Measure and model a 3-D space-variant PSF for fluorescence microscopy image deblurring

: Conventional deconvolution methods assume that the microscopy system is spatially invariant, introducing considerable errors. We developed a method to more precisely estimate space-variant point-spread functions from sparse measurements. To this end, a space-variant version of deblurring algorithm was developed and combined with a total-variation regularization. Validation with both simulation and real data showed that our PSF model is more accurate than the piecewise-invariant model and the blending model. Comparing with the orthogonal basis decomposition based PSF model, our proposed model also performed with a considerable improvement. We also evaluated the proposed deblurring algorithm. Our new deblurring algorithm showed a signiﬁcantly better signal-to-noise ratio and higher image quality than those of the conventional space-invariant algorithm. stage The conventional method this signiﬁcant into restoration results. To solve this we proposed an alternating optimization that combine a depth-updating into each conventional iterative step. The depth-updating iteration computes the location by maximizing conditional observed using the Newton’s method. We evaluated our proposed SV deconvolution method with both synthetic and real data. Compared with the results of the conventional space-invariant method, our results showed a signiﬁcant improvement in abrogating out-of-focus light and artifact noise suppression.


Introduction
3-D deconvolution is a powerful computational method for abrogating the effects of out-of-focus light originating from different depth planes in the specimen for any microscope system [1], such as wide-field microscopy (WFM) [2-4], laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) [5-7] and light sheet fluorescence microscopy (LSFM) [8,9]. This technique has been proven to be highly effective in removing blur and noise introduced during the imaging process, thus improving both the spatial resolution and the signal-to-noise ratio [10,11]. As a linear system, the fluorescence microscope can be characterized by its 3-D point-spread function (PSF), which plays an important role in the 3-D deconvolution.
Conventional deconvolution methods accept the assumption of a space-invariant PSF (SI-PSF) [6,12]. Most published deconvolution softwares, such as the commercial software Huygens and the open-source one DeconvolutionLab2 [13], also assume the system PSF invariant. However, microscope systems are not spatially invariant [14,15]. The assumption of SI-PSF limits the algorithm's performance and introduces significant errors into the results. Many factors may lead to spatial variation in the PSF. Generally, due to the differences in the optical path and the refractive index mismatch between the medium and sample, the PSF varies significantly along the optical axis [3,16]. In a thick specimen, this type of axial variation caused by the depth change of object point is the dominant component of the spatial variation. In addition, non-uniformity of illumination may also generate spatial variation in the PSF. For example, in a LSFM system, variation in the thickness of the light sheet, which is either a Gaussian or Bessel [8,9,15] beam, leads to radial variation in the PSF. As a result, the LSFM system achieves satisfactory resolution only in the central area of the light sheet, where its PSFs are most compact. Furthermore, stage-drift may also cause spatial variation in the PSF.
To improve the 3-D deconvolution performance, recent research studies have considered variation of the PSF [14,17]. In [18,19], the wavefront encoding were used to convert the SV system to a space invariant one so that a single PSF can be used in the restoration process. Because of the difficulty of measuring PSF, some studies [20-22] estimated the restored image and the system PSFs simultaneously. Although various theoretical models of the space-variant PSF (SV-PSF), such as the Gibson and Lanni model [23] and Richards and Wolf model [24], have been proposed over the past several decades, PSFs generated by these models are still inaccurate for practical systems due to the inaccuracy of the model itself and the inevitable errors of the critical parameters in the models. Therefore, the SV-PSF is usually determined using a series of sparse measurements. A simple method that uses a piecewise-invariant PSF to approximate the SV-PSF was proposed in previous studies [17], with PSF treated as invariant within a sub-region. In this model, the error of the estimated PSF increases as its distance to the measured PSF grows larger. The piecewise-invariant PSF model introduces considerable artifacts in contiguous areas of the sub-regions. Other methods involve numerical interpolation, such as the blending PSF model. For example, in some studies [25], the PSF was determined by two neighbor measurements using a linear blending function, whereas in another study [15], PSF at specific positions was interpolating using Nadaraya-Watson kernel regression with a Gaussian kernel. However, the blending PSF model only provides slightly better accuracy than that of the piecewise-invariant model when the PSF measurements are sparse. A method that decomposed the PSF to a series of orthonormal basis was also presented in study [4,26,27]. And in [14], linear combination and Zernike interpolation were combined for SV-PSF estimation. Recently, PSF fitting methods were introduced to this problem. In these methods, the 3-D voxel data of measurements were used to fit a theoretical model such as the Gaussian model [28] or the Gibson and Lanni model [29]. Nevertheless, fitting with a theoretical model has the following limitations: 1) The theoretical model itself may be inaccurate. For example, the Gaussian model is acceptable for LSCM but may introduce a substantial error into WFM or LSFM systems. 2) Sophisticated models such as the Gibson and Lanni model contain too many parameters. In a fitting problem, the number of parameters is restricted to avoid overfitting or reaching a local optimum. In this study, we aim to establish a more accurate method for SV-PSF estimation by considering the formation of spatial variation to the PSF, which is the fundamental problem of establishing a SV deblurring method for WFM, LSFM or other microscopies.
State-of-the-art deconvolution algorithms for 3-D fluorescent images assume that the PSF is shift variant. Algorithms based on the possibility model have been developed, such as the maximumlikelihood estimation method (MLE) [25,30] and maximum a posteriori algorithm [7, 31, 32]. Due to the ability of inferring out of band frequencies and the more accurate assumption of noise model, MLE has the superior capability to remove noise and is widely used in fluorescence image restoration. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of these methods proposed an effective solution to estimate the PSF with a matching optical path length (OPL). The variation of OPL from the observed object point to the back focal plane is known to be a dominant cause of PSF variation. Therefore, PSF estimation should proceed according to its OPL, which is difficult to acquire in measurements. Conventional methods directly scale the axial distance with the paraxial formula according to the reading of the stage position [33,34], which may reduce the accuracy of the PSFs.
In addition, there is a risk that the optimization process is ill-posed and that iteration may produce a noisy image. Therefore, a regularization term based on prior information must be incorporated to improve the algorithm performance. For example, the energy-based regularization presented by Conchello et al. leaves oscillations in the homogeneous area [35,36]. The Tikhonov-Miller regularization results in smoothed edges [37]. A total variation (TV) regularization was proposed to prevent noise amplification and simultaneously preserve the edges of the images [38,39].
In the current study, we aim to develop a practical 3-D space-variant (SV) image deblurring method with a measuring model of SV-PSF. We will first describe the formation of PSF variation and the main stages of our restoration framework. We then introduce the derivation of our proposed SV-PSF model with the similarity transformation and estimate the PSF located at a certain depth with this PSF measuring model. Additionally, we consider the stochastic error introduced by stage drift to achieve higher precision. In addition, we propose a space-variant maximum-likelihood (ML) method with TV regularization and present one solution to determine the actual position of the image region where the PSF should be densely estimated. Finally, we demonstrate that our proposed PSF model and restoration method provide higher resolution and more accurate restoration in experiments.

General framework of space-variant deblurring
In a SV system, the PSF varies due to the change in the position of the point source. In general, spatial variation can be categorized into radial and axial variation, which have different causes. In a microscope system, the response of a point source is a diffraction pattern image produced by the limiting aperture and spherical aberration. From the object points located at different depths in the specimen, light must pass through multiple layers of the sample, coverslip, and immersion oil, each of which may have significantly different refractive indices and thicknesses, resulting in an optical path difference (OPD, Fig. 1). Consequently, the diffusion pattern varies along the optical axis, and the OPD leads to an approximately periodic change in the concentric ring of the airy disk. In general, axial variation in the PSF that is caused by differences in depth is the most significant component in a microscope system. Therefore, a proper model capable of expressing the axial variation of the PSF is important for modeling and estimating the SV-PSF. Furthermore, the effects of stage drift may also produce stochastic axial variation in the PSF. Stage drift refers to random bias from the designed path due to the mechanical tolerance of the stage guide rail. See section 3.2 for the effects of stage drift on the PSF measurements. Nevertheless, the drift path commonly has poor reproducibility and differs among different imaging procedures. Stage drift should be estimated and corrected for both the PSF measurement and the sample image to effectively improve the accuracy of deconvolution. Radial variation in the PSF is commonly caused by objective-lens aberrations such as curvature of the field and coma aberration, which is correlated with the change in the radial distance between the object point and the optical axis. In the high-quality flat-field lenses of a commercial microscope system, these off-axis aberrations are negligible under most conditions. However, in certain microscopy techniques wherein illumination varies within the focal plane, non-uniform illumination may generate variation of the PSF in the radial plane. For example, the PSF varies within the light sheet (either Gaussian or Bessel beam) in a LSFM system [8,15]. The thickness change of the light sheet and the non-uniform intensity distribution lead to planar variation in the PSF.
To improve the deblurring performance for imaging thick specimens, we proposed a practical framework of 3-D SV deconvolution (Fig. 2) together with a novel method for modeling the SV-PSF. The proposed framework was divided into two stages: dense estimation for the SV-PSF and SV restoration. In the first stage, dense SV-PSFs were estimated according to the sparse measurements of randomly distributed fluorescent beads. To accurately estimate the SV-PSF, the formation of spatial variation must be considered into the model. In the second stage, we developed a 3-D SV restoration algorithm optimized using the ML method and based on the dense estimation of the SV-PSF. To avoid noise amplification and to preserve object edges, a proper regularization term should be designed. For a SV deblurring problem, it is important that the optical paths of the estimated SV-PSFs and that of the object points in the sample image are estimated and matched. In an optimal SV system, the object point should be deconvolved only by the corresponding PSF such that the optical path is exactly the same as that of the object point. Nonetheless, the optical path cannot be simply calculated according to the z-position readings of the stage during sample imaging because the reading reflects only the position of the stage itself but not the position of the object point. Therefore, estimating and matching the optical paths of the SV-PSFs and the sample image are critical for developing an improved deconvolution method.

