Journal of Microscopy, Vol. 237, Pt 2 2010, pp. 111–118 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2009.03325.

x
Received 27 March 2009; accepted 3 August 2009

Lagrange time delay estimation for scanning electron microscope

image magnification

K.S. SIM, L.W. THONG, H.Y. TING & C.P. TSO

Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia

Key words. Finite impulse response, Lagrange time delay, scanning electron
microscope.

Summary There are a few common interpolation software that are

Interpolation techniques that are used for image magnification
to obtain more useful details of the surface such as
morphology and mechanical contrast usually rely on the
signal information distributed around edges and areas of
sharp changes and these signal information can also be used
to predict missing details from the sample image. However,
many of these interpolation methods tend to smooth or blur
out image details around the edges. In the present study,
a Lagrange time delay estimation interpolator method is
proposed and this method only requires a small filter order
and has no noticeable estimation bias. Comparing results with
the original scanning electron microscope magnification and
results of various other interpolation methods, the Lagrange
time delay estimation interpolator is found to be more efficient,
more robust and easier to execute.
Introduction
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) is one of the most
powerful instruments that can image and analyse bulk
specimens (Goldstein et al., 1992; Reimer, 1998). One of
its important applications is image magnification through
its hardware. However, over-exposure of a sample in the
SEM machine will lead to image contamination, due to
the constant bombardment by the electrons. Therefore, to
reduce image contamination, we can apply an interpolation
method on a low-magnification image to obtain the
needed higher magnification. By doing so, we only need
to capture a single low-magnification image, which will
definitely reduce the local areas of contamination. Moreover,
software magnification has the advantage over mechanical
magnification, which requires careful alignment of sample
location. Potentially, the software magnification can also be
embedded into the SEM system.
Correspondence to: Kok-Swee Sim. Tel: (606)252–3480; fax: (606)231–6552;
e-mail: sksbg2003@gmail.com
available in the literature, such as nearest neighbourhood,
bilinear, bicubic and Hermite interpolation (Gonzalez &
Woods, 1992; Kim & Ko, 2000; Gonzalez et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, there are several drawbacks for these methods.
Nearest neighbourhood, bilinear and bicubic interpolation
methods are limited by the number of image pixels in
each image whereas Hermite interpolation method suffers
on lengthy computation time. Hence, we propose to reduce
these limitations by using the Lagrange time delay estimation
interpolation (LATDEI) model and to study its performance
based on various images at different magnifications and noise
contamination levels.
The proposed method
In this paper, we introduce a finite impulse response for band-
limited approximation of a fractional digital delay onto the
LATDEI algorithm. In the x-direction, when delaying signal
rx (t) with time shifted tD , we write the new signal as x(t) =
rx (t − tD ). After converting them into discrete signals by
sampling at t = kT , where T is the sampling interval and
k is an integer time index, we can obtain the time delay signal,
as by Laakso et al. (1996), without any lost of generality as
∞

x(k) = r x (k − D̃ ) = h i d (n)r x (k − n), − ∞ < k < +∞,
n=−∞
(1)
where hid (n) is the transfer function of time delay, and D̃ is
a positive real number that can be split into an integer and
fractional part as
D̃ = I nt (D ) + d = tD /T . (2)
Taking non-integer values of D̃ , we use a band-limited
interpolation to approximate x(k),which lies between the two
samples of rx (k − Int(D )) and rx (k − Int(D ) − 1). The d in
Eq. (2) is a fractional delay of discrete signal (Hermanowics,
1992). This established fractional delay filter will be employed

C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society
112 K.S. SIM ET AL.

to develop Lagrange interpolation finite impulse response filter

later.
For a given set of sequential data {ki , xx (ki )}(0 ≤ i ≤ N), we
see that the N- degree polynomial

N
x(k x ) = g i k xi (3)
i =0

gives the approximation of x at the point kx , which lies in

the interval [k 0 , kN ]. The coefficient{g i }can be obtained by
following the Cramer’s rule (Ogata, 1967) and g i = i , where
(i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N). In order to find the coefficients, we need to
solve for , which is Vandermonde’s determinant given as
⎡ ⎤
1 k0 · · · k0k · · · k0N
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 k1 · · · k1k · · · k1N ⎥
⎢ ⎥
 = det ⎢ ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥=
⎥ (k j − km ),
⎢. . . . ⎥ 0≤m≤ j ≤N
⎣ ⎦
(4)
1 k N · · · k kN · · · k NN

and  i is the determinant of a new matrix defined by replacing

the i th column of the matrix by the column vector [x(k 0 ),
x(x 1 ), . . . , x(kN )]T into Eq. (4).
We assumed that the second-order polynomial function
(N = 4) is

x(k x ) = g 4 k x4 + g 3 k x3 + g 2 k x2 + g 1 k x + g 0 . (5)

