Figure S1. Emission spectra of light sources used during imaging.
(a) Measured daylight spectrum used in the growth chamber. (b) Measured NIR
spectrum of the used LEDs (red) and LEDs interfering with plant growth (green).
Figure S2. Calibration discs template used for validation of the system with
diameters from 0.5 - 22.5 mm in increments of 1 mm.
Figure S3. Light-field focus images showing Arabidopsis Col-0 wild-type and pgm
mutant plants 17-24 DAS.
Figure S4. Differences between 2D and 3D measurements of plant relative
expansion rates. Results for wild-type plants (blue) and pgm mutants (red).
(a) Diurnal differences between RERs estimated from 3D and 2D information. (b)
Diurnal change in hyponasty angle (z-angles between base and tip). (c) Scatter
plot and linear fits for change in hyponasty angle and differences between 3D and
2D RERs (slopes s and p-values p of the linear fits are given in the figure).
Figure S5. Time shift between expansion growth and leaf movement.
(a) Relative expansion rate (solid) and change in leaf hyponasty angle (dashed line)
of Col-0. and (b) pgm. (c) Cross-correlation (solid line) and corresponding Pearson
correlation p-value (dotted line) between relative expansion rate and change in leaf
hyponasty angle shows a significant peak (p-value < 0.05, cf. dashed grey line) at
t≅1 hour indicating that growth precedes leaf movement. (d) Analogous crosscorrelation for pgm with a less pronounced peak at t≅5 hours.
Figure S6. Effect of object angle changes on 2D area measurements.
(a) Relative pixel numbers (box plots) per disc positioned at different heights,
normalised to their pixel numbers at zero height, and a linear regression (grey line)
with slope s=0.006 mm-1. (b) Relative pixel numbers for discs of 13.5 mm diameter
(normalised to their pixel numbers at zero angle) depend non-monotonically on the
tilt angle. The experimental results (boxplots) agree well with the theoretical finding
(blue to red line with 𝑓 − 𝐷 ∈ {167,100,50,20,10}; Eq. (S3.7)). (c) Enlarged section
of
(b)
demonstrates
the
non-trivial
dependency
of
the
area
over-
or
underestimation on the tilt angle for the parameters of our imaging system (dark
blue).
Table S1. Detailed analysis of the mean relative error (MRE) for actual vs.
Phototyping4D-measured areas. MRE for 23 discs with diameters from 0.5-22.5 mm
at different angles and distances from the camera.
Appendix S1. Light-field camera: from grey-scale depth images to metric distance
information.
Appendix S2. Segmentation of plant images, tracking and classification of leaves
and analysis of spatio-temporal growth.
Appendix S3. Non-monotonic effect of object angle changes on 2D area
measurements.