Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Variable zoom digital in-line holographic microscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One tunable lens zooms a lensless microscope from 15X to 35X by shifting the illumination point electrically.

desk verdict A solid incremental result: an ETL-based variable zoom in DIHM, directly measured and honestly framed, with fixable presentation gaps in Eq. (2) and the phase cross-check. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09570 v1 pith:TRR5QKHF submitted 2025-01-16 physics.optics

Martin Sanz , Maciej Trusiak , Javier Garcia , Vicente Mico This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords phaseretrievaldigitalimageprocessinglenslessmicroscopycoherenceimagingelectricallytunablelensesvariablezoomin-lineholographicquantitative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a lensless digital in-line holographic microscope whose magnification can be changed electrically rather than mechanically. Inserting an electrically tunable lens (ETL) into the collimated beam ahead of the focusing lens slightly shifts the axial position of the illumination point source. Because the layout magnification is set by the source-to-sample distance, that shift changes the magnification from about 15X to 35X and the field of view by a factor of about 5. The authors validate the idea with a USAF resolution test target and demonstrate it on prostate cancer cells with quantitative phase imaging.

What carries the argument

ETL-induced axial source shift. An electrically tunable lens, whose optical power changes with applied voltage, is placed in the collimated illumination beam just before the focusing lens. Changing its power moves the effective point source by $\Delta z \approx f_{FL}'^2/(f_{ETL}'+f_{FL}')$, where $f_{FL}'$ and $f_{ETL}'$ are the focal lengths of the focusing lens and the ETL; this changes $z$, hence the magnification $M=(z+d)/z$ and the imaged field of view, without moving any component. The recorded in-line holograms are numerically reconstructed by computing the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction integral using three Fourier transforms via the convolution theorem.

What would settle it

Measure the ETL's actual optical power at the -2D, 0D, and +6D settings with an independent beam-collimation or Shack-Hartmann test, compute the predicted source shift with Eq. (2), and compare against the magnification measured from the USAF target; a deviation larger than the spacing between adjacent USAF groups would show that the thin-lens, co-located-lens assumption in Eq. (2) is not sufficient without calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports variable-zoom digital in-line holographic microscopy (VZ-DIHM): an ETL placed before the focusing lens changes the optical power of the illumination path, effectively shifting the point source by a small axial distance $\Delta z$ and thereby changing the geometric magnification $M=(z+d)/z$, where $z$ is the source-to-sample distance and $d$ is the sample-to-sensor distance. With the ETL driven at $+6$D, $0$D, and $-2$D, the measured magnification changes from 15.6X to 25.9X to 35.4X, while the field of view shrinks from $360\times270\ \mu\text{m}^2$ to $159\times119\ \mu\text{m}^2$; these values are reported to be in good agreement with the theoretical predictions of 15.4X, 26X, and 34.8X. The resolution limit stays at about 1.95 $\mu$m (Element 1 of Group 9 on the USAF target), unchanged by the zoom because the numerical aperture is set by the sensor geometry rather than the source position. Phase images of prostate cancer cells show quantitative phase values comparable to those from a conventional DHM platform, and the background phase standard deviation with the ETL at 0D (0.0023 rad) is reported as indicating no substantial degradation relative to the no-ETL case (0.00024 rad).

