What Determines Axial Resolution in Spherical Lenses?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Axial resolution in spherical lenses is determined by factors such as the numerical aperture, refractive index of the medium, and the wavelength of light, as described by the formula R = Lambda x refractive index of medium/numerical aperture^2. In conventional light microscopy, axial resolution is approximately half that of lateral resolution due to the inherent properties of the point spread function (PSF). The axial PSF is typically three times the extent of the lateral PSF for simple circular lenses, which do not have obscurations or phase singularities. Techniques like confocal microscopy and Bessel beams can modify the axial PSF, affecting resolution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Huygens-Fresnel principle of diffraction
  • Familiarity with point spread function (PSF) concepts
  • Knowledge of numerical aperture in optics
  • Basic grasp of light wavelength and refractive index
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Debye approximation in optical imaging
  • Explore the effects of aberrations on PSF
  • Learn about confocal microscopy techniques
  • Investigate Bessel beam applications in imaging
USEFUL FOR

Optics students, microscopy researchers, and professionals involved in optical imaging techniques who seek to enhance their understanding of axial resolution in spherical lenses.

u0362565
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I was wondering what factors determine axial resolution in spherical lenses. I know that axial resolution in conventional light microscopy at least is about half as good lateral resolution. I've read about the huygens-fresnel principle of diffraction and how this can account for the size of the airy disk at the image plane-determined by the wavelength of light and the size of the aperture. However can you use this principle to explain why axial resolution is only half as good as lateral resolution? A formula I've seen for axial resolution
R = Lambda x refractive index of medium/numerical aperture^2

This is fine but it doesn't really explain to me why this is the case.

Thanks for the help!
 
Science news on Phys.org
Interesting approach- I've never thought of the problem in this way. First, it is true that the axial PSF is about 3 times the extent of the lateral PSF *for simple circular lenses*. What I mean by 'simple' is that the lens is not obscured and the lens does not have any phase singularities (like, for example, an axicon).

So one way to think of various imaging techniques (confocal, apodization, Bessel beams, etc) is that these primarily affect the axial PSF- either to shrink it (confocal) or extend it (Bessel beams). Also, when accounting for aberrations and/or polarization, the PSF can change radically.

Most generally, the asymmetry arises from the Debye approximation for the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral (which is less restrictive than the paraxial approximation). When this is written down, the radial component of the diffracted field goes as ∫J_0(αρ)d(cosθ) while the axial component goes as ∫exp(iβz)d(cosθ), where α and β are functions of the angle θ with respect to the optical axis- see Born and Wolf or Gu's "Advanced Optical Imaging Theory" for more detail.
 
hi andy,

yes i think i should get a decent book on optics. Unfortunately I'm not a physicist or mathematician and so much in science is explained by complicated formulas that don't really mean much to me. Hence i try to look at the qualitative approach.. I'm tempted to go back and get a good grounding in mathematics, might take a while though.

thanks,
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
66
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K