It passes through five points, namely, (n − 2)T , (n − 1)T , nT,

(n + 1)T and (n + 2)T , which are equally spaced. Accordingly,
by substituting (n − 2)T , (n − 1)T , nT, (n + 1)T and (n + 2)T
into Eq. (5), we note that the polynomial satisfies the following
linear equation:
⎡ ⎤
(n + 2)4 T 4 (n + 2)3 T 3 (n + 2)2 T 2 (n + 2)T 1
⎢ ⎥
⎢ (n + 1)4 T 4 (n + 1)3 T 3 (n + 1)2 T 2 (n + 1)T 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ n4 T 4 n3 T 3 n2 T 2 nT 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ (n − 1)4 T 4 (n − 1)3 T 3 (n − 1)2 T 2 (n − 1)T 1⎥
⎣ ⎦
(n − 2)4 T 4 (n − 2)3 T 3 (n − 2)2 T 2 (n − 2)T 1
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
g4 x(n + 2)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ g 3 ⎥ ⎢ x(n + 1) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
×⎢ g 2 ⎥ = ⎢ x(n) ⎥ .
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ (6)
⎢ g 1 ⎥ ⎢ x(n − 1) ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
g0 x(n − 2)

This can be written in matrix form as

Z G = X. (7)
Fig. 1. IC sample images taken at various magnification. (a) Image taken
The solution for G is written as at 1000× magnification with horizontal field-width = 100 μm, (b) image
taken at 2000× magnification with horizontal field-width = 20 μm and
G = Z −1 X. (8) (c) image taken at 4000× with horizontal field-width = 20 μm.


C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118
 LATDEI MODEL FOR SEM IMAGE MAGNIFICATION 113

Fig. 2. IC sample images taken at 2000× magnification. (a) Original image captured from SEM with horizontal field-width = 20 μm, (b) image after
nearest neighbourhood method, (c) image after bilinear method, (d) image after bicubic method, (e) image after Hermite method and (f) image after
LATDEI method.

C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118
114 K.S. SIM ET AL.

Fig. 3. IC sample images taken at 4000× magnification. (a) Original image captured from SEM with horizontal field-width = 20 μm, (b) image after
nearest neighbourhood method, (c) image after bilinear method, (d) image after bicubic method, (e) image after Hermite method and (f) image after
LATDEI method.


C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118
 LATDEI MODEL FOR SEM IMAGE MAGNIFICATION 115

The values of g 4 , g 3 , g 2 , g 1 and g 0 are obtained by finding

Z −1 (see Appendix A). The interpolated sample at time k x =
(n − D̃ )T can be written as
x̂(n − D̃ ) = h 2 x(n − 2) + h 1 x(n − 1) + h 0 x(n)
+ h −1 x(n + 1) + h −2 x(n + 2), (9)

where D̃ is the time delay; h −2 = 24 1

D̃ ( D̃ 2 − 1)( D̃ − 2), h −1 =
− 24 D̃ ( D̃ − 1)( D̃ − 4), h 0 = 24 ( D̃ 2 − 4)( D̃ 2 − 1), h 1 =
4 2 6

− 24
4
D̃ ( D̃ + 1)( D̃ 2 − 4) and h 2 = 24
1
D̃ ( D̃ 2 − 1)( D̃ + 2).
For the Nth-order (with N = 2M)delay filter, a general form
for the filter coefficients can be derived as

