We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until November 22nd, 2024 - no new submissions will be accepted; however, all content already published will remain publicly available. Please reach out to repository@u.library.arizona.edu with your questions, or if you are a UA affiliate who needs to make content available soon. Note that any new user accounts created after September 22, 2024 will need to be recreated by the user in November after our migration is completed.
MULTIPLE SOURCE TESTING OF CAMERA SYSTEMS
| dc.contributor.author | Rodriguez-Torres, Cristobal | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-12-14T20:33:02Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-12-14T20:33:02Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1970-06 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/621650 | |
| dc.description | QC 351 A7 no. 54 | en |
| dc.description.abstract | It is possible to use a target of two coherent point sources, with a separation much greater than the resolution limit of a diffraction -limited lens, to determine the best focus of a photographic system. The interference pattern formed is a function of the focus error. Measurement of its characteristics (fringe period, fringe number, etc.) for different focus errors should indicate the best focus. Since the measurement is made at a long distance from focus, there is no ambiguity as to the direction of the best focus position relative to the film. An experiment, in which known focus errors were introduced on both sides of a visual best focus for a two -coherent -point- sources target, was designed and carried out for a 35 -mm camera system to determine the usefulness of such a method of determining best focus. A comparison test was made against a standard resolution vs focus error method. The experiment showed an unambiguous best focus within an error of 10 pm. The focus position was unambiguous because the final relationship studied was linear, and only one value was obtained. In general the new method appears to be faster, simpler, cheaper, and more accurate than the standard resolution method, and it requires no special instrumentation on the camera being tested. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en |
| dc.publisher | Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona (Tucson, Arizona) | en |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Optical Sciences Technical Report 54 | en |
| dc.rights | Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents | |
| dc.subject | Optics. | en |
| dc.subject | Photographic lenses. | en |
| dc.subject | Photographic optics. | en |
| dc.title | MULTIPLE SOURCE TESTING OF CAMERA SYSTEMS | en_US |
| dc.type | Technical Report | en |
| dc.description.collectioninformation | This title from the Optical Sciences Technical Reports collection is made available by the College of Optical Sciences and the University Libraries, The University of Arizona. If you have questions about titles in this collection, please contact repository@u.library.arizona.edu. | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-09-11T16:13:34Z | |
| html.description.abstract | It is possible to use a target of two coherent point sources, with a separation much greater than the resolution limit of a diffraction -limited lens, to determine the best focus of a photographic system. The interference pattern formed is a function of the focus error. Measurement of its characteristics (fringe period, fringe number, etc.) for different focus errors should indicate the best focus. Since the measurement is made at a long distance from focus, there is no ambiguity as to the direction of the best focus position relative to the film. An experiment, in which known focus errors were introduced on both sides of a visual best focus for a two -coherent -point- sources target, was designed and carried out for a 35 -mm camera system to determine the usefulness of such a method of determining best focus. A comparison test was made against a standard resolution vs focus error method. The experiment showed an unambiguous best focus within an error of 10 pm. The focus position was unambiguous because the final relationship studied was linear, and only one value was obtained. In general the new method appears to be faster, simpler, cheaper, and more accurate than the standard resolution method, and it requires no special instrumentation on the camera being tested. |