Estimating the SV-PSF from sparse measurements
To measure the SV-PSF, images of sparsely distributed fluorophore beads of known diameter were recorded. We assumed that the PSF of the system smoothly varies over the image both axially and radially. To precisely estimate the SV-PSF, the axial and radial variations were correspondingly considered in the model. To extract the PSFs, the bead images were smoothed using a Gaussian filter, and local maxima were computed as coarse bead locations. Image of a single bead was then cropped from the original image. Because the fluorophore bead is a sphere with a known diameter, the PSFs could be computed by deconvolving the measured images with the prior knowledge of the bead shape [15]. The intensity distribution of the sphere could be modeled as a Gaussian function, wherein the standard deviation is chosen according to its diameter and the estimated coarse center. We then obtained a PSF measurements set H := h i (s) |i = 1, ..., N , where h i (s) refers to the discrete matrix representing one of the measured PSF and the coordinate s = (u, v, w) T , and a position set P : where p n refers to the fine center position of h i (s) calculating by the 3-D radial symmetry localization algorithm in the study [40]. The obtained PSF measurements were interpolated to form a center-adjusted PSF set H := {h i (s) |i = 1, ..., N } and its corresponding position set is P : where p i refer to the center position of the center-adjusted PSF h i (s), to prepare for the PSF modeling. See Fig. 3 for the diagram of the PSF estimation process.

Modeling and estimating the axial variation of PSF
In general, the axial shift variation in the PSF caused by depth change is the dominant component of the spatial variation in a microscope system. In this work, we considered establishing a method to generate a dense estimation of the SV-PSF from sparse measurements considering the depth variation in the PSF. Assuming h i (s) and h j (s) are two PSF measurements from set H, we assume that there exists a function T (·) that allows a measured PSF h i (s) to express the PSF Fig. 3. A diagram illustrating the process of SV-PSF estimation. The PSF at any specific depth is defined as a weighted average of all its approximations from measurements using the similarity transformation. Stage drift was also considered in most cases.
where h i (s) refers to the intensity of light at s = (u, v, w) T of the measured PSF. For object points located at different depths in the specimen, light from those points must pass through multiple layers with significantly varying thicknesses and refractive indices, resulting in OPD. The image of a point-source object is known to be the diffraction pattern produced when a spherical wave converges with the image point on the detector plane. The OPD between two object points leads to a phase shift in their wavefront, resulting in an approximately periodic change in the concentric ring of the airy disk. Therefore, variation of the diffraction pattern can be well approximated using a similarity transformation process. Function T (·) that allows h i (s) to approximate h j (s) was defined by a similarity transformation, where θ i j is the similarity transformation matrix, where α i j , β i j refer to the scaling parameters which transform h i (s) to approximate h j (s) in the radial and axial direction, respectively. Then, the residual error is where · refers to the L2-norm and the parameter θ i j can be computed as To solve the nonlinear fitting problem, we minimize the least-square criterion using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm [41,42]. Table 1 gives the derivative expression for each parameter in θ i j refer to the gradient of h i θ i j s along the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis, respectively.
We evaluated our PSF approximation model, which is based on the similarity transformation, for both synthetic and real data. The synthetic PSFs were generated using an ImageJ plugin called the PSF Generator [29] ( http://bigwww.epfl.ch/algorithms/psfgenerator/ )