M
D̃ − i
h D̃ ( j ) = . (10)
i =−M
j −i
i = j

For our application, we choose N = 4 (M = 2) without

losing any generality as it is then simple and easy to implement
the Lagrange interpolation filter. Therefore after applying the
LATDEI in the x-direction, we have
∞

x(k) = r x (k − D̃ ) = h D̃ (n)x(k − n). (11)
n=−∞

Similarly, by applying the LATDEI in the y-direction, we

have
∞

y(k) = r y (k − D̃ ) = h D̃ (n)y(k − n). (12)
n=−∞

Results and discussion

In this study, we worked on two different varieties of SEM
images which are the IC (integrated circuit) images and
the epoxy composite based on betel nut fibres images. We
have performed experiments on various magnifications by
using different interpolation methods. The methods applied
are nearest neighbourhood interpolation method, bilinear
interpolation method, bicubic interpolation method, Hermite
interpolation method and the proposed LATDEI method.
Figure 1 shows the IC images captured using the SEM from
1000× to 4000× magnification. Figure 1(a) shows the details
of IC images with horizontal field-width = 100 μm. With SEM
magnification function, the image is then again magnified
to 2000×, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Higher magnification with
4000× is shown in Fig. 1(c).
Considering the size of the image and the visual perception
of the human eye, we observed that the original SEM image is
captured with good quality, crisp image details and clear edges,
as shown in Fig. 2(a). Figure 2(b)–(e) is obtained through the Fig. 4. Epoxy composite based on betel nut fibres sample images taken
nearest neighbourhood interpolation, bilinear interpolation, at various magnification. (a) Image taken at 1000× magnification with
bicubic interpolation and Hermite interpolation, respectively. horizontal field-width = 30 μm, (b) image taken at 2000× magnification
These images are magnified from the original image of with horizontal field-width = 15 μm and (c) image taken at 4000× with
Fig. 1(a). To illustrate the LATDEI interpolation, the image horizontal field-width = 7.5 μm.

C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118
116 K.S. SIM ET AL.

Fig. 5. Epoxy composite based on betel nut fibres sample images taken at 2000× magnification. (a) Original image captured from SEM with horizontal
field-width = 15 μm, (b) image after nearest neighbourhood method, (c) image after bilinear method, (d) image after bicubic method, (e) image after
Hermite method and (f) image after LATDEI method.


C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118
 LATDEI MODEL FOR SEM IMAGE MAGNIFICATION 117

Fig. 6. Epoxy composite based on betel nut fibres sample images taken at 4000× magnification. (a) Original image captured from SEM with horizontal
field-width = 7.5 μm, (b) image after nearest neighbourhood method, (c) image after bilinear method, (d) image after bicubic method, (e) image after
Hermite method and (f) image after LATDEI method.

C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118
118 K.S. SIM ET AL.

