Enhancing the Quality of Sampled Phase-Only Hologram (SPOH) Based on Time-Division Comb Filtering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is very hard to follow because the principle and methods are not clearly explained.
Images of the downsampling masks used in the object domain would be helpful to readers.
There is no discussion of the phases selected for the object plane intensities. How were the phases selected? Did these effect the diffraction efficiency and uniformity of the intensity peaks? Did the downsampling lower the variation/interference between the peaks?
Did the phase only hologram and undersampling cause there to be replica regions and unwanted noise outside the region of interest that was reconstructed?
The experiment should be described better. If a laser was used please state. What camera and SLM were used? The article appears to describe the light as a complex amplitude but the experiments present intensity. A square root of the recorded intensity, or the magnitude square of the predicted intensity would enable comparisons between prediction and experiment.
You give examples of different values of downsampling number tau. How does the selection of this number effect quality of the reconstruction?
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to express my sincere thanks to you for the valuable comments and suggestions. I have revised the manuscript accordingly, with the main modified parts highlighted in BLUE. I have also replied to the various comments by reviewers. I hope that after the revision and the replies, the manuscript is ready for publication.
Sincerely,
Peter Tsang
Corresponding author.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
some comments are in pdf file, the other are as follows:
Scheme in Fig. 3 is not clear – I mean writing “hologram generation” is very general – and it is known how it is generated. The same with arrow and text “Fresnel hologram” – means that we have to do what? I would recommend redesigning this scheme.
In section 3.1 (at the beginning) I would precise the term “comb filtering” – for people “from the field” it is obvious, but not everybody must know – that filtering will remove copies (convolution) not return the value in comb points (multiplication). I would recommend to clarify that.
Best regards!
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to express my sincere thanks to you for the valuable comments and suggestions. I have revised the manuscript accordingly, with the main modified parts highlighted in BLUE. I have also replied to the various comments by reviewers. I hope that after the revision and the replies, the manuscript is ready for publication.
Sincerely,
Peter Tsang
Corresponding author.
Please see the attachment.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some useful clarifications were added to this version. Further improvements are needed to make this paper understandable and the reported results reproducible.
The SLM and laser were not identified. Which models were they? What are the characteristics of the SLM, such as phase modulation range, number of levels and depth? Was any calibration used?
From the 1D simulations, apparently some of the replicas are suppressed to a large degree. It would be helpful to see a wide field image of the reconstruction to see what the replicas look like.
The 2D photos don't really give a sense of the dynamic range of the intensity patterns. Some intensity cross sections compared with the simulations would be helpful here. Linear and possibly also log intensity plots might be needed to see the range.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The SLM is still not described. The manuscript states that the SLM is designed. Does this mean the authors designed it? It is also claimed to be high speed, but no number is given. Other information is lacking, such as pixel size, number of pixels, modulating material used. Frame rate for the experiments and integration time for the averaged recordings not given. No quantitative comparison given between the theoretical reconstruction and the actual.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
The addition of the SLM information was very helpful. There were some additional changes that improve the paper, including the correlation scores.
This one minor change would be helpful for your readers. When describing the SLM also say that it is reflective.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
