the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
In-Line Holographic Droplet Imaging: Accelerated Classification with Convolutional Neural Networks and Quantitative Experimental Validation
Abstract. Accurate measurements of cloud particle size, shape, and concentration are essential for microphysical cloud research. Holographic imaging is ideal for three-dimensional analyses of particle size, shape, and spatial distribution in large sample volumes, but its post-processing often leads to operator-dependent results and introduces uncertainties in detection efficiency. Here we present CloudTarget, which uses a chrome photomask with a customised pattern of opaque circles as a verification tool to quantify detection efficiency and evaluate size and position errors. CloudTarget provides a ground truth for optimizing hologram processing parameters, including detection, sizing, and classification thresholds, and it facilitates evaluations of size- and position-dependent detection efficiency and uncertainties. Additionally, we present a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for object classification that achieves high accuracy with moderate training data. In a holography setup featuring a 5120 x 5120 pixel imaging sensor, a 3 µm effective pixel size, and 355 nm illumination, the CNN achieves over 90 % recall and precision for particles larger than 7 µm in a 10 x 1.3 x 1.3 cm3 detection volume. The average focus position error remains below 150 µm (1.5 times the reconstruction resolution) for particles <10 cm from the image plane, with in-plane random position detection errors below 5 pixels (mean < 2 pixels). By combining inverse techniques with CloudTarget, the sizing error standard deviation is reduced to about 2 µm. Overall, classification performance improves significantly, and a 100-fold increase in classification speed is achieved.
- Preprint
(48653 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-612', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-612/egusphere-2025-612-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-612', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2025
This is good work addressing a practical problem for holographic cloud probes. The results are important for the atmospheric science community and I would expect that this paper will be published fairly easily after some minor revisions, mainly identified already by the other reviewer. Here are my minor comments:
(1) The authors use the standard Huygens-Fresnel reconstruction method, which is indeed appropriate here. I do wonder though if they have considered the more accurate angular spectrum method, and if so, why they chose not to use it instead. Probably there is not much difference for such large particles.
(2) Around line 55, the authors address the promising concepts of skipping reconstruction. Because the particles here are spheres, the problem is actually simplified quite a bit. I wonder if the authors are aware of the very fast, very simple method in Denis et al. to size spherical particles quite accurately without reconstruction? See: Denis, Loïc, Corinne Fournier, Thierry Fournel, Christophe Ducottet, and Dominique Jeulin. "Direct extraction of the mean particle size from a digital hologram." Applied Optics 45, no. 5 (2006): 944-952.
(3) Regarding clumping small glass beads around line 275, there is an effective method to deal with this effect. Simply use sonification as shown in Fig. 6 in Giri, Ramesh, and Matthew J. Berg. "The color of aerosol particles." Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (2023): 1594.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-612-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-612', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Jun 2025
The manuscript "In-Line Holographic Droplet Imaging: Accelerated Classification with Convolutional Neural Networks and Quantitative Experimental Validation" by Thiede et al shows a very interesting new technique to improve assessment of holographic instruments and improvement of data quality. I enjoyed reading this manuscript and suggest minor revisions.
I believe the manuscript could be more concise in several areas when well-known topics are being discussed, even though they are presented nicely and thoroughy here. It might help to give focus on the actual new results.
minor comments:
in table 2 it is hard to see which line the notes belong to, maybe separating them would make it clearer.
in line 322 you say 3 or 4 - when is it which? under which circumstances is it which?
same in line 385: is it 1 or 2?
typos:
Line 148 typo - -
Line 256 typo an
Line 399 typo: filtering
Line 621: space missing
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-612-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
218 | 132 | 17 | 367 | 11 | 25 |
- HTML: 218
- PDF: 132
- XML: 17
- Total: 367
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1