details found in the IC chip is magnified, as shown in Fig. superior in eliminating blocky region and enhance edges.
2(f). It can be seen that the image obtained by using LATDEI Bilinear, bicubic and Hermite interpolation give images which
interpolation provides a better quality and contains more are less focused especially in the vicinity of the bright texture,
details compared to other interpolation methods. In fact, we but LATDEI is able to improve the image by applying time
are using time delay method to predict the surrounding data delay technique on the images. However, the image edges are
that help to retrieve more information after interpolation from a little blurred and smoothed out compared to the original
2000× to 4000×, as shown in Fig. 3. SEM image. Nevertheless, LATDEI interpolation is still able to
The details of the two-dimensional representative of various generate higher-magnification images proficiently.
image magnification techniques are shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. In conclusion, the experimental results of LATDEI are shown
3(f), the image produced by LATDEI is comparative clear with to be superior compared to other usual interpolation methods
the nearest neighbourhood, bilinear interpolation, bicubic used for image magnification. The performance of the LATDEI-
interpolation as well as Hermite interpolation. The LATDEI based estimator is analysed in terms of the image resolution.
image does not have the blocky, jagged edges as the bicubic Nevertheless, the limitation of the LATDEI estimation is
interpolation. Moreover, the edges of the image seem to be in determining the optimized fractional time delay and in
crispier and more clearly defined. This effect is apparent when applying estimation technique on low-magnification images
the image is magnified several times compared to Figs 2 and 3. with contrast varying greatly from pixel to pixel. In future,
A second set of test images are shown in Fig. 4. These images it may be possible to incorporate LATDEI into the image
of epoxy composite based on betel nut fibres are captured using control function of SEM imaging software, in order to provide
SEM from 1000× to 4000× magnification. Figure 4(a) shows a suitable magnification without contaminating the viewing
the details of epoxy composite images with horizontal field- sample using the mechanical method. The improvement on
width = 30 μm. With SEM magnification function, the image the optimized fractional time delay may also be studied.
is then again magnified to 2000×, as shown in Fig. 4(b).
Higher magnification with 4000× is shown in Fig. 4(c).
Figure 5(a) shows that the original SEM image is captured References
with crisp image details whereas Fig. 5(b–f) is obtained
through the nearest neighbourhood interpolation, bilinear Goldstein, J.L., Newburry, D.E., Echlin, P. et al. (1992) Scanning Electron
Microscopy And X-ray Microanalysis: A Text For Biologist, Material
interpolation, bicubic interpolation, Hermite interpolation
Scientist And Geologist, 2nd edn. Plenum Press, New York.
and LATDEI interpolation, respectively. These images are
Gonzalez, R.C. & Woods, R.E. (1992) Digital Image Processing, 2nd edn.
magnified from the original image of Fig. 4(a). Comparing
Addison-Wesley, Boston, Massachusetts.
LATDEI image and nearest neighbourhood image, it can be Gonzalez, R.C., Woods, R.E. & Steven, L.E. (2004) Digital Image Processing
observed that LATDEI interpolation gives smoother and less Using Matlab. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
jagged edges. LATDEI also shows significant improvements Hermanowics, E. (1992) Explicit formulas for weighting coefficients of
and less blurring compared to the other interpolation methods. maximally flat tunable FIR delayers. Electron. Lett. 28(2), 1936–1937.
Besides that, observe that the contrast in the textured region Kim, H. & Ko, H. (2000) An intelligent image interpolation using cubic
is slightly better. Even though LATDEI interpolation may not Hermite method. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E83-D(4), 914–921.
produce images as sharp as the original SEM, it is still able Laakso, T.L., Valimaki, V., Karjalainen, M. & Laine, U. (1996) Splitting
to magnify the images competently compared to the other the unit delay. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 13(1), 30–60.
conventional methods. To further illustrate the effects clearly, Ogata, K. (1967) State Space Analysis of Control Systems, Instrumentation
and Controls Series (ed. by W.S. William). Prentice Hall, U.K.
the same original image of Fig. 4(a) is magnified 4000×, as
Reimer, L. (1998) Scanning Electron Microscopy. Springer Series in Optical
shown in Fig. 6.
Sciences. Springer, Berlin.
Figure 6 shows the details of various image magnification
techniques varying from nearest neighbourhood,
bilinear interpolation, bicubic interpolation and Hermite
Appendix A
interpolation. Observe that nearest neighbourhood produces
blocky texture, whereas LATDEI interpolation is clearly The inverse of Z of the fourth-order polynomial function:

⎡ 1
− 6T1 4 1
− 6T1 4 1 ⎤
24T 4 4T 4 24T 4

⎢ 24T −48nT
7 7
−48T +192nT
7 7
− Tn3 48T +192nT
7 7
−24T −48nT
7 7
⎥
⎢ 288T 10 288T 10 288T 10 288T 10
⎥
Z −1
=⎢
⎢
−12T 8 −72nT 8 +72n 2 T 8
288T 10
192T 8 +144nT 8 −288n 2 T 8
288T 10
−360nT 8 +422n 2 T 8
288T 10
192T 8 −144nT 8 −288n 2 T 8
288T 10
−12T 8 +72nT 8 +72n 2 T 8
288T 10
⎥
⎥
⎣ −24T 9 +24nT 9 +72n 2 T 9 −48n 3 T 9 192T 9 −384nT 9 −144n 2 T 9 +192n 3 T 9 720nT 9 −288n 3 T 9 −192T 9 −384nT 9 +144n 2 T 9 +192n 3 T 9 24T 9 +24nT 9 −72n 2 T 9 −48n 3 T 9 ⎦
288T 10 288T 10 288T 10 288T 10 288T 10
24nT 10 −12n 2 T 10 −24n 3 T 10 +12n 4 T 10 −192nT 10 +192n 2 T 10 +48n 3 T 10 −48n 4 T 10 288T 10 −360n 2 T 10 +72n 4 T 10 −192nT 10 +192n 2 T 10 −48n 3 T 10 −48n 4 T 10 −24nT 10 −12n 2 T 10 +24n 3 T 10 +12n 4 T 10
288T 10 288T 10 288T 10 288T 10 288T 10


C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 The Royal Microscopical Society, Journal of Microscopy, 237, 111–118