Load-bearing premise

The computed magnification values rely on the manufacturer's rated ETL powers (-2, 0, and +6 diopters) and on treating the tunable lens and the focusing lens as thin lenses at the same axial location, an assumption the paper itself notes is only approximate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same physical layout, with no mechanical adjustments, can switch between a wide-field overview at about 15X and a magnified close-up at about 35X, and any setting in between.
  • The maximum-to-minimum magnification ratio is 2.26, which changes the total field of view by a factor of about 5; the shorter the source-to-sample distance, the larger this zoom ratio.
  • The resolution limit stays at about 1.95 $\mu$m across the zoom range, because the NA is set by the sample-to-sensor distance and the sensor size, not by the illumination source position.
  • Quantitative phase imaging of biological samples is preserved: prostate cancer cells reconstructed with the ETL show phase values comparable to those from a conventional DHM setup.
  • The same approach can support higher zoom ranges with ETLs of larger dioptric swing, such as models spanning $-10$D to $+10$D.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the $\Delta z$ shift is sub-millimetre, the ETL is effectively a fast, vibration-free axial stage for the illumination source; this could be used for rapid refocusing or depth scanning in DIHM, beyond the zoom application demonstrated.
  • Since the zoom ratio grows as $z$ shrinks, the benefit of this approach is strongest in DIHM geometries with the source very close to the sample; in on-chip geometry, where the sample is close to the sensor and the source is far, the effect would nearly vanish.
  • A direct test of the coma hypothesis would be to remeasure the background phase STD with the ETL mounted horizontally; if the one-order-of-magnitude difference from the no-ETL case disappears, vertical gravity sag, not the ETL optics, is responsible.
  • Calibrating the ETL's actual dioptric power at each voltage with a separate beam measurement would turn Eq. (2) from an approximation into a predictive design tool, and would quantify how much of the measured 15.6X, 25.9X, and 35.4X values depends on the assumed lens parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes inserting an electrically tunable lens (ETL) into a digital in-line holographic microscopy (DIHM) layout immediately before the focusing lens that creates the illumination point source. Changing the ETL optical power shifts the source axial position, thereby changing the geometric magnification M = (z+d)/z and the field of view without any mechanical movement. An approximate formula for the source shift Δz is given, and the idea is validated with a USAF 1951 target at three ETL states (6D, 0D, -2D), yielding measured magnifications of 15.6X, 25.9X, and 35.4X, a resolution limit of 1.95 µm, and a magnification ratio of 2.26. The approach is also demonstrated on prostate cancer cells, including quantitative phase imaging, with a background phase STD comparison with and without the ETL.

Significance. The central experimental observation—that an ETL can electronically change the magnification of a lensless inline holographic microscope—is credible and directly measured, with no free parameters in the geometric model. The USAF-target magnifications (15.6X, 25.9X, 35.4X) agree with the geometric prediction (15.4X, 26X, 34.8X) at the ~1% level, and demonstrating the effect on a biological sample strengthens the practical case. The proposed addition of a single ETL is a simple and useful extension of earlier lensless-microscopy work. However, the abstract's quantitative range (15–35X) and the 'continuous variation' claim are extrapolated from three discrete ETL states, and the theoretical curve depends on a garbled equation and on uncalibrated manufacturer-rated ETL powers. These issues are local and correctable, and do not undermine the existence of the zoom effect itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] As printed, Eq. (2) cannot reproduce the quoted Δz values. For the 6D case the text gives f'ETL = 166.67 mm and Δz ≈ 0.366 mm; this is consistent with Δz = f'FL^2/f'ETL (for f'FL ≈ 7.8 mm), not with the printed expression Δz = f'FL^2/f'ETL + f'FL, which would give an order-of-magnitude larger value. Moreover, f'FL is never stated in the text, and the following sentence refers to 'TL' instead of 'ETL'. Please correct the equation, define f'FL, and provide its value, since the theoretical curve in Fig. 3(a) is computed from Δz.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1 and Fig. 3(a)] The 'perfect agreement' between the measured magnifications and the geometric curve is asserted without an uncertainty budget. The ETL optical powers are taken from the manufacturer's -2D, 0D, +6D labels rather than from in-situ calibration, and Eq. (2) is explicitly approximate (thin-lens, co-located ETL and FL). A 0.5D error in the ETL power, a few tens of micrometres in ETL–FL separation, or a 1% uncertainty in z or d would shift Δz by tens of micrometres and change the predicted M by roughly 1X. Please report uncertainties on M, Δz, and the measured FOV values, and, if possible, calibrate the ETL optical power in the actual layout.
  3. [Section 4 and Abstract] The claim of 'continuous variation' of magnification and FOV is supported by only three discrete ETL states. The paper demonstrates ETL at 6D, 0D, and -2D; the continuous zoom curve in Fig. 3(a) is a theoretical interpolation, not a measurement. To substantiate the 'variable zoom' claim in the title and abstract, please provide at least a few intermediate ETL drive currents or voltages (or a continuous sweep of M versus ETL control) showing that the magnification varies monotonically and controllably between the endpoints.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figs. 4(c)-(h) and Fig. 5] The phase-validation comparison reports a background STD of 0.0023 rad with the ETL at 0D and 0.00024 rad without the ETL—an order-of-magnitude difference. The text attributes this to coma from vertical ETL mounting and then concludes that no significant phase variation is induced by the ETL. That conclusion is not fully supported by the reported numbers. Additionally, the SMIM DHM comparison in Fig. 5 uses a different set of cells from a different region of the sample, so it does not directly validate the phase values of the same cells shown in Fig. 4. Please either quantify the coma-induced phase error at the cell location or soften the conclusion to state that background phase stability is degraded when the ETL is present, but the cell-phase values remain comparable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1, NA calculation] The NA expression uses '(2.560x2.2)', which appears to be a typographical error; using the sensor half-width of 2.816 mm (2560×2.2 µm / 2) gives NA ≈ 0.22. Please correct the expression for clarity.
  2. [Figure 4 caption and related text] The caption lists '(g)-(f)' for the background phase distributions; this should read '(g)-(h)'. The same typo appears in the main text.
  3. [References] References 14 and 43 refer to the same paper (Sci Rep 2017;7:43291); the duplicate should be removed or cross-referenced.
  4. [Reference 33] Reference 33 lists 'Hankbook of holographic interferometry'; the correct spelling is 'Handbook'.
  5. [Section 4] The summary sentence 'we have reported on VZ-DIH' should read 'VZ-DIHM'.
  6. [Section 1] The phrase 'without neither replacement nor mechanical movement' is ungrammatical; consider 'without replacement or mechanical movement'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnification model is independent of the measured USAF values, and the self-cited reconstruction and phase-validation tools are not load-bearing for the zoom claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an electrically tunable lens shifts the effective illumination source position and thereby changes DIHM magnification and field of view. The derivation chain is independent: Eq. (1) defines geometric magnification M=(z+d)/z from the measured distances z and d; Eq. (2) estimates the ETL-induced source shift from nominal ETL diopters and the focusing-lens focal length; and the experimental magnifications in Table 1 (15.6X, 25.9X, 35.4X) are measured directly from known USAF target features, not extracted from the model. The theoretical curve in Fig. 3(a) is therefore a genuine prediction rather than a fit, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly acknowledges that Eq. (2) is approximate and that vertical ETL mounting may introduce coma (Secs. 2 and 4), but these are accuracy limitations, not circular reductions. The self-citations to MISHELF and SMIM work ([13,14,22,38]) are used as prior methodology or for an external phase-validation comparison, and they do not supply the zoom evidence; the phase comparison is corroborative only. Consequently the central zoom demonstration is self-contained and externally falsifiable against direct target measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard lensless-microscopy geometry and well-known diffraction propagation. No free parameters are fitted; the distances z and d are measured and the ETL powers are taken from the datasheet. The main risk is the approximate, and partly misprinted, formula for the ETL-induced source shift (Eq. 2), plus the uncalibrated assumption that the ETL delivers exactly the nominal diopter values.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Geometric magnification model M = (z+d)/z
    Eq. 1 in Sec. 2; assumes a point source, paraxial geometric projection, and that the source-sample distance z and sample-sensor distance d are well defined.
  • domain assumption Thin-lens, co-located lens model for the ETL and focusing lens (Eq. 2)
    Eq. 2 in Sec. 2; used to compute the source shift Δz from nominal ETL power. The paper acknowledges this is approximate and the printed equation is internally inconsistent with the quoted Δz values.
  • standard math Rayleigh-Sommerfeld convolution propagation is an exact numerical model
    Sec. 2, citing Refs. [33-35]; the reconstruction is performed by three FFTs, which is a standard, well-established method.
  • domain assumption Resolution limit ρ = λ/NA and NA from detector geometry
    Sec. 2; NA = sin{arctan[...]} from sensor size and d, giving ρ = 1.85 µm; this assumes diffraction-limited imaging and ignores sampling and aberration effects.
  • domain assumption ETL optical power is given by the manufacturer-rated values at the applied voltages
    Secs. 2 and 3.1; the -2D, 0D, 6D settings are taken from the Optotune datasheet without independent calibration in the setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variable zoom digital in-line holographic microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRR5QKHF

@misc{pith2026250109570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variable zoom digital in-line holographic microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRR5QKHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09570}
}
read the original abstract

We report on a novel layout providing variable zoom in digital in-line holographic microscopy (VZ-DIHM). The implementation is in virtue of an electrically tunable lens (ETL) which enables to slightly shift the illumination source axial position without mechanical movement of any system component. Magnifications ranging from 15X to 35X are easily achievable using the same layout and resulting in a substantial variation of the total field of view (FOV). The performance of the proposed setup is, first, validated using a resolution test target where the main parameters are analyzed (theoretically and experimentally) and, second, corroborated analyzing biological sample (prostate cancer cells) showing its application to biomedical imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical layout for the proposed variable magnification DIHM. CL, condenser lens; ETL, electrically tunable lens; FL, focusing lens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental validation using a resolution test target: (a)-(b)-(c) are the recorded in-line holograms when positive-zero-negative voltages are respectively applied to the ETL; these holograms are numerically focused at (d)-(e)-(f) where the insets are to magnify that the last 2 Elements of the Group 8 are resolved; and finally (g)-(h)-(i) includes the 3 elements of Group 9 where plots along the Elements 1 (orange) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Theoretical plot of the magnification curve and the points caused by the ETL variation; (b) magnification ratio produced by the ETL. Both curves are plotted as a function of the z distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental validation using a prostate cancer cell bio-sample: (a)-(b) are the intensity in￾focus images retrieved when the ETL is set to positive (ETL at 6D) and negative (ETL at - 2D) voltages, respectively, and where the dashed line rectangle in (a) bounds the rou…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prostate cancer cells visualized in phase. Experimental results obtained using a lab-made DHM platform based on a SMIM interferometric configuration with a 20X/0.46NA objective lens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Imaging without lenses: achievements and remaining challenges of wide- field on -chip microscopy

    Greenbaum A, Luo W, Su T -W, Göröcs Z, Xue L, Isikman SO, et al. Imaging without lenses: achievements and remaining challenges of wide- field on -chip microscopy. Nat Methods 2012;9:889–95. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2114

    work page doi:10.1038/nmeth.2114 2012

  2. [2]

    Lensless Imaging and Sensing

    Ozcan A, McLeod E. Lensless Imaging and Sensing. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2016;18:77–

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Unconventional methods of imaging: computational microscopy and compact implementations

    McLeod E, Ozcan A. Unconventional methods of imaging: computational microscopy and compact implementations. Rep Prog Phys 2016;79:076001. doi:10.1088/0034- 4885/79/7/076001

    doi:10.1088/0034- 2016

  4. [4]

    Lensless digital holographic microscopy and its applications in biomedicine and environmental monitoring

    Wu Y, Ozcan A. Lensless digital holographic microscopy and its applications in biomedicine and environmental monitoring. Methods 2018;136:4–16. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.08.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.08.013 2018

  5. [5]

    A New Microscopic Principle

    Gabor D. A New Microscopic Principle. Nature 1948;161:777–8. doi:10.1038/161777a0

    work page doi:10.1038/161777a0 1948

  6. [6]

    XIV.—Experiments in Diffraction Microscopy

    Rogers GL. XIV.—Experiments in Diffraction Microscopy. Proc R Soc Edinb Sect Math Phys Sci 1952;63:193–221. doi:10.1017/S0080454100007093

    work page doi:10.1017/s0080454100007093 1952

  7. [7]

    Digital in -line holography for biological applications

    Xu W, Jericho MH, Meinertzhagen IA, Kreuzer HJ. Digital in -line holography for biological applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2001;98:11301–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.191361398

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.191361398 2001

  8. [8]

    Lensless digital holographic microscope with light - emitting diode illumination

    Repetto L, Piano E, Pontiggia C. Lensless digital holographic microscope with light - emitting diode illumination. Opt Lett 2004;29:1132. doi:10.1364/OL.29.001132

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.29.001132 2004

Show all 54 references
  1. [10]

    Microbial population dynamics by digital in- line holographic microscopy

    Frentz Z, Kuehn S, Hekstra D, Leibler S. Microbial population dynamics by digital in- line holographic microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum 2010;81:084301. doi:10.1063/1.3473937. 19

    2010 doi

  2. [11]

    Lensless multispectral digital in -line holographic microscope

    Ryle JP, McDonnell S, Sheridan JT. Lensless multispectral digital in -line holographic microscope. J Biomed Opt 2011;16:126004. doi:10.1117/1.3659681

    2011 doi

  3. [12]

    Color lensless digital holographic microscopy with micrometer resolution

    Garcia-Sucerquia J. Color lensless digital holographic microscopy with micrometer resolution. Opt. Lett. 2012;37:1724-6. doi.org/10.1364/OL.37.001724

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    Improved quantitative phase imaging in lensless microscopy by single- shot multi -wavelength illumination using a fast convergence algorithm

    Sanz M, Picazo-Bueno JA, García J, Micó V. Improved quantitative phase imaging in lensless microscopy by single- shot multi -wavelength illumination using a fast convergence algorithm. Opt Express 2015;23:21352. doi:10.1364/OE.23.021352

    2015 doi

  5. [15]

    Ultra wide- field lens -free monitoring of cells on -chip

    Ozcan A, Demirci U. Ultra wide- field lens -free monitoring of cells on -chip. Lab Chip 2008;8:98–106. doi:10.1039/B713695A

    2008 doi

  6. [16]

    Multi -color LUCAS: Lensfree On -chip Cytometry Using Tunable Monochromatic Illumination and Digital Noise Reduction

    Seo S, Su T -W, Erlinger A, Ozcan A. Multi -color LUCAS: Lensfree On -chip Cytometry Using Tunable Monochromatic Illumination and Digital Noise Reduction. Cell Mol Bioeng 2008;1:146–56. doi:10.1007/s12195-008-0018-6

    2008 doi

  7. [18]

    Laser Light-field Fusion for Wide-field Lensfree On-chip Phase Contrast Microscopy of Nanoparticles

    Kazemzadeh F, Wong A. Laser Light-field Fusion for Wide-field Lensfree On-chip Phase Contrast Microscopy of Nanoparticles. Sci Rep 2016;6. doi:10.1038/srep38981

    2016 doi

  8. [19]

    Dynamics of cell and tissue growth acquired by means of extended field of view lensfree microscopy

    Momey F, Coutard J-G, Bordy T, Navarro F, Menneteau M, Dinten J -M, et al. Dynamics of cell and tissue growth acquired by means of extended field of view lensfree microscopy. Biomed Opt Express 2016;7:512. doi:10.1364/BOE.7.000512

    2016 doi

  9. [20]

    Reconstruction of high- resolution holographic microscopic images

    Kanka M, Riesenberg R, Kreuzer HJ. Reconstruction of high- resolution holographic microscopic images. Opt Lett 2009;34:1162. doi:10.1364/OL.34.001162. 20

    2009 doi

  10. [21]

    High resolution (NA=08) in lensless in- line holographic microscopy with glass sample carriers

    Kanka M, Riesenberg R, Petruck P, Graulig C. High resolution (NA=08) in lensless in- line holographic microscopy with glass sample carriers. Opt Lett 2011;36:3651. doi:10.1364/OL.36.003651

    2011 doi

  11. [22]

