluids , author =

    Reconstruction refinement of hybrid background-oriented schlieren tomography , volume =. Physics of Fluids , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0190778 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0190778 2024

  2. [2]

    Improving Spatial Resolution of Background Oriented Schlieren Based on Directional Rays

    Li, Xiang and Gao, Muen and Wang, Weiran and Li, Jiawei and Pan, Chong and Wang, Jinjun and Xiong, Yuan , month = sep, year =. Improving. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.04992 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04992

  3. [3]

    Measurement Science and Technology , author =

    Experimental study of a co-flowing jet in. Measurement Science and Technology , author =. 2017 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa7827 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa7827 2017

  4. [4]

    and Bathel, Brett F

    Weisberger, Joshua M. and Bathel, Brett F. and Jones, Stephen B. and Woike, Mark R. and Ponder, Jonathon D. and Heineck, James T. and Schairer, Edward T. , month = jun, year =. Preparations for. doi:10.2514/6.2020-3102 , language =

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2020-3102 2020

  5. [5]

    Physics of Fluids , author =

    Shock wave structures and vortex unsteadiness in the tip region of a transonic turbine cascade under different conditions , volume =. Physics of Fluids , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0223927 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0223927 2024

  6. [6]

    Measurement Science and Technology , author =

    A review of recent developments in schlieren and shadowgraph techniques , volume =. Measurement Science and Technology , author =. 2017 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa5748 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa5748 2017

  7. [7]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Optimal subpixel interpolation in particle image velocimetry , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2003 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-003-0627-8 , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-003-0627-8 2003

  8. [8]

    Combustion and Flame , author =

    Effect of varying composition on temperature reconstructions obtained from refractive index measurements in flames , volume =. Combustion and Flame , author =. 2002 , pages =. doi:10.1016/S0010-2180(01)00338-8 , language =

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-2180(01)00338-8 2002

  9. [9]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    Three-dimensional density field of a screeching under-expanded jet in helical mode using multi-view digital holographic interferometry , volume =. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2022 , keywords =. doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.659 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.659 2022

  10. [10]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    Study of asymmetrical shock wave reflection in steady supersonic flow , volume =. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2019 , keywords =. doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.18 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.18 2019

  11. [11]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    Experimental study on acoustic resonance of subsonic and slightly underexpanded impinging jets , volume =. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.27 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.27 2024

  12. [12]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Fast and robust volumetric refractive index measurement by unified background-oriented schlieren tomography , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-020-2912-1 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-020-2912-1 2020

  13. [13]

    Optics Express , author =

    Background-oriented. Optics Express , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1364/OE.505992 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.505992 2023

  14. [14]

    Combustion and Flame , author =

    Instantaneous. Combustion and Flame , author =. 2018 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.06.022 , language =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.06.022 2018

  15. [15]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Analysis and reduction of spurious displacements in high-framing-rate background-oriented. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-020-2879-y , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-020-2879-y 2020

  16. [16]

    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    Particle. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101204 , abstract =

    doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101204 2013

  17. [17]

    , year =

    Scarano, F. , year =. Iterative image deformation methods in. Measurement Science and Technology , publisher =. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/13/1/201 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/0957-0233/13/1/201

  18. [18]

    Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy , author =

    Evaluating the accuracy performance of. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy , author =. 2015 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11433-015-5719-y , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-015-5719-y 2015

  19. [19]

    Schmidt, Bryan E and Bathel, Brett F and Grauer, Samuel J and Hargather, Michael J and Heineck, James T and Raffel, Markus , month = jan, year =. Twenty-. doi:10.2514/6.2025-1627 , language =

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2025-1627 2025

  20. [20]

    AIAA Journal , author =

    Wavelet-. AIAA Journal , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.2514/1.J060218 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j060218 2021

  21. [21]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    Flow over an espresso cup: inferring 3-. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.1017/jfm.2021.135 , abstract =

    doi:10.1017/jfm.2021.135 2021

  22. [22]

    Journal of Turbulence , author =

    A public turbulence database cluster and applications to study. Journal of Turbulence , author =. 2008 , pages =. doi:10.1080/14685240802376389 , abstract =

    doi:10.1080/14685240802376389 2008

  23. [23]

    AIAA Journal , author =

    Background-. AIAA Journal , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.2514/1.J059495 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j059495 2021

  24. [24]

    Measurement Science and Technology , author =

    Uncertainty quantification in density estimation from background-oriented. Measurement Science and Technology , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab60c8 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab60c8 2020

  25. [25]

    SIAM Review , author =

    Analysis of. SIAM Review , author =. 1992 , keywords =. doi:10.1137/1034115 , abstract =

    doi:10.1137/1034115 1992

  26. [26]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Whole-field density measurements by ‘synthetic schlieren’ , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2000 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s003480050391 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s003480050391 2000

  27. [27]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    On the applicability of background oriented optical tomography for large scale aerodynamic investigations , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2000 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s003480050408 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s003480050408 2000

  28. [28]

