Table I
Comparison Between the Simulation and the Restoration of the Kinoform Forming a 10-Dot Pattern
| Dot No. | Restoration
| Simulation
|
|---|
| I | D(%) | I | D(%) |
|---|
| 1 | 416 | −10 | 1041 | −7 |
| 2 | 571 | 23 | 1362 | 22 |
| 3 | 416 | −10 | 964 | −14 |
| 4 | 286 | −38 | 562 | −50 |
| 5 | 444 | −4 | 934 | −17 |
| 6 | 423 | −9 | 965 | −14 |
| 7 | 530 | 14 | 1453 | 30 |
| 8 | 396 | −14 | 946 | −16 |
| 9 | 530 | 14 | 1421 | 27 |
| 10 | 627 | 35 | 1560 | 39 |
| Mean | 463 | 20 | 1120 | 26 |
Dot No., number of the dot in the pattern (numbered from left to right, top to bottom);
I, intensity of the dot;
D, deviation from the mean intensity in percent; Mean, average value for the intensities, rms value for the deviations. The kinoform has 128 × 128 cells, and the pattern occupies a rectangle whose size is 8 × 32 cells and whose center displaced 1 cell from the optical axis. For these measurements, the kinoform was illuminated with a He–Ne laser.
Table II
Simulation of the 9-Dot Pattern Kinoform With Different Diffusers
| Dot No. | Diffuser 1
| Diffuser 2
| Diffuser 3
| Mean
|
|---|
| I | D(%) | I | D(%) | I | D(%) | I | D(%) |
|---|
| 1 | 1890 | 61 | 52 | −35 | 1574 | 34 | 1405 | 19 |
| 2 | 1291 | 10 | 135 | −2 | 661 | −44 | 1029 | −13 |
| 3 | 1175 | 0 | 172 | −8 | 1049 | −11 | 1098 | 7 |
| 4 | 852 | −27 | 57 | −18 | 1084 | −8 | 964 | −18 |
| 5 | 684 | −42 | 180 | −7 | 1456 | 24 | 1073 | 9 |
| 6 | 965 | −18 | 189 | 19 | 1211 | 3 | 1188 | 1 |
| 7 | 821 | −30 | 188 | 19 | 1290 | 9 | 1215 | 3 |
| 8 | 1213 | 3 | 128 | 31 | 1296 | 10 | 1345 | 14 |
| 9 | 1675 | 43 | 167 | 0 | 961 | 16 | 1277 | 8 |
| Mean | 1174 | 32 | 1163 | 19 | 1179 | 23 | 1177 | 12 |
Dot No., number of the dot in the pattern (numbered from left to right, top to bottom, see
Fig. 4);
I, intensity of the dot;
D, deviation from the mean intensity in percent; Mean, average value for the intensity and rms value for the deviation; Diffusers 1, 2, and 3 represent three kinoforms, each with a different diffuser (different starting value of the random number generator); Mean, average value of the corresponding dots from each of the three restorations.
Table III
Intensity of the Dots of the Restoration of the Kinoform Mosaic Used in the Processor
| Dot No. | Simulated intensity | Measured intensity |
|---|
| 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2 | 1.02 | 1.27 |
| 3 | 0.93 | 1.12 |
| 4 | 0.88 | 1.17 |
| 5 | 0.84 | 1.19 |
| 6 | 0.89 | 1.03 |
| 7 | 0.93 | 1.00 |
| 8 | 1.06 | 1.28 |
| 9 | 1.06 | 1.02 |
Values of the intensities are normalized to the value of the intensity of the first dot. For these measurements, the kinoform was illuminated by an infrared LED (820 nm).
Add to BibSonomy