Fringe discretization and manufacturing analysis of a computer-generated hologram in a null test of the freeform surface

Zi-Hao Gan; Xiao-Qiang Peng; Shan-Yong Chen; Chao-Liang Guan; Hao Hu; Xin-Lei Li; Zuo-Cai Dai

doi:10.1364/AO.57.009913

Applied Optics
Vol. 57,
Issue 34,
pp. 9913-9921
(2018)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.57.009913

Fringe discretization and manufacturing analysis of a computer-generated hologram in a null test of the freeform surface

Zi-Hao Gan, Xiao-Qiang Peng, Shan-Yong Chen, Chao-Liang Guan, Hao Hu, Xin-Lei Li, and Zuo-Cai Dai

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Zi-Hao Gan, Xiao-Qiang Peng, Shan-Yong Chen, Chao-Liang Guan, Hao Hu, Xin-Lei Li, and Zuo-Cai Dai, "Fringe discretization and manufacturing analysis of a computer-generated hologram in a null test of the freeform surface," Appl. Opt. 57, 9913-9921 (2018)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Optical Design and Fabrication
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: August 28, 2018
- Revised Manuscript: October 29, 2018
- Manuscript Accepted: October 29, 2018
- Published: November 26, 2018

Abstract

A computer-generated hologram (CGH) is the core component for an aspheric surface test. According to fabrication demands, it is necessary to convert the designed CGH phase compensation function into the processed pattern, that is, the fringe discretization process. In this paper, we propose a new discretization method for a CGH in a test of the freeform surface, and realized the encoding of processed fringes by MATLAB software. Furthermore, we designed the experiment to verify the accuracy of the new discretization method and compared the calculation efficiency between the new algorithm and the reported algorithm. Finally, based on the testing requirement of a freeform mirror in a camera optical system, we completed the design, encoding, and fabrication of the CGH sample, and analyzed the influence of various errors on wavefront accuracy of the CGH.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Mapping distortion correction in freeform mirror testing by computer-generated hologram

Xuefeng Zeng, Xuejun Zhang, Donglin Xue, Zhiyu Zhang, and Jian Jiao
Appl. Opt. 57(34) F56-F61 (2018)

Testing aspheric surfaces with computer-generated holograms: analysis of adjustment and shape errors

Bernd Dörband and Hans J. Tiziani
Appl. Opt. 24(16) 2604-2611 (1985)

Analysis of wavefront errors introduced by encoding computer-generated holograms

Wenrui Cai, Ping Zhou, Chunyu Zhao, and James H. Burge
Appl. Opt. 52(34) 8324-8331 (2013)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (14)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (6)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (22)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Grid Size (μm)	Maximum Phase Error ( $λ$ )	RMS Phase Error ( $λ$ )
10	$6.628 \times 10^{- 6}$	$5.569 \times 10^{- 7}$
20	$2.381 \times 10^{- 5}$	$2.273 \times 10^{- 6}$
40	$1.004 \times 10^{- 4}$	$9.224 \times 10^{- 6}$
50	$1.496 \times 10^{- 4}$	$1.358 \times 10^{- 5}$
100	$4.332 \times 10^{- 4}$	$5.359 \times 10^{- 5}$

Average $K (rad / {mm}^{2})$	$K_{\max} (rad / {mm}^{2})$	Maximum Phase Error ( $λ$ )	RMS Phase Error ( $λ$ )
149.6	164.7	$1.412 \times 10^{- 5}$	$9.584 \times 10^{- 6}$
397.9	413.3	$5.197 \times 10^{- 5}$	$3.634 \times 10^{- 5}$
491.0	504.7	$6.452 \times 10^{- 5}$	$4.655 \times 10^{- 5}$
853.7	879.6	$7.249 \times 10^{- 5}$	$6.159 \times 10^{- 5}$
2803.5	2824.3	$7.895 \times 10^{- 4}$	$5.878 \times 10^{- 4}$

Zernike Polynomials	Coefficients
2nd term	34
4th term	−225.852732
11th term	0.571757
22th term	−0.002842728
37th term	$1.7558 \times 10^{- 5}$

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Average Value	RMS Variation
Etching depth	508 nm	511 nm	514 nm	512 nm	511 nm	509 nm	510.8 nm	0.382%

	1 (nm)	2 (nm)	3 (nm)	4 (nm)	5 (nm)	6 (nm)	Average Value (nm)
Unetched area roughness	1.78	1.92	1.47	1.30	2.03	1.28	1.63
Etched area roughness	2.76	1.99	3.57	2.27	2.53	2.22	2.56

Error Sources	Wavefront Error (nm)
Optical design residual	0.506
Substrate	7.59
CGH encoding	$\leq 0.68$
Etching depth variations	0.49
Amplitude error	0.011

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (14)

Tables (6)

Equations (22)

Applied Optics