[PRE REVIEW]: LenslessPiCam: A Hardware and Software Platform for Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ebezzam<!--end-author-handle-- (Eric Bezzam) Repository: https://github.com/LCAV/LenslessPiCam Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danasolav<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @antipa, @vboomi, @raolivei13 Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/251f14f2ffe4ccf239796ad4a71e2bb7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/251f14f2ffe4ccf239796ad4a71e2bb7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/251f14f2ffe4ccf239796ad4a71e2bb7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/251f14f2ffe4ccf239796ad4a71e2bb7)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ebezzam. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@ebezzam if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.29 s (138.4 files/s, 18587.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          33            654            961           3053
Markdown                         4            131             13            445
TeX                              1              9              0             84
Arduino Sketch                   1              2              1             12
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            40            797            975           3600
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2169

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[danielskatz]

👋 @ebezzam - this software looks really interesting, but I'm not sure if it fits the definition of research software as defined by JOSS. This does not mean that it is not software that is useful in research, but just that JOSS might not consider it in scope for review as research software.

The editors will now discuss if it meets this criterion for review by JOSS. You should hear back in a week or two.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[danielskatz]

@xuanxu - any idea why the reference check isn't happening?

[arfon]

@editorialbot check references

[xuanxu]

The Crossref API is currently down and returning timeout errors. The check references command should work once they solve the problem.

[danielskatz]

Is this something we can catch and report to the command issuer?

[xuanxu]

Is this something we can catch and report to the command issuer?

Probably, at least a general message pointing to a problem with the Crossref calls should be feasible

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot check references

Should work now

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/icassp.2017.8005297 may be a valid DOI for title: Hardware and software for reproducible research in audio array signal processing
- 10.1109/icassp.2019.8682923 may be a valid DOI for title: Teaching Practical DSP with Off-the-shelf Hardware and Free Software
- 10.1561/9781601984616 may be a valid DOI for title: Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers
- 10.1109/cvpr.2018.00068 may be a valid DOI for title: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metric
- 10.1137/080716542 may be a valid DOI for title: A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems
- 10.1364/oe.27.028075 may be a valid DOI for title: Learned reconstructions for practical mask-based lensless imaging

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @ebezzam, while the scope review happens, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[ebezzam]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1364/OPTICA.431361 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2017.8005297 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2019.8682923 is OK
- 10.1561/2200000016 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00068 is OK
- 10.1137/080716542 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.27.028075 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[ebezzam]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ebezzam]

Hi @danielskatz, sorry for the late reply! I didn't have my GitHub notifications properly setup and was checking from the JOSS site for the status of the paper to see if an "issue" had been raised for the paper.

Thanks for the tips to fix the missing DOIs. They should be good now and the PDF has been generated.

[ebezzam]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ebezzam]

but I'm not sure if it fits the definition of research software as defined by JOSS.

@danielskatz thank you for raising this concern. To address this point, as the title may not reflect that this is actually a software package. Here's how we believe LenslessPiCam meets the scope of research software as defined by JOSS:

• “Solves complex modeling problems in in a scientific context”: the proposed package includes an algorithmic component with multiple techniques for solving problems of the form Eq 1 in the paper, which are typical in lensless imaging.
• “Supports the functioning of research instruments or the execution of research experiments”: there is very little software available online to conduct lensless imaging experiments (only one we are aware of is DiffuserCam-Tutorial which only provides a script for capture and with a poor quality sensor). We provide the designs to build a lensless camera and software to collect a dataset with it.

Moreover, the package does not require building the lensless camera in order to find use. The modular algorithmic components and functionality to compute performance metrics can be used with datasets collected by other cameras (as we've shown with this popular dataset in the lensless imaging community) in order to explore new reconstruction approaches.

Hope that helps clarify.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @danasolav as editor

@danasolav this may be a bit off topic but do you think with your experience with Raspberry Pi cameras you can help edit this work? I can help too if needed.

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ebezzam the editorial board has determined this may be in scope for JOSS so I've removed the query-scope flag. We are now proceeding to find a handling editor.

[danasolav]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I am going to be away from work until April 25th. Maybe it's better to assign it to someone else. Otherwise I can take it on when I'm back.

[arfon]

:wave: @danasolav – I think we'd like to take you up on this. I'll go ahead and assign you as an editor now. Thanks!

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign @danasolav as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danasolav is now the editor

[danasolav]

@ebezzam if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

[ebezzam]

Hi @danasolav thank you for agreeing to be handling editor. I've looked over the list and found the following people to be suitable, given their interest and experience with hardware / embedded systems:

• phckopper
• julianstirling
• ixjlyons
• aquilesC

We were wondering if people outside the list could be asked to review? For example, the authors of the DiffuserCam tutorial whose work we compare against.

[danasolav]

@ebezzam you can definitely suggest reviewers who are not on the list. If you have additional suggestions, please list them here.

[danasolav]

@antipa, would you be interested in reviewing this work on Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi (resository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

In case you are not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[danasolav]

@ixjlyons, @julianstirling, @aquilesC, would you be interested in reviewing this work on Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi (resository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

In case you are not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[aquilesC]

Thanks for the invite, but I have no time this month for a review. Hope you find someone, if it's still pending in mid-June, feel free to ping me again.

[ebezzam]

@danasolav I've had a small email exchange with @antipa and he said he'd be happy to help out with the review and to add him as a reviewer.

[danasolav]

@antipa, please confirm that you can review this submission.

[danasolav]

@editorialbot add @antipa as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@antipa added to the reviewers list!

[ixjlyons]

@danasolav sorry, I don't think I can commit to a review at the moment.

[antipa]

@danasolav Sorry for the late reply! I am happy to help out, though I will likely need to delegate to some of my PhD students.

[danasolav]

@antipa thank you for confirming. Hopefully the review will start soon.

[danasolav]

@YichengWu, would you be interested in reviewing this work on Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi (resository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

In case you are not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[danasolav]

@THUHoloLab, would you be interested in reviewing this work on Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi (resository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

In case you are not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[danasolav]

@YichengWu, @THUHoloLab, @julianstirling, just checking again to see if you would be interested in reviewing this software?

[danasolav]

@monakhova, would you be interested in reviewing this work on Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi (repository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

In case you are not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[danasolav]

@BobPXX, would you be interested in reviewing this work on Lensless Computational Imaging with a Raspberry Pi (repository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

In case you are not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[YichengWu]

@YichengWu, @THUHoloLab, @julianstirling, just checking again to see if you would be interested in reviewing this software?

Hi @danasolav, sorry for missing your previous message. I am quite busy currently and will not be able to help. Sorry about that.