Classifications

• • G—PHYSICS
  • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
  • G01J—MEASUREMENT OF INTENSITY, VELOCITY, SPECTRAL CONTENT, POLARISATION, PHASE OR PULSE CHARACTERISTICS OF INFRARED, VISIBLE OR ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT; COLORIMETRY; RADIATION PYROMETRY
  • G01J9/00—Measuring optical phase difference; Determining degree of coherence; Measuring optical wavelength
• • G—PHYSICS
  • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
  • G01J—MEASUREMENT OF INTENSITY, VELOCITY, SPECTRAL CONTENT, POLARISATION, PHASE OR PULSE CHARACTERISTICS OF INFRARED, VISIBLE OR ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT; COLORIMETRY; RADIATION PYROMETRY
  • G01J9/00—Measuring optical phase difference; Determining degree of coherence; Measuring optical wavelength
  • G01J9/02—Measuring optical phase difference; Determining degree of coherence; Measuring optical wavelength by interferometric methods
  • G01J9/0215—Measuring optical phase difference; Determining degree of coherence; Measuring optical wavelength by interferometric methods by shearing interferometric methods
• • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
  • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
  • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
  • A61B3/00—Apparatus for testing the eyes; Instruments for examining the eyes
  • A61B3/10—Objective types, i.e. instruments for examining the eyes independent of the patients' perceptions or reactions
  • A61B3/1015—Objective types, i.e. instruments for examining the eyes independent of the patients' perceptions or reactions for wavefront analysis
• • G—PHYSICS
  • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
  • G01J—MEASUREMENT OF INTENSITY, VELOCITY, SPECTRAL CONTENT, POLARISATION, PHASE OR PULSE CHARACTERISTICS OF INFRARED, VISIBLE OR ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT; COLORIMETRY; RADIATION PYROMETRY
  • G01J9/00—Measuring optical phase difference; Determining degree of coherence; Measuring optical wavelength
  • G01J9/02—Measuring optical phase difference; Determining degree of coherence; Measuring optical wavelength by interferometric methods
  • G01J2009/028—Types

