Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 61, Issue 14, 1412002(2024)
Detection of Static Aberrations in Imaging Optical Path Considering Residual Constraints of Wavefront Sensor
Figures & Tables(17)
![Optical and mechanical layout of the AO-assisted multi-wavelength simultaneous imaging system of the 1 m new vaccum solar telescope[4]](/Images/icon/loading.gif){kind=icon}
Fig. 1. Optical and mechanical layout of the AO-assisted multi-wavelength simultaneous imaging system of the 1 m new vaccum solar telescope[4]
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of non-common optical path static aberration offline detection model
Fig. 4. Statistics of initial static aberrations in different groups. (a) PV distribution diagram; (b) RMS distribution diagram
Fig. 5. Evaluation function curves for different groups of aberrations in 1500 iterations. (a) [-0.2λ,0.2λ]; (b) [-0.5λ,0.5λ]; (c) [-0.8λ,0.8λ]; (d) [-λ,λ]
Fig. 7. Detection results of small static aberrations (value range [-0.2λ,0.2λ]). (a) (b) (c)The detection results without wavefront sensor residual information; (d) (e) (f) the detection results using the 30-order residual information from the wavefront sensor; (g) (h) (i) detection results using 50-order residual information from the wavefront sensor
Fig. 8. Detection results of large static aberrations (value range [-λ,λ]). (a)(b)(c) The detection results without wavefront sensor residual information; (d) (e) (f) the detection results using the 30-order residual information from the wavefront sensor; (g) (h) (i) the detection results using 50-order residual information from the wavefront sensor
Fig. 9. The detection accuracy of Zernike mode coefficient for large static aberrations (value range[-0.2λ,0.2λ]) under different signal-to-noise ratios. (a) SNR is 30; (b) SNR is 20; (c) SNR is 10
Fig. 10. The detection accuracy of Zernike mode coefficient for large static aberrations (value range [-λ,λ]) under different signal-to-noise ratios. (a) SNR is 30; (b) SNR is 20; (c) SNR is 10
Fig. 12. Experimental results of static aberration detection; (a) Initial far-field image; (b) compensation far-field image; (c) iterative convergence curve; (d) mean static aberration detected
Fig. 13. Experimental results of static aberration detection accuracy; (a) Iterative convergence curve; (b) comparison of static aberration detection values; (c) the detection accuracy of static aberrations
Table 1. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-0.2λ,0.2λ]
View tableTable 1. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-0.2λ,0.2λ]
Zernike coefficient Aberration /λ Detected aberration /λ Precision /λ defocus -0.17653 -0.17610 -0.00044 y primary astigmatism 0.16234 0.16248 -0.00014 x primary astigmatism -0.19412 -0.19379 -0.00034 y primary coma 0.14605 0.14616 -0.00011 x primary coma -0.19224 -0.19210 -0.00014 y trefoil 0.06619 0.06602 0.00017 x trefoil -0.10001 -0.09998 -0.00002 primary spherical 0.09610 0.09559 0.00050 x secondary astigmatism 0.12405 0.12382 0.00023 y secondary astigmatism 0.14367 0.14355 0.00012 x tetrafoil -0.13609 -0.13641 0.00032 y tetrafoil -0.17770 -0.17819 0.00049
Table 2. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-0.5λ,0.5λ]
View tableTable 2. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-0.5λ,0.5λ]
Zernike coefficient Aberration /λ Detected aberration /λ Precision /λ defocus 0.30658 0.30711 -0.00054 y primary astigmatism -0.36375 -0.36438 0.00063 x primary astigmatism 0.12470 0.12510 -0.00040 y primary coma 0.37471 0.37558 -0.00088 x primary coma -0.25945 -0.25963 0.00018 y trefoil 0.31950 0.31910 0.00039 x trefoil -0.27718 -0.27659 -0.00059 primary spherical 0.03591 0.03592 -0.00002 x secondary astigmatism -0.31418 -0.31429 0.00011 y secondary astigmatism -0.29790 -0.29821 0.00031 x tetrafoil 0.45494 0.45453 0.00041 y tetrafoil -0.22197 -0.22197 0.00000
Table 3. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-0.8λ,0.8λ]
View tableTable 3. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-0.8λ,0.8λ]
Zernike coefficient Aberration /λ Detected aberration /λ Precision /λ defocus 0.45748 0.45840 -0.00091 y primary astigmatism -0.57025 -0.57032 0.00007 x primary astigmatism 0.61936 0.61932 0.00004 y primary coma -0.22596 -0.22607 0.00011 x primary coma -0.76120 -0.76156 0.00036 y trefoil 0.18156 0.18171 -0.00015 x trefoil -0.73635 -0.73589 -0.00047 primary spherical 0.19757 0.19793 -0.00036 x secondary astigmatism -0.11349 -0.11366 0.00017 y secondary astigmatism 0.65975 0.65971 0.00004 x tetrafoil -0.62399 -0.62405 0.00006 y tetrafoil -0.34237 -0.34209 -0.00029
Table 4. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-λ,λ]
View tableTable 4. Comparison of Zernike polynomial coefficient detection values,aberration interval [-λ,λ]
Zernike coefficient Aberration /λ Detected aberration /λ Precision /λ defocus 0.92966 0.93166 -0.00200 y primary astigmatism 0.52875 0.53038 -0.00163 x primary astigmatism 0.45154 0.45094 0.00059 y primary coma -0.15062 -0.15097 0.00035 x primary coma 0.64159 0.64121 0.00038 y trefoil -0.36958 -0.36919 -0.00039 x trefoil -0.50387 -0.50348 -0.00040 primary spherical 0.78911 0.79012 -0.00101 x secondary astigmatism 0.44508 0.44482 0.00026 y secondary astigmatism 0.39257 0.39295 -0.00038 x tetrafoil -0.86293 -0.86394 0.00100 y tetrafoil -0.94342 -0.94407 0.00065
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Cibao Zhang, Libo Zhong, Changhui Rao. Detection of Static Aberrations in Imaging Optical Path Considering Residual Constraints of Wavefront Sensor[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2024, 61(14): 1412002
Paper Information
Category: Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology
Received: Sep. 19, 2023
Accepted: Nov. 27, 2023
Published Online: Jul. 4, 2024
The Author Email: Libo Zhong (chrao@ioe.ac.cn), Changhui Rao (zhonglibo@ioe.ac.cn)
CSTR:32186.14.LOP232155
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20