    Dual -mode holographic microscopy imaging platform

    Sanz M, Picazo -Bueno JA, García J, Micó V. Dual -mode holographic microscopy imaging platform. Lab Chip 2018;18:1105–12. doi:10.1039/C7LC01304C

    2018 doi

  12. [23]

    Achieving magnification smaller than 1 in lensless microscopy by illumination with a convergent wavefront

    Perraut F, Doménès M, Grateau H, Josso Q. Achieving magnification smaller than 1 in lensless microscopy by illumination with a convergent wavefront. Opt Lett 2016;41:5326. doi:10.1364/OL.41.005326

    2016 doi

  13. [24]

    Quantitative phase imaging system with slightly-off-axis configuration and suitable for objects both larger and smaller than the size of the image sensor

    Yang Y, Cheng Z -J, Zhao H-M, Yue Q-Y, Guo C-S. Quantitative phase imaging system with slightly-off-axis configuration and suitable for objects both larger and smaller than the size of the image sensor. Opt Express 2018;26:17199. doi:10.1364/OE.26.017199

    2018 doi

  14. [25]

    Fast two- layer two-photon imaging of neuronal cell populations using an electrically tunable lens

    Grewe BF, Voigt FF, van ’t Hoff M, Helmchen F. Fast two- layer two-photon imaging of neuronal cell populations using an electrically tunable lens. Biomed Opt Express 2011;2:2035. doi:10.1364/BOE.2.002035

    2011 doi

  15. [26]

    Rapid 3D light -sheet microscopy with a tunable lens

    Fahrbach FO, Voigt FF, Schmid B, Helmchen F, Huisken J. Rapid 3D light -sheet microscopy with a tunable lens. Opt Express 2013;21:21010. doi:10.1364/OE.21.021010

    2013 doi

  16. [27]

    High- speed transport -of-intensity phase microscopy with an electrically tunable lens

    Zuo C, Chen Q, Qu W, Asundi A. High- speed transport -of-intensity phase microscopy with an electrically tunable lens. Opt Express 2013;21:24060. doi:10.1364/OE.21.024060

    2013 doi

  17. [28]

    Enhanced quantitative phase imaging in self-interference digital holographic microscopy using an electrically focus tunable lens

    Schubert R, Vollmer A, Ketelhut S, Kemper B. Enhanced quantitative phase imaging in self-interference digital holographic microscopy using an electrically focus tunable lens. Biomed Opt Express 2014;5:4213. doi:10.1364/BOE.5.004213

    2014 doi

  18. [29]

    Reconstruction method for extended d epth-of-field optical diffraction tomography

    Krauze W, Kuś A, Śladowski D, Skrzypek E, Kujawińska M. Reconstruction method for extended d epth-of-field optical diffraction tomography. Methods 2018;136:40–9. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.10.005. 21

    2018 doi

  19. [30]

    Synthetic aperture microscopy based on referenceless phase retrieval with an electrically tunable lens

    Lee DJ, Han K, Lee HJ, Weiner AM. Synthetic aperture microscopy based on referenceless phase retrieval with an electrically tunable lens. Appl Opt 2015;54:5346. doi:10.1364/AO.54.005346

    2015 doi

  20. [31]

    Simple and flexible phase compensation for digital holographic microscopy with electrically tunable lens

    Deng D, Peng J, Qu W, Wu Y, Liu X, He W, et al. Simple and flexible phase compensation for digital holographic microscopy with electrically tunable lens. Appl Opt 2017;56:6007. doi:10.1364/AO.56.006007

    2017 doi

  21. [32]

    All -optical microscope autofocus based on an electrically tunable lens and a totally internally reflected IR laser

    Bathe-Peters M, Annibale P, Lohse MJ. All -optical microscope autofocus based on an electrically tunable lens and a totally internally reflected IR laser. Opt Express 2018;26:2359. doi:10.1364/OE.26.002359

    2018 doi

  22. [33]

    Hankbook of holographic interferometry: optical and digital methods (Wiley - VCH, 2005)