Parameter
Derivative expressions with Gibson and Lanni model. The real data was recorded from sparsely distributed fluorophore beads. The similarity transform θ i j between pairwise PSFs was calculated using equation (5) and Table 1. The results from both synthetic and real data clearly implied that the parameters of similarity transform between PSF pairs are linear functions of their depth variation within a small range, which is α = k r ∆z, β = k z ∆z and ∆z refers to the relative depth (Figs. 4(a) and 4(d)). Fig. 4(g) shows that k r and k z decrease when beads go deeper. We also compared the approximate difference between PSF pairs with and without similarity transformation (Figs. 4(b) and 4(e)). The results indicated that our model could significantly reduce the approximation error. Therefore, we established a method to estimate the SV-PSF from sparse measurements based on the similarity transformation.
To reduce error, the proposed method uses all of the PSF measurements efficiently. The PSF estimationĥ (s; s 0 ) whose point source is located at the coordinate s 0 = (u 0 , v 0 , w 0 ) T in the image domain, is defined as a weighted average of all its approximations T (h i (s) ; θ i ) from measurements using the similarity transform.
where θ i refers to the similarity transformation matrix that allows h i (s) to approximatesĥ (s; s 0 ), A is the constraint of normalization, and the weighting function where z refers to the axial position of the object point s 0 , z i refers to the axial center position of h i (s), and ∆z thr esh refers to the threshold of the relative depth ∆z.
To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed SV-PSF estimation method, we compared our method with the piecewise-invariant model [17] and the blending model [25] on both the synthetic and real measured PSF data. In the synthetic data tests, the MSE between the estimated PSF and the ground truth were compared (Fig. 4(c)). In the real data tests, some of the data were used as measurements to estimate the PSF and to compare with the remaining portion, which was treated as ground truth (Fig. 4(f)). The results indicated that the PSF from our model is more accurate than that from the piecewise-invariant and the blending PSF models for both synthetic and real data. In addition, as for the real data, our model remarkably reduced the MSE in the region of sparse measurements, while in the region where the PSFs were densely measured our method is still slightly better. See Fig. 5 (Figs. 4(h) and 4(i)) and the results showed that our proposed model was more precise in sparse measurements.

Stage drift estimation and correction
Stage drift may result in both axial variation in the PSF and a stochastic lateral shift in the image layer. As above discussed, the drift path has poor reproducibility (Figs. 6(a) and 6(c)). Different The synthetic data was generated by PSF Generator, the ImageJ plugin with acquisition parameters: the emission wavelength λ=530nm, the numerical aperture of the microscope N A = 1.4, the refractive index of the oil-immersion layer n i = 1.515, the refractive index of the specimen layer n s = 1.3, the working distance t i = 150µm and the voxel size 25 × 25 × 100nm 3 . Besides, the particle position is set from 1000 nm to 3500 nm whose step is 50 nm. S.T. refers to the acronym of similarity transformation. The real data was acquired by Leica SP8 microscope system and a NA 1.4 oil-immersion objective under wide-field mode with the same λ, n i and voxel size as the synthetic data. (g) Slopes for coefficients of similarity transformation along with different depths. (h-i) Comparison between our proposed similarity transformation based PSF model (STM) with the PCA based model of approximating PSFs at 1 − 3.5µm with step equal to 100 nm using six synthetic PSFs at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5µm for parameter fitting. distortions in the main axis between the sample imaging and PSF measurement cause significant degradation of the restoration results. Therefore, stage drift should be corrected in both the sample image and the PSF measurement by aligning the image layers.
Stage drift correction was performed by estimating the drift paths and aligning them to a vertical line. The stage drift of the PSF measurements was estimated by computing the symmetric centers of the PSF in each layer. Drift path estimation for a sample image may use inserted fluorophore beads or small structures on the sample. For one PSF measuring image, which contained multiple beads, the path of the drift was calculated by averaging the distortion estimated from all beads. Therefore, the PSFs in the dataset H := {h i (s) |i = 1, ..., N } were corrected by numerical interpolation for the voxel data of the PSF measurements according to the drift path of the stage. Nevertheless, the localization of the PSF center was also fine-tuned. A 3-D radial-symmetry-based localization method [40] was employed to calculate the center of the PSF at sub-pixel resolution. Figs. 6(b) and 6(d) show the drifted and corrected PSF.