Definitions

• the present description relates to a method for evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront, and more specifically the measurement of a wavefront obtained by means of a wavefront analyzer by measurement. direct.
• the present description also relates to wavefront analysis systems by direct wavefront measurement using such a method.
• Phase analysis of an optical wavefront has many applications; for example, the qualification of light sources (laser sources, laser diodes, LEDs) or of refractive or reflective optical components, such as imaging objectives, mirrors, filters, portholes, etc .; or the control of deformable optical components, for example deformable mirrors, liquid crystal valves, liquid lenses and more generally any phase modulator used in active optics, adaptive optics or for beam shaping. ).
• light sources laser sources, laser diodes, LEDs
• refractive or reflective optical components such as imaging objectives, mirrors, filters, portholes, etc .
• deformable optical components for example deformable mirrors, liquid crystal valves, liquid lenses and more generally any phase modulator used in active optics, adaptive optics or for beam shaping.
• wavefront analysis techniques are known by direct measurement of the wavefront (as opposed to interferometric techniques using interference of the wavefront to be analyzed with a reference wavefront); Direct measurement wavefront analysis techniques allow the determination of local wavefront slopes (ie, the first wavefront derivatives) and are generally based on an analysis of the wavefront. varying the angle of the light ray path using a wavefront sensor comprising a set of one or more optical elements and a generally two-dimensional detector.
• the wavefront sensor comprises a matrix of holes or micro-lenses positioned in front of a detector, generally two-dimensional, at a distance typically of a few millimeters. According to this technique, a network of spots is formed on the detector by the matrix of holes or microlenses.
• the measurements of the displacements of each of these spots relative to reference positions in the presence of a plane wavefront without aberrations are directly proportional to the local slopes of the measured wavefront, ie directly proportional. to the derivative of the aberrations present on the measured wavefront.
• the coefficient of proportionality is equal to the distance between the array of holes or micro lenses of the detector. The numerical integration of these local slopes makes it possible to obtain the phase of the measured wavefront (see for example "Principles and History of Shack-Hartmann", Journal of Refractive Surgery Volume 17 September / October 2001).
• the wavefront sensor comprises an array of patterns of variable intensity illuminated by a wave from a source having a good coherent spatial; these patterns are deformed during the passage of the light wave in the optical element to be controlled; the deformations are recorded on a two-dimensional detector placed in a conjugate plane of the pattern network of variable intensities.
• the analysis of these deformations makes it possible to go back to the deflections which the light rays undergone during the crossing of the optical element to be controlled; these deflections are the local slopes of the wavefront which represent local derivatives of the optical aberrations introduced by the optical element to be controlled.
• the wavefront is calculated by integrating the local slopes thus measured.
• the wavefront after passing through the optical element to be measured, is focused in a focusing plane where a spatially variable optical density plate is located. .
• the positions of the radii in the plane of focus being directly proportional to the angular deviation they have suffered during the crossing of the optical element to be measured, they undergo an intensity encoding during the crossing of the variable density blade.
• These rays are then imaged on a detector placed in a conjugate plane of the object to be measured.
• the signal level on each pixel reveals the attenuation that the incident ray has undergone on this pixel, which makes it possible to know the angular deviation that this ray has undergone during the crossing of the optical element to be measured.
• the signal level map acquired by the two-dimensional detector thus allows to go up to the local slopes of the wavefront during the crossing of the optical element to be controlled.
• Wavefront analysis techniques by direct wavefront measurement are very widely used, especially for the characterization of optical components, because they are generally simpler to implement than interferometric techniques (no use of a reference wavefront) and also allow the characterization of wave fronts from light sources. They also allow the analysis of wave fronts with deformations of greater amplitude.
• the accuracy of the measurement of the wavefront obtained is difficult to verify by a user.
• the conditions of implementation of the analysis system can disturb the measurement of the wavefront without it being easily detectable by the user.
• a parasitic light source whether extensive or point, a parasitic reflection on a diopter of an optical component to be analyzed or the presence of parasitic interference, can introduce a spurious signal on the detector that can disturb the measure the local slopes of the wavefront and thus degrade the reconstruction of the wavefront.