    Kreis T. Hankbook of holographic interferometry: optical and digital methods (Wiley - VCH, 2005)

    2005

  23. [34]

    Fast numerical reconstruction technique for high- resolution hybrid holographic microscopy

    Takaki Y, Ohzu H. Fast numerical reconstruction technique for high- resolution hybrid holographic microscopy. Appl Opt 1999;38:2204. doi: 10.1364/AO.38.002204

    1999 doi

  24. [35]

    Digital holography and digital image processing: principles, methods, algorithms (Kluwer, 2003)

    Yaroslavsky LP. Digital holography and digital image processing: principles, methods, algorithms (Kluwer, 2003)

    2003

  25. [36]

    Automatic method for focusing biological specimens in digital lensless holographic microscopy

    Trujillo CA, Garcia-Sucerquia J. Automatic method for focusing biological specimens in digital lensless holographic microscopy. Opt Lett 2014;39:2569. doi: 10.1364/OL.39.002569

    2014 doi

  26. [37]

    Refocus criterion for both phase and amplitude objects in digital holographic microscopy

    Dubois F, El Mallahi A, Dohet -Eraly J, Yourassowsky C. Refocus criterion for both phase and amplitude objects in digital holographic microscopy. Opt Lett 2014;39:4286. doi: 10.1364/OL.39.004286

    2014 doi

  27. [38]

    Single -shot slightly off- axis digital holographic microscopy with add-on module based on beamsplitter cube

    Picazo-Bueno JA, Trusiak M, Micó V. Single -shot slightly off- axis digital holographic microscopy with add-on module based on beamsplitter cube. Opt Express 2019;27:5655. doi:10.1364/OE.27.005655. 22

    2019 doi

  28. [39]

    Optical imaging techniques for point-of-care diagnostics

    Zhu H, Isikman SO, Mudanyali O, Greenbaum A, Ozcan A. Optical imaging techniques for point-of-care diagnostics. Lab Chip 2019;13:51-56. doi: 10.1039/c2lc40864c

    2019 doi

  29. [40]

    Imaging of dense cell cultures by multiwavelength lens- free video microscopy: Cell Cultures by Lens-Free Microscopy

    Allier C, Morel S, Vincent R, Ghenim L, Navarro F, Menneteau M, et al. Imaging of dense cell cultures by multiwavelength lens- free video microscopy: Cell Cultures by Lens-Free Microscopy. Cytometry A 2017;91:433–42. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23079

    2017 doi

  30. [41]

    High- throughput lensfree imaging and characterization of a heterogeneous cell solution on a chip

    Su T- W, Seo S, Erlinger A, Ozcan A. High- throughput lensfree imaging and characterization of a heterogeneous cell solution on a chip. Biotechnol Bioeng 2009;102:856–68. doi: 10.1002/bit.22116

    2009 doi

  31. [42]

    Field -portable lensfree tomographic microscope

    Isikman SO, Bishara W, Sikora U, Yaglidere O, Yeah J, Ozcan A. Field -portable lensfree tomographic microscope. Lab Chip 2011;11:2222. doi: 10.1039/c1lc20127a

    2011 doi

  32. [43]

    Compact, cost -effective and field -portable microscope prototype based on MISHELF microscopy

    Martín Sanz, José Ángel Picazo -Bueno, Luis Granero, Javier García, Vicente Micó. Compact, cost -effective and field -portable microscope prototype based on MISHELF microscopy. Sci Rep 2017;7:43291. doi: 10.1038/srep43291

    2017 doi

  33. [44]

    High- throughput monitoring of major cell functions by means of lensfree video microscopy

    Kesavan SV, Momey F, Cioni O, David- Watine B, Dubrulle N, Shorte S, et al. High- throughput monitoring of major cell functions by means of lensfree video microscopy. Sci Rep 2015;4. doi: 10.1038/srep05942

    2015 doi

  34. [45]

    Submersible digital in- line holographic microscope

    Jericho SK, Garcia-Sucerquia J, Xu W, Jericho MH, Kreuzer HJ. Submersible digital in- line holographic microscope. Rev Sci Instrum 2006;77:043706. doi: 10.1063/1.2193827

