OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Journal of the Optical Society of America

  • Vol. 58, Iss. 9 — Sep. 1, 1968
  • pp: 1289–1294

Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Holographic Image Radiance

F. G. KASPAR, R. L. LAMBERTS, and C. D. EDGETT  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA, Vol. 58, Issue 9, pp. 1289-1294 (1968)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.58.001289


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (944 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

In a previous paper, several theoretical expressions were derived for calculating the ratio of the light flux in a holographic image of a uniform but extended source to that of a direct image of the source itself, account being taken of the sensitometric characteristics of the photographic material. The present paper is an experimental extension of this work. In particular, comparisons are made between theoretical curves and experimental data for variations of (1) the average density of the hologram, (2) the ratio of object-beam to reference-beam irradiances, and (3) the angular extent of the object. The performance of certain photographic developers is also discussed.

Citation
F. G. KASPAR, R. L. LAMBERTS, and C. D. EDGETT, "Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Holographic Image Radiance," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 58, 1289-1294 (1968)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-58-9-1289


Sort:  Author  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. F. G. Kaspar and R. L. Lamberts, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 58, 970 (1968). All notations in the present paper are identical with those in this earlier publication.
  2. The theoretical curve of ½Ki vs Ta was calculated from Eq. (19b) in Ref. 1, namely, ½Ki=g′2 (E0)[E02/(l+R02)2], where g′(E0) is the slope of the sensitometric curve at the average exposure, E0.
  3. A. A. Friesem, A. Kozma, and G. F. Adams, Appl. Opt. 6, 851 (1967).
  4. Note that a pure sine wave with 21% modulation gives the same ratio of standard deviation to average exposure; that is, 0.21÷(2)1/2=0.15.
  5. R. L. Lamberts, J. Soc. Motion Picture Television Engrs. 71, 635 (1962).
  6. A. VanderLugt and R. H. Mitchel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 372 (1967).
  7. Equation (25) is K1=0.377 [g′(ξ0)]2R02. In this equation, g′ is the slope of the Ta vs logE curve, and ξ0 is the average of logE.
  8. Equation (31) reads (total diffracted image flux)/(zero-order flux)=0.497[g′(ξ0)]2R02. In this case, g′ is the slope of the D vs logE curve, ξ0 is the average of logE, and R02 is the beam-balance ratio.
  9. See the expansion of Eq. (20), Ref. 1, and note that the quantity [ζ(x)-ξ0] is equal to log{l+R2(x)+2R(x) cos[kξx-φ(Φ)]}.

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.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited