1 / 26

Image Quality Degradation due to Lens Surface Polishing Irregularity

Image Quality Degradation due to Lens Surface Polishing Irregularity. Dave Stephenson Madison, CT June 1, 2009. Outline. Motivation Background Problem statement Spatial frequency regimes Performance measures Empirical study: MTF degradation Summary & References.

oliver
Télécharger la présentation

Image Quality Degradation due to Lens Surface Polishing Irregularity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Image Quality Degradation due to Lens Surface Polishing Irregularity Dave Stephenson Madison, CT June 1, 2009

  2. Outline • Motivation • Background • Problem statement • Spatial frequency regimes • Performance measures • Empirical study: MTF degradation • Summary & References

  3. Applications & Benefits ofLenses with Aspheric Surfaces • Consumer, medical, industrial applications • Fewer elements • Reduced cost & weight • Improved light transmission • Improved imaging performance • Multiple spheres combine to act aspheric

  4. Polishing Techniques • Aspheric lens surfaces • Computer controlled dwell via “hit” map • Polishing pads are smaller than the surface and can cause localized slope errors • Spherical lens surfaces • Traditionally the pad or lap is larger than the surface, so small-pad polishing errors don’t normally occur • But small-pad techniques are now being employed for spherical surfaces, not just aspheric

  5. Full-Contact Polishing Errors(Figure) • Cylindrical • Non-rotationally symmetric irregularity • Pattern may clock arbitrarily • Typically all that is toleranced • “B” in ISO 10110 3/A(B/C) • Hole & roll • Rotationally symmetric irregularity • Hole typical in center; bump possible • Edge typically rolled down; a rolled up edge is also possible • “C” in ISO 10110 3/A(B/C)

  6. Small-Pad Polishing Errors(Mid-Spatial Frequency) • Radial spoke-like defect • Control with slope or PSD spec • Non-rotationally symmetric irregularity • Pattern may clock arbitrarily • Adds to “B” in ISO 10110 3/A(B/C) • Concentric ring-like defect • Control with slope or PSD spec • Rotationally symmetric irregularity • Adds to “C” in ISO 10110 3/A(B/C)

  7. Questions & Issues • How do these polishing errors degrade imaging performance? • What simulation tools are available to explore design sensitivity for tolerancing?

  8. Outline • Motivation • Spatial frequency regimes • Performance measures • Empirical study: MTF degradation • Summary & References

  9. Spatial Frequency Regimes • Mid-Spatial Frequency (MSF) • Typically 0.2 – 3.0 c/mm for ø25 mm • Low-to-Mid boundary • Zernike polynomial limit for figure • 5 – 10 cycles per diameter • Measured with laser Fizeau interferometer • Mid-to-High boundary • The roughness definition sets it (RMS roughness is the square root of area under PSD curve) • Measured with white light Mirau interferometer or AFM J.E. Harvey and A. Kotha, “Scattering effects from residual optical fabrication errors”, Proc. SPIE 2576, pp. 155-174.

  10. Control MSF with a PSD spec • Peak in the PSD corresponds to the ripple freq • Can define a limit line & stay below it during polishing • PSDlimit = 5x104 * freq-1.55 in units of A2µm shown here • Peak is above the limit at 0.3 c/mm (3.3 mm period)

  11. Outline • Motivation • Spatial frequency regimes • Performance measure: MTF • Empirical study: MTF degradation • Summary & References

  12. Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) • Linear system frequency domain analysis • Reflectivity alters amplitude of complex object field • Height modifies phase of complex object field • Optics low-pass filter as function of spatial frequency • Complex image field is linear superposition of filtered complex-valued components, frequency-by-frequency • Image-to-object ratio is the Optical Transfer Function • MTF is modulus of the complex-valued OTF MTF(f) = | OTF(f) | = | ImageField(f) / ObjectField(f) |

  13. MTF Example • Image MTF decreases with increasing frequency • Even perfect optics will low-pass filter the high frequency content P. de Groot, “Instrument transfer function in interferometry”, FRINGE 2005 9/12/2005.

  14. Outline • Motivation • Spatial frequency regimes • Performance measure: MTF • Empirical study: MTF degradation • Summary & References

  15. Example Double Gauss Lens • 6-elements, 12 polished surfaces • Well balanced nominal MTF • Through-focus @ 0.5 Nyquist • Through-frequency @ best focus ~0.32 mm depth-of-focus (DoF) for 40% MTF at 0.5 Nyquist ~0.75 MTF at 0.5 Nyquist

  16. Cylindrical irregularityFirst surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • Nearly all figure error; little MSF error • Lens design software tools • All model irregularity as a cylinder • Other shapes require extra modeling • Little impact on DoF or peak MTF

  17. Cylindrical irregularityEvery surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • 6 of 12 perturbations shown above • Random clockings • DoF: reduced from 0.32 to 0.25 mm • Peak: drops from 0.75 to 0.70 MTF

  18. Hole & roll irregularityFirst surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • Nearly all figure error; little MSF error • Lens design software tools • Model as Zernike terms or with aspheric perturbation terms • Little impact on DoF or peak MTF

  19. Hole & roll irregularityEvery surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • 6 of 12 perturbations shown above • Random clockings • DoF: reduced from 0.32 to 0.17 mm • Peak: drops from 0.75 to 0.52 MTF

  20. Spoke-like MSF irregularityFirst surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • Nearly all MSF error; little figure error • Lens design software tools • Not practical to model with Zernike terms • No tools have a native perturbation like this • Little impact on peak MTF or DoF

  21. Spoke-like MSF irregularityEvery surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • 6 of 12 perturbations shown above • Random clockings • DoF: reduced from 0.32 to 0.17 mm • Peak: drops from 0.75 to 0.48 MTF

  22. Ring-like MSF irregularityFirst surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • Nearly all MSF error; little figure error • Lens design software tools • Not practical to model with Zernike terms • CodeV has native perturbation to model • Significant impact on peak MTF & DoF

  23. Ring-like MSF irregularityEvery surface perturbed .048λ (30 nm) RMS • 6 of 12 perturbations shown above • Random clockings • Bad: When on inner elements (0.45 peak) • Worse: When on outer elements (0.30 peak) • Worst: When on all elements (DoF  zero)

  24. Outline • Motivation • Spatial frequency regimes • Performance measure: MTF • Empirical study: MTF degradation • Summary & References

  25. Summary • Figure errors from traditional full-contact polishing • Significant mid-spatial frequency (MSF) content is unlikely • Cylinder, and hole & roll, typically result • Hole & roll is the worst (similar impact to spoke-like MSF) • If using small pad polishing techniques, MSF is important • Consider for both spherical and aspheric surfaces • Spoke-like MSF is less troublesome for the Double Gauss lens • Ring-like concentric MSF is the worst for the Double Gauss lens • Commercial “¼ wave P-V, λ/20 RMS” may not be adequate • Tolerance slope or PSD using ISO 10110 to limit MSF content • Tolerance analyses done with lens design software commonly only explore sensitivity to cylindrical irregularity • CodeV is now able to tolerance ring-like MSF

  26. References • D. Aikens, J. E. DeGroote, and R. N. Youngworth, "Specification and Control of Mid-Spatial Frequency Wavefront Errors in Optical Systems," in Optical Fabrication and Testing, OSA Technical Digest (CD) (Optical Society of America, 2008), paper OTuA1. • J. Rogers, “Slope error tolerances for optical surfaces”, SPIE Technical Digest TD0404, (invited paper), SPIE Optifab Conference, Rochester NY May 2007. • P. de Groot, “Instrument transfer function in interferometry”, FRINGE 2005 9/12/2005. • R. N. Youngworth & B. D. Stone, “Simple estimates for the effects of mid-spatial frequency surface errors on image quality”, Applied Optics 39(13), pp. 2198-2209 (2000).

More Related