    2006 doi

  35. [46]

    Imaging and Identification of Waterborne Parasites Using a Chip -Scale Microscope

    Lee SA, Erath J, Zheng G, Ou X, Willems P, Eichinger D, et al. Imaging and Identification of Waterborne Parasites Using a Chip -Scale Microscope. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e89712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089712

    2014 doi

  36. [47]

    Development and deployment of a point-source digital inline holographic microscope for the study of plankton and particles to a depth of 6000 m: Deep- sea holographic microscopy

    Bochdansky AB, Jericho MH, Herndl GJ. Development and deployment of a point-source digital inline holographic microscope for the study of plankton and particles to a depth of 6000 m: Deep- sea holographic microscopy. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2013;11:28–40. doi: 10.4319/lom.2013...

    2013 doi

  37. [48]

    In -line digital holographic microscopy for terrestrial and exobiological research

    Jericho SK, Klages P, Nadeau J, Dumas EM, Jericho MH, Kreuzer HJ. In -line digital holographic microscopy for terrestrial and exobiological research. Planet Space Sci 2010;58:701–5. doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2009.07.012

    2010 doi

  38. [49]

    Tracking particles in four dimensions with in-line holographic microscopy

    Xu W, Jericho MH, Kreuzer HJ, Meinertzhagen IA. Tracking particles in four dimensions with in-line holographic microscopy. Opt Lett 2003;28:164. doi: 10.1364/OL.28.000164

    2003 doi

  39. [50]

    Recent advances in holographic 3D particle tracking

    Memmolo P, Miccio L, Paturzo M, Caprio GD, Coppola G, Netti PA, et al. Recent advances in holographic 3D particle tracking. Adv Opt Photonics 2015;7:713. doi: 10.1364/AOP.7.000713

    2015 doi

  40. [51]

    Compact, lensless digital holographic microscope for remote microbiology

    Serabyn E, Liewer K, Lindensmith C, Wallace K, Nadeau J. Compact, lensless digital holographic microscope for remote microbiology. Opt Express 2016;24:28540. doi: 10.1364/OE.24.028540

    2016 doi

  41. [52]

    High-throughput lensfree 3D tracking of human sperms reveals rare statistics of helical trajectories

    Su T-W, Xue L, Ozcan A. High-throughput lensfree 3D tracking of human sperms reveals rare statistics of helical trajectories. Proc Natl Acad Sci 201 2;109:16018–22. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212506109

    doi

  42. [53]

    Sperm Trajectories Form Chiral Ribbons

    Su T-W, Choi I, Feng J, Huang K, McLeod E, Ozcan A. Sperm Trajectories Form Chiral Ribbons. Sci Rep 2013;3. doi: 10.1038/srep01664

    2013 doi

  43. [54]

    Cost -effective and compact wide- field fluorescent imaging on a cell- phone

    Zhu H, Yaglidere O, Su T -W, Tseng D, Ozcan A. Cost -effective and compact wide- field fluorescent imaging on a cell- phone. Lab Chip 2011;11:315–22. doi: 10.1039/C0LC00358A

    2011 doi

  44. [55]

    A smartphone -based fluorescence microscope utilizing an external phone camera lens module

    Kim J -H, Joo H -G, Kim T -H, Ju Y -G. A smartphone -based fluorescence microscope utilizing an external phone camera lens module. BioChip J 2015;9:285–92. doi: 10.1007/s13206-015-9403-0

    2015 doi

  45. [56]

    Tomography by point source digital holographic microscopy

    Remacha C, Nickerson BS, Kreuzer HJ. Tomography by point source digital holographic microscopy. Appl Opt 2014;53:3520. doi: 10.1364/AO.53.003520. 24 FIGURE CAPTIONS Figure 1. Optical layout for the proposed variable magnification DIHM. CL, condenser lens; ETL, electrically tun...

    2014 doi

  46. [102]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-092515-010849

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.