Effect of Mid- and High-Spatial Frequencies on Optical Performance
Abstract
In recent years there have been many optical system designs requiring high optical quality (sharp point spread function) as well as low scatter performance on aspheric surfaces. Because of the fabrication differences between the processes of figuring and smoothing on aspheric surfaces, it is important that the optical engineer understand how to trade off these processes during the manufacturing cycle. To describe these processes, the residual wavefront error (departure from the Gaussian reference sphere) is evaluated over a very wide spatial frequency band. From a physical point of view, the spatial frequencies of interest are grouped into three general categories: (1) the classical aberrations, which are low frequency in character and describe what might be called the figuring errors; (2) surface ripple or residual tooling errors, which arise in the fabrication of the optical elements; and (3) microroughness, the very high frequency structure on the surface, generally responsible for surface scattering. In this paper, the methods pioneered by Hopkins for aberration tolerancing and Barakat for random wavefront errors are extended to the discussion of mid- and high-spatial frequency surface errors. Some examples will be given to illustrate some general system properties such as the nature and role of the surface autocorrelation function.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MSF errors can cause detrimental effects on optical performance including increased small angle scatter, increased downstream modulation/intensification, and reduced image contrast.
“MSF errors can cause detrimental effects on the optical performance including increased small angle scatter, increased downstream modulation/intensification, and reduced image contrast [6-11].”
From Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing
Suratwala, T., Tham, G., Steele, R., Wong, L., Menapace, J., Ray, N., & Bauman, B. (2023) · Applied Optics · doi:10.1364/ao.482739 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Noll, R. J.
- Affiliations
- PerkinElmer (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Robert J. Noll
- ORCID
- Robert J. Noll
- Venue
- Optical Engineering
- Publisher
- SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
- Published
- 1979-04-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 137-142
- ISSN
- 0091-3286 (ISSN-L)
- 1560-2303
- OpenAlex
- W2090066624
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Optical Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced optical system design
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Adaptive optics and wavefront sensing
- Keywords
- aspheric surfaces, surface scattering, microroughness, surface ripples, residual wavefront error, point spread function, optical fabrication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review