I DMD optical Setup: Diffraction-limited resolution

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_44332
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the diffraction-limited resolution for an optical setup using a multimode fiber with a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.2 and a wavelength of 1500 nm. The user calculates the diffraction-limited resolution using the Rayleigh criterion, arriving at approximately 4.6 µm. They note that since their projected DMD pixel size is 8 µm, the setup is sampling-limited rather than diffraction-limited. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between NA, wavelength, and resolution in optical systems. Overall, the analysis confirms that the pixel size impacts the effective resolution of the optical setup.
Peter_44332
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi! I'd like to calculate the diffraction-limited resolution for the following optical setup:

1755455429074.webp

  • Source: multimode fiber end, NA = 0.2 --> smallest NA, likely limiting?
  • Wavelength: 1500 nm
  • Lens 1 & 2: f = 50 mm & d = 25 mm
  • Lens 3: f = 30 mm & d = 12.5 mm
Is it correct to assume that the diffraction-limited resolution (Rayleigh criterion) is δ = 0.61*λ/(NA) ≈ 4.6 µm?

Since my projected DMD pixel size is 8 µm, the setup would be sampling-limited rather than diffraction-limited, correct?


Thanks a lot for your help!
 
Science news on Phys.org
Not correct. Diffraction limitation of the illumination beam is not connected to the DMD pixel size and it resolution. The size of illumination beam is only defining the size of illuminated area at DMD.
The resolution of the DMD projection is defined by the size of field aperture located at focus between lens 2 and 3. You haven't showed any aperture between lens 2 and 3 on the drawing, but the size of aperture at the beam focus is defining how wide diffraction angle is accepted from the DMD.
 
Thanks for the reply! There is no field aperture positioned between lenses 2 and 3, the diffraction orders of the DMD are recombined with the 4f-setup.
 
DMD setup resolution.webp

May be this picture helps.
Think about Lens 2 as a microscope looking at DMD pixels. Its resolution would be defined by the numerical aperture of Lens 2 in the object space (at DMD object), meaning how width angle of diffracted from DMD object would be accepted by lens 2 and consecutive optics.
If you have not defined any aperture stop for lens 2, it resolution may vary over DMD field as numerical aperture may vary. The best option I would aim telecentric condition for lens 2, setting the aperture stop at it focus (approximately where you have beam focused between lenses 2 and 3).
Another problem is that projection of DMD is done at some angle, meaning your projected field would be also tilted in the image space. Why not make illumination at angle and projection optics working ortogonal to the DMD?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top