• An object of the present description is to propose a method for evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront obtained by means of a wavefront analyzer by direct measurement, in order to give a user a quality factor of the measurement carried out, which enables him to estimate the level of confidence of the measurement and to retroact, if necessary, on the conditions of implementation of the wavefront analysis.
• the present description relates to a method for evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront, said measurement being obtained by means of a wavefront analyzer by direct measurement, the method comprising the following steps: acquiring an optoelectronic signal for wavefront measurement by means of a wavefront sensor, said sensor comprising a two-dimensional detector; determining from said optoelectronic signal at least one characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal;
• the method of evaluating the quality of the wavefront measurement thus described makes it possible to give a user a level of confidence in the measurement made from the optoelectronic signal used for the measurement itself. This allows on the one hand to have a reliable quality factor for the measurement made, and it also allows to not need to do additional tests with specific tools, such as light measurement tests for example parasite.
• a characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal may comprise, according to one or more exemplary embodiments, a signal measured in areas of the two-dimensional detector which are not covered by a signal useful for the measurement of the wavefront.
• the determination of such a parameter for the evaluation of a quality factor of the measurement is, for example, suitable in the case where parasitic signal sources are ambient light, forming on the two-dimensional detector a non-uniform diffuse background signal. , or a point light source with good spatial coherence, etc.
• the determination from the optoelectronic signal of a characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the signal can comprise the following steps:
• Another characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal may comprise, according to one or more exemplary embodiments, a subset formed of the non-integrable components of the measurements of the local slopes called "non-integrable local slopes".
• the term "measured local slopes” or “raw local slopes”, the quantities determined from the optoelectronic signal for measuring the slopes This can be done in different ways depending on the technique chosen (Shack Hartmann, lateral shift interferometry, Moiré image deflectometry, Schlieren method, etc.), as recalled in the description of state of the art.
• the measured local slope comprises an integrable component which comprises in particular the local slope of the wavefront that is ultimately sought and may also include a non-integrable component which, when it exists, can not be linked. than a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal, whatever its origin.
• the presence of nonintegrable components in the raw local slopes is a very good characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal is therefore a very good indicator of the quality of the measured.
• a characteristic parameter for the evaluation of a quality factor of the measurement is adapted not only in the case where the parasitic signal results in a luminous flux on the detector covering areas outside those in which there is the signal useful for the measurement, but also in the case where the spurious signal is in the areas in which the signal useful for the measurement is also located.
• the determination of a characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal may comprise the following steps:
• the determination of said set of nonintegrable local slopes comprises integrating said raw local slopes to obtain a reconstruction of a wavefront;
• the quality factor can then be evaluated from a peak-valley value or a value of the root mean square (or "RMS" according to the abbreviation "root mean square") of at least a portion of the local slopes not integrable.
• RMS root mean square
• the quality factor can also be evaluated from the power spectral density (or "DSP") of at least a portion of the nonintegrable local slopes, or a combination of these parameters (RMS and DSP for example).
• DSP power spectral density
• the present description relates to a method for analyzing an optical wavefront by direct measurement of the wavefront, comprising:
• the present description relates to systems for analyzing an optical wavefront by direct measurement, comprising:
• a wavefront sensor provided with a two-dimensional detector for acquiring an optoelectronic signal for measuring the wavefront
• an optoelectronic signal processing unit for reconstructing the wavefront from said signal, said processing unit being further adapted to:
• the wavefront sensor comprises a micro-lens array positioned in front of a two-dimensional detector and the optoelectronic signal comprises an array of spots formed by each of the micro-lenses illuminated by the wavefront at measure.