The radial variation of the PSF in LSFM
In WFM and LSCM systems, the radial shift variation is mainly caused by objective-lens aberrations such as curvature of field, coma aberration, and astigmatism. In high-quality flat-field lenses, these off-axis aberrations are sufficiently minimized to be negligible under most conditions over the central image field. However, in LSFM, samples are excited by Gaussian or Bessel beams, and such settings can lead to blurring with a PSF that varies within the non-uniform beam-excited LSFM [8,15]. Considering the non-uniformity of the excitation light sheet, a system PSF of the LSFM is computed as the pointwise product of the intrinsic PSF and the intensity distribution of its illumination field [43] (Fig. 7). Here, the system between the object point and detector is characterized as the intrinsic PSF. Assuming that the illumination beam is uniform along the y-axis, the system PSF can be expressed as follows

3-D space-variant restoration
Comparing with the axial variation, the radial variation of PSF is minimized to be negligible in commercial microscope systems after stage-drift correction. Therefore, we simplified the SV system to a depth-variant (DV) one. Bello noted that the linear time-variant (LTV) system can be described via an integral transform with a time-dependent kernel [44]. Similarly, as the microscope is linearly DV in practice, we defined an operator ⊗ as the discrete version of the DV quasi-convolution operator in the image domain.
where M is the number of strata and f m (s) contains the mth stratum of the object.
f m (s) = f (s) for z = m 0 otherwise (10) * denotes the 3D convolution operation and h m (s) is the system response to a point source placed at the mth stratum. As h m (s) can be approximated by a linear combination of several transforming PSFs from the PSF measurements set, the operator ⊗ can be simplified as Thus, the Fourier transformation of f m (s) and h i (s) only need to computed once that avoiding considerable repeated computation. Based on the depth-variant ML restoration method proposed in [25], it is easy to derive the iteration of DV deconvolution as follows where f (k) m (s) refers to the mth stratum of f (k) (s), and f (k) (s) is the estimate of the raw image after k iterations. For a DV system, the PSF is a function of its actual depth. In other words, the object point should be convolved only by the PSF for that depth matched. Unfortunately, it is difficult, even impossible to determine the axial position z according to readings from the stage or image coordinate m during sample imaging, even if the same thickness of the coverslip and the refractive index of the immersion oil and coverslip were given. Because the axial position reading could guarantee only the position of the stage itself rather than the position of the object point. Axial variation in the PSF is a function of the OPL from the observed object point to the back focal plane. Therefore, estimating and matching the OPL of the PSF measurement and sample imaging is an essential problem.
As the axial image position z is unknown, we proposed an alternating optimization solution that combined a depth-updating iterative procedure into each image-updating iterative step. The axial location z was updated using the Newton's method by minimizing the log-likelihood function As h (s; s 0 ) in J ( f ) was related to its axial location z, we rewrote J ( f ) as J ( f , z). In the first image-updating iteration, the axial location z was set according to the scaling axial distance with the reading of the stage depth [33,34] . In later iterations, the initial z used the last estimation value of depth. The depth-updating iteration is expressed as The partial derivative and the second partial derivative of J ( f , z) with respect to depth z is shown as where the partial derivative and the second partial derivative of the PSF h (s; s 0 ) with respect to depth z is written as where k r and k z refer to the computed slope of the scaling parameters along the radial and axial directions. In this manner, the axial location of sample z converges to an optimum to match the optical paths of the PSF and image sample. Thereafter, we can achieve a more precise image restoration than that of the conventional space-invariant method. To solve the above ill-posed inverse problem, a regularization term must be carefully selected. The restoration result is always a trade-off between preserving details and avoiding noise amplification. The TV regularization has been proven to be highly effective in preserving the edges in the image and smoothing in homogeneous areas [38]. Therefore, we introduced a TV regularization term to the proposed SV deconvolution algorithm and the regularized likelihood function is shown as where J TV ( f ) refers to the TV regularization term, λ TV is the regularization parameter, |·| refers to the L1-norm and ∇ refers to the gradient. The iteration of the proposed DV deconvolution algorithm is modified as

Evaluation
We evaluated our proposed SV deconvolution algorithm and compared it with the conventional deconvolution algorithm on synthetic data and real data. The mean square error (MSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and the normal mean I-divergence criteria were used to quantify the quality of the deblurred image. Because the ground truth is unknown in a real data experiment, real data were used to validate the algorithm without quantitative analysis. See Fig. 8 for the deblurring experiments on three synthetic test samples: three balls, a cavity and multi-objects. These synthetic object images were intentionally blurred with SV-PSFs and then degraded by Poisson noise. The restoration results from the conventional ML algorithm (SI-MLTV) and our proposed method (SV-MLTV) are compared and shown in Fig. 8 respectively.
The restored results using space-invariant algorithm show significant residual distortion related to stage drift and ring-shaped artifacts resulting from variation in the PSF. Additionally, the results restored by our proposed method show sharper edges and a more accurate distribution of intensity than the restored images using the constant PSF. For further validation, we introduced the proposed restoration method into more complicated images (Figs. 9 and 10). The cultured neuronal axons were acquired with a Leica SP8 microscope system and an Andor iXon EMCCD camera under both confocal and wide-field mode. To evaluate with the ground truth, confocal z-stack image was blurred with varying synthetic PSFs to simulate a wide-field data. Real Images was captured under the wide-filed mode was also tested. Our restoration results show sharper edges, better continuity of axonal fibers, and fewer artifacts comparing with the conventional SI methods (Figs. 9, 10 and 11). We also evaluated our proposed restoration method in a particle detection application scenario (Fig. 12). In our previous study, we reported an algorithm for detecting and tracking mitochondria, organelles critical for cellular survival and function [45]. The numerical results of particle detection in the images restored by different deconvolution algorithms is shown in Table 2. We used the F-value to measure the quality of particle detection. More particles were correctly detected from the restored image with our method, resulting much higher F-value than conventional method. We calculate the numerical criteria mentioned and our proposed method shows significant improvements in MSE, PSNR and I-divergence (Table 3).

Conclusions
In this work, we studied the 3-D SV deblurring problem for fluorescent image restoration and reconstruction. A SV-PSF model was proposed that enables generating a dense estimation of the SV-PSF from sparse measurements. In this model, the formation mechanism of axial and radial variation was considered. We proved that the similarity transformation between PSF pairs is approximately a linear function of their depth variation and is a much more accurate way to model the SV-PSF than the piecewise-invariant model and the blending model. Besides, the proposed PSF model was verified to be more precise than the PCA based model in sparse measurements. In our proposed SV-PSF estimation model, the PSF was defined as a weighted average of all of its approximations via similarity transformation. Thus, we could compute the PSF at any specific depth by effectively using all of the PSF measurements. With both synthetic and real data, our SV-PSF model was proven to be more accurate than conventional methods. We also theoretically discussed PSF estimation of the LSFM system. We defined an intrinsic PSF that characterized the system from the object point to the detector. Given the light beam intensity distribution and intrinsic PSF, we presented an efficient method for estimating the system PSF of a LSFM system. Furthermore, we proved that the stage drift in a commercial microscope system should not be ignored and presented a detailed drift correction method. Similar to the problem in the LTV system, the SV quasi-convolution operator was defined, and the SV version of the deconvolution algorithm was given based on the depth-variant ML restoration method. In a linear SV system, the PSF is a function of its actual position, i.e., the object point should be convolved only by the PSF that optical path matched. The axial position could not be estimated accurately from the reading of the stage or the point coordinate of the sample image. The conventional method ignored this problem, introducing significant error into the restoration results. To solve this problem, we proposed an alternating optimization solution that combine a depth-updating iteration into each conventional image-updating iterative step. The depth-updating iteration computes the image location by maximizing the conditional probability of the given observed image using the Newton's method. We evaluated our proposed SV deconvolution method with both synthetic and real data. Compared with the results of the conventional space-invariant method, our results showed a significant improvement in abrogating out-of-focus light and artifact noise suppression.
In this work, by solving the problems of SV-PSF modeling and establishing a SV restoration algorithm, we presented a practical method to significantly improve deblurring for fluorescent image. The algorithm was coded with MATLAB. We provided the source code and the sample data online at http://ese.nju.edu.cn/yogo/svdecon.zip for evaluation. This method should be highly useful for image restoration and 3-D reconstruction of images.