Abstract

The performance of ground-based optical imaging systems is severely degraded from the diffraction limit by the random effects of the atmosphere. Adaptive-optics techniques have been used to compensate for atmospheric-turbulence effects. A critical component in the adaptive-optics system is the wave-front sensor. At present, two types of sensors are common: the Hartmann–Shack wave-front sensor and the shearing interferometer wave-front sensor. In this paper we make a direct performance comparison of these two sensors. The performance calculations are restricted to common configurations of these two sensors and the fundamental limits imposed by shot noise and atmospheric effects. These two effects encompass the effects of extended reference beacons and sensor subaperture spacings larger than the Fried parameter r ₀. Our results indicate comparable performance for good seeing conditions and small beacons. However, for poor seeing conditions and extended beacons, the Hartmann sensor has lower error levels than the shearing interferometer.

© 1995 Optical Society of America

Widening the effective field of view of adaptive-optics telescopes by deconvolution from wave-front sensing: average and signal-to-noise ratio performance

Michael C. Roggemann, Brent L. Ellerbroek, and Troy A. Rhoadarmer
Appl. Opt. 34(8) 1432-1444 (1995)

Evaluation of the performance of a shearing interferometer in strong scintillation in the absence of additive measurement noise

Jeffrey D. Barchers, David L. Fried, and Donald J. Link
Appl. Opt. 41(18) 3674-3684 (2002)

Maximum a posteriori estimation of wave-front slopes using a Shack–Hartmann wave-front sensor

Scott A. Sallberg, Byron M. Welsh, and Michael C. Roggemann
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14(6) 1347-1354 (1997)

Fundamental performance of transverse wind estimator from Shack-Hartmann wave-front sensor measurements

Zhenghan Li and Xinyang Li
Opt. Express 26(9) 11859-11876 (2018)

Use of artificial neural networks for Hartmann-sensor lenslet centroid estimation

Dennis A. Montera, Byron M. Welsh, Michael C. Roggemann, and Dennis W. Ruck
Appl. Opt. 35(29) 5747-5757 (1996)