OSA's Digital Library

Applied Optics

Applied Optics


  • Editor: Joseph N. Mait
  • Vol. 48, Iss. 36 — Dec. 20, 2009
  • pp: 6967–6972

Performance comparison between Shack–Hartmann and astigmatic hybrid wavefront sensors

Shane Barwick  »View Author Affiliations

Applied Optics, Vol. 48, Issue 36, pp. 6967-6972 (2009)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (221 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Simulations on Kolmogorov phase screens are employed to compare the relative performance of an astigmatic hybrid wavefront sensor (AHS) to that of a Shack–Hartmann sensor (SHS). The AHS is shown to improve phase reconstruction accuracy when the subaperture phase contains significant energy in curvature modes and a moderate to high number of photons are collected. Dual use of the AHS and SHS may extend enhanced reconstruction to low signal levels. The AHS is also shown to have a small benefit for tilt-only reconstruction when the beam has sufficient power.

© 2009 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(010.7350) Atmospheric and oceanic optics : Wave-front sensing
(350.1260) Other areas of optics : Astronomical optics
(110.1080) Imaging systems : Active or adaptive optics

ToC Category:
Imaging Systems

Original Manuscript: October 13, 2009
Manuscript Accepted: November 10, 2009
Published: December 11, 2009

Shane Barwick, "Performance comparison between Shack-Hartmann and astigmatic hybrid wavefront sensors," Appl. Opt. 48, 6967-6972 (2009)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. C. Paterson and J. Dainty, “Hybrid curvature and gradient wave-front sensor,” Opt. Lett. 25, 1687-1689 (2000). [CrossRef]
  2. S. Barbero, J. Rubinstein, and L. Thibos, “Wavefront sensing and reconstruction from gradient and Laplacian data measured with a Hartmann-Shack sensor,” Opt. Lett. 31, 1845-1847 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. W. Zou, K. Thompson, and J. Rolland, “Differential Shack-Hartmann curvature sensor: local principal curvature measurements,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25, 2331-2337 (2008). [CrossRef]
  4. S. Barwick, “Detecting higher-order wavefront aberrations with an astigmatic hybrid wavefront sensor,” Opt. Lett. 34, 1690-1692 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. E. Johansson and D. Gavel, “Simulation of stellar speckle imaging,” Proc. SPIE 1237, 372-383 (1994). [CrossRef]
  6. J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics (McGraw-Hill, 1968).
  7. S. Barwick, “Least-squares reconstruction for hybrid curvature wavefront sensors,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A (to be published).
  8. H. Barrett, C. Dainty, and D. Lara, “Maximum-likelihood methods in wavefront sensing: stochastic models and likelihood functions,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, 391-414 (2007). [CrossRef]
  9. M. A. van Dam and R. G. Lane, “Tip/tilt estimation from defocused images,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 745-752 (2002). [CrossRef]
  10. R. Marks, D. Mathine, J. Schwiegerling, G. Peyman, and N. Peyghambarian, “Astigmatism and defocus wavefront correction via Zernike modes produced with fluidic lenses,” Appl. Opt. 48, 3580-3587 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


Fig. 1 Fig. 2

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited