High-accuracy three-dimensional aspheric mirror measurement with nanoprofiler based on normal vector tracing method

Kudo, Ryuichi; Kitayama, Takao; Tokuta, Yusuke; Shiraji, Hiroki; Nakano, Motohiro; Yamamura, Kazuya; Endo, Kazuhiko

doi:10.1016/j.optlaseng.2017.06.024

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 216 ] Recently a new nanoprofiler capable of 3D surface error measurement to nanometer accuracy was developed at Osaka University based on the normal vector tracing method. [ 224 ]…”

Section: Single‐point‐probe‐based Profilometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Freeform Optical Surfaces: Trade‐Off between Accuracy and Dynamic Range

Chen

Xue

Zhai

et al. 2020

Laser & Photonics Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freeform optical surfaces are advantageous to optical designers, as they provide additional degrees of freedom for optimization. The loss of rotational symmetry, however, makes measurement of freeforms more challenging. Herein, advances in interferometric areal measurement of freeform optical surfaces, including null tests, non-null tests, near-null tests, and adaptive null tests, are reviewed. Some new developments, in the Hartmann test, deflectometry, and phase retrieval, as representatives of non-interferometric areal measurement, are then presented. Overall, the focus is on single-point-probe-based profilometry categorized into coordinate measurements and slope-or curvature-based measurements. Innovative measurement technology is trying to bridge the gap between high accuracy and high dynamic range as freeform optical surfaces are finding more applications in visible and shorter-wavelength optics.

show abstract

“…[ 216 ] Recently a new nanoprofiler capable of 3D surface error measurement to nanometer accuracy was developed at Osaka University based on the normal vector tracing method. [ 224 ]…”

Section: Single‐point‐probe‐based Profilometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Freeform Optical Surfaces: Trade‐Off between Accuracy and Dynamic Range

Chen

Xue

Zhai

et al. 2020

Laser & Photonics Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the repeatability of measurements is lower than with interferometers. Therefore, in a previous study, we developed a nanoprofiler to guarantee high reproducibility and measurement accuracy 15 – 17 Thus far, we have been able to measure a spherical shape and an aspherical shape separately, but in this study, we newly measure a cylindrical surface shape as a free-form surface shape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, in a previous study, we developed a nanoprofiler to guarantee high reproducibility and measurement accuracy. [15][16][17] Thus far, we have been able to measure a spherical shape and an aspherical shape separately, but in this study, we newly measure a cylindrical surface shape as a free-form surface shape. Compared with other free-form surface shapes, the cylindrical surface shape has a less complex CGH pattern, and it is possible to achieve an interferometer measurement shape accuracy of 30 nm peak-to-valley (PV).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cylindrical surface shape measurement method and measurement comparison

Miyawaki

Endo

2022

Opt. Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optical elements are used in various fields, in which it is required to measure spherical, aspherical, and free-form surface shapes. We use a nanoprofiler previously developed by our research group to measure a cylindrical surface shape. Unlike spherical or aspherical shapes, the cylindrical surface shape of free-form surface is rotationally asymmetrical and thus difficult to determine the measured position. Therefore, we processed fiducial marks on the measured sample and specified the measurement position by fiducial marks. Then we performed comparative measurements with a Fizeau interferometer using a computer generated hologram (CGH) as a reference plane. The nanoprofiler and interferometer measured to accuracies of 43.7 nm peak-tovalley (PV) and 60.9 nm PV, respectively; the difference between the two was 17.2 nm PV. Furthermore, a spherical shape and an aspherical shape were similarly measured by both devices. The spherical shape had a difference of 8.4 nm PV and that of the aspherical shape was 9.7 nm PV; thus the difference between the measurements of the cylindrical surface shape was larger. Considering that the guaranteed accuracy of CGH for measuring a cylindrical surface shape is ∼30 nm PV, we concluded that this is a reasonable result and fiducial marks are effective to determine the position.

show abstract