• the wavefront sensor comprises a matrix of holes positioned in front of a two-dimensional detector and the optoelectronic signal comprises an array of spots formed by each of the holes illuminated by the wavefront to be measured.
• the wavefront sensor comprises a phase grating positioned in front of a two-dimensional detector and the optoelectronic signal comprises an array of spots formed by the figure resulting from the interference of the waves generated by the grating. phase crossed by the wavefront to be measured.
• FIG. 1 a diagram illustrating steps of a method for evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront according to the present description
• FIG. 2 a diagram illustrating an example of a system for analyzing an optical wavefront by direct measurement according to the present description
• FIG. 3A a diagram illustrating steps of a first exemplary method of evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront according to the present description
• FIG. 3B an example of an optoelectronic signal acquired by the detector showing an example of a spurious signal identified during a step of the method illustrated in FIG. 3A
• FIG. 3C a diagram illustrating a step of the method described in FIG. 3A;
• FIG. 4 a diagram illustrating steps of a second exemplary method for evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront according to the present description
• FIG. 5A an example of an optoelectronic signal acquired by the detector of a wavefront analysis system, disturbed by parasitic interference
• FIGS. 6A-6C are images respectively illustrating the assembly (FIG.6A) of the raw local slopes of the wavefront calculated from the optoelectronic signal shown in FIG. 5A, the set (FIG.6B) of the integrable local slopes of the wavefront calculated from a wavefront drift (shown in FIG.5B), the set (6C) of local slopes not integrable wavefront computed from the subtraction of all integrable local slopes of the wavefront (FIG.6B) to the set of raw local slopes (FIG.6A);
• FIGS. 7A-7C diagrams respectively showing the power spectral density of the raw local slopes (FIG 7A), integrable local slopes (FIG.7B) and unintegrable local slopes (FIG.7C).
• FIGS. 1 and 2 generally illustrate steps of a method for evaluating the quality of the measurement of an optical wavefront and a direct measurement wavefront analysis system implementing such a method. .
• the wavefront analysis system 20 illustrated in FIG. 2 comprises a wavefront analyzer 21 with a two-dimensional detector 210 for acquiring an optoelectronic signal for measuring the wavefront and a set of one or more optical elements schematized in the form of an element. unique referenced 211 in FIG. 2.
• the wavefront analysis system further comprises a processing unit 22 adapted to the processing of the optoelectronic signal acquired by the detector 210 for the reconstruction of the wavefront from said optoelectronic signal, and a unit of FIG.
• the processing unit 22 is furthermore suitable for implementing the method for assessing the quality of the wavefront measurement according to the present description, as described below, of such so that when the quality evaluation method is implemented, the "quality factor" of the measurement is displayed on the display unit 23, for example in the form of a color among a color code , or a number, etc.
• the wavefront analysis system 20 is adapted for characterizing an OBJ object that does not emit light itself;
• the wavefront analysis system 20 may further comprise a light source 24 of the object.
• the object is illuminated by an external light source that is not part of the analysis system.
• the measurement can be carried out in transmission (case of FIG 2) but can also be carried out in reflection in the case of the analysis of a reflective system (for example a mirror).
• the object OBJ to be characterized is, for example, and non-exhaustively, a refractive or reflective optical component, such as an imaging lens, a mirror, a filter, a porthole, etc .; the OBJ object may also be a deformable optical component, for example a deformable mirror, a liquid crystal valve, a liquid lens and more generally any phase modulator used in active optics, adaptive optics or for beam shaping ( "Beam shaping").
• the wavefront analyzed is the wavefront from the illuminated object, the wavefront analysis allowing the optical characterization of the object.
• the lighting source 24 is for example a laser, a laser diode (fiber or not), a super-luminescent diode (dark or not), an LED (fiber or not) or a hole illuminated by a lamp.
• the object to be characterized is a light source (for example a laser source, a laser diode, a light emitting diode or LED), the implementation of the measurement does not need to provide a source lighting as shown in FIG. 2.
• the analyzed wavefront is indeed directly the wavefront emitted by the light source which is itself the object of analysis.
• FIG. 1 illustrates, according to an example of the steps of the method for assessing the quality of the wavefront measurement according to the present description, implemented for example by means of a wavefront analysis system such as illustrated in FIG. 2.
• the method comprises the acquisition (step 10) of an optoelectronic signal by means of a wavefront sensor for measuring the wavefront, the determination (step 11) from the optoelectronic signal of at least a characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the optoelectronic signal, the evaluation (step 12) of a quality factor of the measurement of the wavefront as a function of the at least one characteristic parameter of the parasitic component of the signal, and displaying (step 13) a quality level determined according to said quality factor, on a display unit as shown for example in FIG. 2.
• the present description also relates to a method for analyzing a wavefront by direct measurement that integrates the method for evaluating the quality of the wavefront measurement as described in FIG. 1.
• a local slope measured at the coordinates (i, j) in a measurement plane defined by an orthonormal reference (x, y) ("gross" local slope) can be described. by a component along the x axis and a component along the y axis.
• the set of raw local slopes can therefore be represented in the form of a table of slopes x ("tabX") and a table of slopes y ("tabY").
• the gross local slope at the point of coordinates (i, j) in the measurement plane will therefore have as component along the x axis "tabX (i, j)" and as component along the y axis “tabY (i, j) ".
• the treatments can be performed from the slope table along the x-axis and / or the slope table along the y-axis.
• the method of evaluating the quality of the wavefront measurement can be done concomitantly with the measurement of the wavefront itself, that is to say concomitantly with the reconstruction of the front of the wavefront. wave from the optoelectronic signal acquired by the detector. In this case, a user sees at the same time the reconstructed wavefront and a value of the quality factor which gives the user a level of confidence in the measurement made.
• the method for evaluating the quality of the wavefront measurement can also be done in a deferred manner with respect to the measurement of the wavefront itself. Indeed, once the optoelectronic signal acquired and saved, the user can start the evaluation of the quality factor at any time after performing the measurement of the wavefront, without time limit.
• Several characteristic parameters of a parasitic component of the signal can be determined from the optoelectronic signal acquired by the detector 210 to evaluate a quality factor of the measurement. The nature of the parameter may depend on the type of spurious signal. It will also be possible to combine these parameters.
• FIG. 3A illustrates a first example of a method for evaluating the quality of the wavefront measurement according to the present description, in which a signal is detected in zones of the two-dimensional detector which are not covered by a signal useful for the measurement. of the wavefront.
• a characteristic parameter for the evaluation of a quality factor of the measurement is adapted especially in the case where sources of spurious signal are ambient light, forming on the two-dimensional detector a non-uniform diffusive background signal, or a source point light with good spatial coherence, etc.
• the method as described in FIG. 3A comprises, after the acquisition (step 10) of an optoelectronic signal for the measurement of the wavefront, a step 111 of identification from said optoelectronic signal of areas not covered by the signal useful for the measurement of the front wave.
• FIG. 3B represents, by way of example, the image acquired by a two-dimensional detector of a Hartmann Shack wavefront analyzer in the presence of a diffuse spurious signal due to the ambient light of the room where the measurement has been carried out .
• the network of spots 31 represents the spots generated by the micro lens array traversed by the wavefront to be analyzed. This network of spots 31 represents the useful signal.
• This figure clearly shows a diffuse and non-uniform parasitic flux related to the presence of stray light due to ambient lighting of the room. This signal is easily identifiable in zones of the two-dimensional detector not covered by the useful signal (zones referenced 32).
• FIG. 3C schematically illustrates the area 31 representing the spot generated by a micro lens (useful signal) and the area 32 outside the area 31.
• the method for assessing the quality of the wavefront measurement then comprises determining (step 112) a parasitic component from the optoelectronic signal measured in areas that are not covered by a signal useful for the measurement. of the wavefront and the calculation (step 121) of the quality factor from at least one characteristic parameter of the parasitic component.
• steps 111, 112 and 121 can be performed as follows:
• Step 111 during the computation of the raw local slopes from the spots formed by the micro lens array, a given number of measurement zones of the parasitic signal around the spot formed by each of the optoelectronic signal coming from the detector is identified. micro lens. In FIG. 3C, it is for example 4 zones referenced 321, 322, 323, 324.
• Step 112 For each of the spots, the value of the optoelectronic signal of the matrix detector in the measurement areas of the spurious signal (321, 322, 323, 324) is measured and averaged. An amplitude map of the parasitic flux corresponding to the characteristic parameter of the parasitic component of the signal is obtained.
• Step 121 the quality factor is calculated, for example, by averaging the amplitude map of the parasitic flux obtained in step 112.
• the higher the value of the quality factor the more the measurement will be declared as disturbed by the spurious signal to a user.
• steps 111, 112 and 121 can be carried out as follows:
• Step 111 during the calculation of the raw local slopes from the spots formed by the micro-lens array, a given number of measurement zones of the parasitic signal (321, 322, 323) are identified on the optoelectronic signal from the detector, 324) around the stain (31), for example 4 as in the previous example.
• Step 112 For each of the spots, the value of the optoelectronic signal of the matrix detector is measured in the measurement zones of the parasitic signal (321, 322, 323, 324) and the absolute value of the difference in the values of the optoelectronic signal is calculated. areas taken 2 to 2 and averaged. A map representative of the non-uniformity of the parasitic signal around the useful signal is then obtained, this card forming the characteristic parameter of the parasitic component of the signal.
• Step 121 the quality factor is calculated by realizing for example the average of the non-uniformity card of the parasitic signal around the useful signal obtained in step 121.
• the higher the quality factor value the higher the the measurement is declared disturbed by the spurious signal.
• a "quality of measurement" display is displayed. For example, a discrete number of colors or numbers are associated with calculated values of the quality factor, indicating to the user what each color or each color corresponds to. figure. For example, there may be 5 levels of the quality factor, corresponding to excellent, good, average, bad, very bad quality, respectively. Depending on the level of the quality factor, a user can be advised of a number of steps to take to find better measurement conditions. When the quality level is not satisfactory, several improvement actions can be carried out. For example :
• Eliminate ambient light (turn off the light in the room where the measurement is made).
• Hide stray light sources that may illuminate, even partially, the wavefront analyzer detector.
• These parasitic light sources may be for example a computer screen, the "on-off" lights of electronic devices, a desk lamp, etc.
• One way of acquiring a background image is to acquire an image with the detector of the wavefront analyzer having switched off or concealed the light source generating the beam used to carry out the measurement (the source 24 of FIG. .2 for example).
• FIG. 4 illustrates a second example of determining a characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the signal to evaluate the quality of the wavefront measurement.
• a characteristic parameter of a parasitic component of the signal comprises a subset of the raw local slopes determined from the optoelectronic signal, formed by non-integrable local slopes.
• wavefront analyzers by direct wavefront measurement have access only to the derivative of the wavefront. These analyzers can therefore only measure continuous wave fronts, ie wave fronts whose local slopes are 100% integrable.
• the identification and quantification of non-integrable local slopes in the measured local slopes is therefore an objective indicator of the quality of the implementation of the wavefront measurement. Indeed, a wavefront measurement performed in the optimal implementation conditions must give a set of local slopes not integrable negligible or almost zero.
• parasitic signal-related degradation has no reason to have the property of being 100% integrable.
• FIG. 5A represents the optoelectronic signal obtained with a Hartmann Shack analyzer, comprising 128x128 micro lenses.
• This analyzer measures the phase of an optical wavefront crossing a plane-parallel plate with one side having a semi-reflective treatment and the other side being untreated.
• the illumination beam is monochromatic at a wavelength of 1064 nm and the coherence length of the illumination beam is much greater than the thickness of the strip.
• the signal is disturbed by a parasitic wave generated by the double reflection on both sides of the blade and this parasitic wave interferes with the beam having passed through the blade. The contrast of this interference is very low and this interference is hardly discernable on the optoelectronic signal from the matrix detector.
• FIG. 6A represents the map of the raw local slopes calculated from the optoelectronic signal illustrated that FIG. 5A.
• FIG. 6B represents the map of integrable local slopes obtained by digital derivation of the wavefront illustrated in FIG. 5B and FIG. 6C the map of nonintegrable local slopes, the results of the difference between the raw local slopes and the local slopes. integrable.
• FIGs. 6A, B and C are displayed with the same scale for the representation of local slopes.
• FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C respectively represent the power spectral density (DSP) of the gross local slopes along the x-axis (FIG 7A), local slopes integrable along the x-axis (FIG 7B), and non-local slopes integrable along the x-axis (FIG 7C).
• DSP power spectral density
• FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C respectively represent the power spectral density (DSP) of the gross local slopes along the x-axis (FIG 7A), local slopes integrable along the x-axis (FIG 7B), and non-local slopes integrable along the x-axis (FIG 7C).
• DSP power spectral density
• FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C respectively represent the power spectral density (DSP) of the gross local slopes along the x-axis (FIG 7A), local slopes integrable along the x-axis (FIG 7B), and non-local slope
• the calculation of the quality factor from the non-integrable local slopes can be performed simply by calculating, for example, the RMS value of the table of non-integrable local slopes along the axis x, the RMS value of the table of non-integrable local slopes along the y axis and averaging the 2 found RMS values.
• a higher value of the quality factor indicates a more disturbed measurement.
• the quality factor can be calculated in many other ways.
• the calculation of the quality factor can take into account the frequency behavior (spatial frequency) of the nonintegrable local slopes.
• the information sought by the user is wavefront information that is to say the result of the integration of measured local slopes (raw local slopes).
• the amplitude of the reinjection of the local slope errors on the wavefront during the integration depends on the spatial frequency of the local slope errors: the errors of low spatial frequencies generate, during the integration, strong errors on the wavefront while errors at high spatial frequencies generate errors on the low amplitude wavefront. Since the frequency behavior of integrable local slope errors and that of non-integrable local slopes are similar, the frequency study of non-integrable slopes makes it possible to refine the knowledge of the importance of the degradation of the wavefront measurement.
• a preponderant weight can be given to the low spatial frequencies of nonintegrable slopes in the calculation of the quality factor of the measurement.
• the weight may be the inverse of the spatial frequency, or it may be decided to keep for the calculation of the quality factor only slopes whose spatial frequency is less than a fraction of the cutoff frequency.
• the calculation of the quality factor (Q) made from the non-integrable local slopes can be carried out as follows:
• DSP integrated power spectral densities
• fmax the maximum spatial frequency up to which we wish to take into account the frequency content of the DSP. For example, if we want to favor the low spatial frequencies in the calculation of the quality factor, fmax can be fixed at 1/4 of the cutoff frequency of DSPix or DPSiy (in the case of FIGS. 7, the cutoff frequency is equal to 64).
• the quality factor Q is:
• the calculation of the quality factor (Q) made from the non-integrable local slopes can be carried out as follows:
• DSPix and DSPiy integrated DSP such as those of FIG7A-7C local slopes not integrable along the x-axis and along the y-axis.
• fc the cutoff frequency of the DSPix or DPSiy (in the case of Figures 7, the cutoff frequency is equal to 64).
• a "quality of measurement” display can then be performed. For example, colors or numbers are associated with calculated values of the quality factor, indicating to the user what each color or number is. For example, there may be 5 levels of the quality factor, corresponding to excellent, good, average, bad, very bad quality, respectively. Depending on the level of the quality factor, a user can be advised of a number of steps to take to find better measurement conditions. When the quality level is not satisfactory, several improvement actions can be carried out. For example : Eliminate ambient light (turn off the light in the room where the measurement is made). Hide stray light sources that may illuminate, even partially, the wavefront analyzer detector. These parasitic light sources may be, a computer screen, the "on-off" lights of electronic devices, a desk lamp, etc.
• One way of acquiring a background image is to acquire an image with the detector of the wavefront analyzer by having turned off or hidden the light source generating the beam used to perform the measurement (the source 24 of the FIG.2 for example).
• the final quality factor of the measurement could result from the multiplication of a quality factor calculated using the method described in relation to FIG. 3A with a quality factor calculated using the method described in relation to FIG. 4.
• the invention has been described using the example of a Shack-Hartmann, but it can also be applied to Hartmann type systems, of the lateral shift interferometer type, or more generally to a direct edge analyzer intended to measure the local slopes of a wavefront.

Landscapes

• Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
• Spectroscopy & Molecular Physics (AREA)
• General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
• Testing Of Optical Devices Or Fibers (AREA)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Publications (1)

Family

ID=59296906

Family Applications (1)

Country Status (6)

Families Citing this family (1)

Family Cites Families (10)

• 2017
  • 2017-01-27 FR FR1750684A patent/FR3062476B1/fr active Active
• 2018
  • 2018-01-26 US US16/481,413 patent/US11047741B2/en active Active
  • 2018-01-26 WO PCT/EP2018/051970 patent/WO2018138269A1/fr unknown
  • 2018-01-26 EP EP18704888.9A patent/EP3574295A1/fr active Pending
  • 2018-01-26 JP JP2019540542A patent/JP7149948B2/ja active Active
  • 2018-01-26 CN CN201880022164.0A patent/CN110546470B/zh active Active

Also Published As

Similar Documents

Legal Events