    Measurement Science and Technology , author =

    Principle and applications of the background oriented schlieren (. Measurement Science and Technology , author =. 2001 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/12/9/325 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/0957-0233/12/9/325 2001

  29. [29]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Computerized background-oriented schlieren , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2002 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-002-0450-7 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-002-0450-7 2002

  30. [30]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Assessment and application of quantitative schlieren methods:. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2004 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-003-0724-8 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-003-0724-8 2004

  31. [31]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Density measurements using the. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2004 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-004-0807-1 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-004-0807-1 2004

  32. [32]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    The background oriented schlieren technique: sensitivity, accuracy, resolution and application to a three-dimensional density field , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2007 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-007-0331-1 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-007-0331-1 2007

  33. [33]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics , author =

    Time-resolved 3d capture of non-stationary gas flows , volume =. ACM Transactions on Graphics , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1145/1409060.1409085 , abstract =

    arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    Variable-density mixing in buoyancy-driven turbulence , volume =. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1017/S0022112008001481 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112008001481 2008

  35. [35]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    An evaluation of optical flow algorithms for background oriented schlieren imaging , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2009 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-008-0572-7 , abstract =

    doi:10.1007/s00348-008-0572-7 2009

  36. [36]

    Optics and Lasers in Engineering , author =

    A comparison of three quantitative schlieren techniques , volume =. Optics and Lasers in Engineering , author =. 2012 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.optlaseng.2011.05.012 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.optlaseng.2011.05.012 2012

  37. [37]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Three-dimensional reconstruction of helicopter blade–tip vortices using a multi-camera. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2014 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1866-6 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1866-6 2014

  38. [38]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Density measurements using near-field background-oriented. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2014 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1720-x , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1720-x 2014

  39. [39]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Improvement in spatial resolution of background-oriented schlieren technique by introducing a telecentric optical system and its application to supersonic flow , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2015 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-015-1919-5 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-015-1919-5 2015

  40. [40]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Background-oriented schlieren (. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2015 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-015-1927-5 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-015-1927-5 2015

  41. [41]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    A direct approach for instantaneous. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2016 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-015-2100-x , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-015-2100-x 2016

  42. [42]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Measurement of the fluctuating temperature field in a heated swirling jet with. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2017 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-017-2367-1 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-017-2367-1 2017

  43. [43]

    2017 , keywords =

    Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2017 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-017-2325-y , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-017-2325-y 2017

  44. [44]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Real-time quantitative. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2018 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-018-2553-9 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-018-2553-9 2018

  45. [45]

    2019 , pages =

    Measurement Science and Technology , author =. 2019 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab1ca8 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab1ca8 2019

  46. [46]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =

    On the dispersion of entropy waves in turbulent flows , volume =. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1017/jfm.2020.703 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2020.703 2020

  47. [47]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Towards robust. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-020-03007-4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-020-03007-4 2020

  48. [48]

    Science China Technological Sciences , author =

    Volumetric imaging of flame refractive index, density, and temperature using background-oriented. Science China Technological Sciences , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11431-020-1663-5 , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11431-020-1663-5 2021

  49. [49]

    Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science , author =

    Background oriented schlieren technique with fast. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science , author =. 2022 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2022.110598 , abstract =

    arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Single-pixel correlation applied to background-oriented schlieren measurement , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s00348-021-03373-7 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-021-03373-7 2022

  51. [51]

    Progress in Energy and Combustion Science , author =

    Volumetric emission tomography for combustion processes , volume =. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science , author =. 2023 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2022.101024 , abstract =

    arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    and Grauer, Samuel J

    Molnar, Joseph P. and Grauer, Samuel J. and Léon, Olivier and Donjat, David and Nicolas, François , month = jan, year =. Physics-. doi:10.2514/6.2023-2441 , language =

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2023-2441 2023

  53. [53]

    Physics in Medicine & Biology , author =

    On. Physics in Medicine & Biology , author =. 2023 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/acd616 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/acd616 2023

  54. [54]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Practical aspects of designing background-oriented schlieren (. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2023 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-023-03602-1 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-023-03602-1 2023

  55. [55]

    Symmetry , author =

    Tomographic. Symmetry , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.3390/sym16050596 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3390/sym16050596 2024

  56. [56]

    Physics of Fluids , author =

    Neural deflection field for sparse-view tomographic background oriented. Physics of Fluids , author =. 2024 , keywords =. doi:10.1063/5.0241191 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0241191 2024

  57. [57]

    Physics of Fluids , author =

    Three-dimensional diagnosis of lean premixed turbulent swirl flames using tomographic background oriented. Physics of Fluids , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0209235 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0209235 2024

  58. [58]

    Measurement Science and Technology , author =

    Assessment of three-dimensional density measurements from tomographic background-oriented schlieren (. Measurement Science and Technology , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab955a , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab955a 2020

  59. [59]

    Experiments in Fluids , author =

    Comparison of displacement estimation techniques for background-oriented schlieren of high-speed compressible turbulent flows , volume =. Experiments in Fluids , author =. 2025 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00348-024-03944-4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-024-03944-4 2025