OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Michael Duncan
  • Vol. 12, Iss. 12 — Jun. 14, 2004
  • pp: 2574–2588
« Show journal navigation

Application of the Alvarez-Humphrey concept to the design of a miniaturized scanning microscope

Siddharth S. Rege, Tomasz S. Tkaczyk, and Michael R. Descour  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 12, Issue 12, pp. 2574-2588 (2004)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OPEX.12.002574


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (299 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

This paper contains two optical designs that utilize the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces to provide the miniature multi-modal microscope (4M device) with the additional capability of imaging different object depths onto the same image plane. The Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces are a pair of conjugate, rotationally asymmetrical, aspheric surfaces such that, the lateral movement of these surfaces across the optical axis, results in an element of variable optical power. The first design is a direct application of the Alvarez-Humphrey concept to the 4M device. However, due to the inadequate imaging performance and unavailability of space for the actuator due to proximity of the Alvarez Plates, a second design was created. The Separated Alvarez Plate Design is a unique design involving two conjugate pairs of Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces. The lateral movement of the central element changes the optical power. However, due to the symmetry of the system and the incorporation of the theoretical work done on induced aberration correction, this system has far superior performance. It also has adequate space for the actuator due to the separation of the elements.

© 2004 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

In a traditional zoom lens design, there are at least two moving elements. In a miniaturized optical system with moving elements, the actuators required to move the elements take up a lot of space and hence it is critical to minimize their number. In addition, the exact synchronizing of the movements of the actuators that would be needed for a traditional zoom lens design would also be very difficult to achieve. This created the need for a zoom lens design having only one moving element. This need led to the idea of replacing the last lens of an existing 4M device design [2

2. M.R. Descouret al. “Toward the Development of Miniaturized Imaging Systems for the Detection of Pre-Cancer,” IEEE J. Quantum. Electron. 38, 122–130 (2002) [CrossRef]

,3

3. Junwon Lee, Jeremy D. Rodgers, and Michael R. Descour, “Imaging Quality Assessment of Multi-Modal Miniature Microscope,” Opt. Express 11, 1436–1451 (2003), http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-12-1436 [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] (as shown in Fig. 1) with a modified Alvarez-Humphrey device, where only the first plate is moved laterally across the optical axis. Until recently manufacturing Alvarez plates was prohibitively expensive, due to the costs associated with manufacturing rotationally asymmetrical aspheric surfaces in glass. However, the very nature of injection molded processes [8

8. Matthew Chidley, “Preliminary imaging results of a high NA miniature injection-molded objective designed for fiber-confocal reflectance microscopy,” presented at the OSA Conference Tucson, USA, October 2003.

] as well as the photolithographic process [5

5. Karkkainen-A.-H.-O, J Rantala, J Tamkin, and Michael Descour, “Photolithographic processing of hybrid glasses for microoptics,” J. Lightwave Technol. 21, 614–623 (2003) [CrossRef]

] allow for a cost effective and easy way of making such surfaces. Thus to the best of our knowledge, this paper presents the first design solutions that use the Alvarez-Humphrey concept to solve a current optical design problem.

2. The 4M device

The optical design for the 4M device has been adequately described in the papers by Descour et al. [2

2. M.R. Descouret al. “Toward the Development of Miniaturized Imaging Systems for the Detection of Pre-Cancer,” IEEE J. Quantum. Electron. 38, 122–130 (2002) [CrossRef]

], and Lee et al. [3

3. Junwon Lee, Jeremy D. Rodgers, and Michael R. Descour, “Imaging Quality Assessment of Multi-Modal Miniature Microscope,” Opt. Express 11, 1436–1451 (2003), http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-12-1436 [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. However, since the main purpose of the designs described in this paper is to add an object depth sampling capability to the 4M microscope objective, it would be appropriate, at this stage, to give a brief system level view of the 4M Device. The optical imaging part of the 4M device images the light being reflected off the tissue on to the CCD image plane at a paraxial magnification of -4, as shown in Fig. 1. The imaging lens layout consists of a commercial off the shelf lens, followed by three hybrid lenses. These hybrid lenses are simply plano-convex lenses, whose sag is less than 60µm. The space in between the last lens and the CCD image plane is used for the rest of the non-imaging optics such as the grating and illumination set-ups. The silicon substrate has a length of 13mm and a width of 10mm [2

2. M.R. Descouret al. “Toward the Development of Miniaturized Imaging Systems for the Detection of Pre-Cancer,” IEEE J. Quantum. Electron. 38, 122–130 (2002) [CrossRef]

]. The aim of this research was to replace the third sol-gel lens with the Alvarez plates system and actuator. Thus the maximum space available to accommodate the entire Alvarez plate assembly is about 4 to 5 mm along the optical axis and 7–8 mm in the lateral direction (given the 10 mm substrate width). Table 1 contains a list of the basic parameters of the existing 4M device. In the subsequent designs, an effort has been made to keep the basic parameters constant.

Fig. 1. Optical Layout of 4M device. The Alvarez setup is expected to replace the third hybrid lens. i.e., the lens shown furthest away from the folding mirror.

Table 1. Basic optical parameters of the 4 M devices

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

3. The adjacent Alvarez plate design (AAP)

Since the new designs were meant to be merely an addition to the already existing family of 4M devices, the basic parameters like the silicon substrate size, the size and location of the off-the-shelf lens and the first two hybrid lenses were left unchanged. This left a small area about 4–5 mm along the optical axis and 7–8 mm across the optical axis in which to place the entire object depth scanning apparatus complete with the actuator for moving the elements. The size constraints along with the previously mentioned problems regarding controlled synchronous movement meant that the zoom-lens setup could have at most one moving element. Furthermore, since there was less space along the optical axis and more space in the lateral direction, lateral movement across the optical axis rather than longitudinal movement along the optical axis would be preferred. This led to the investigation of the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces [1

1. Luis W. Alvarez and William E. Humphrey, “Variable Power Lens and System,” Patent # 3,507,565 United States Patent Office. (1970)

]. In the 4M device, the optics can be made using either the photolithographic [5

5. Karkkainen-A.-H.-O, J Rantala, J Tamkin, and Michael Descour, “Photolithographic processing of hybrid glasses for microoptics,” J. Lightwave Technol. 21, 614–623 (2003) [CrossRef]

] or injection molding [8

8. Matthew Chidley, “Preliminary imaging results of a high NA miniature injection-molded objective designed for fiber-confocal reflectance microscopy,” presented at the OSA Conference Tucson, USA, October 2003.

] technologies. In both these technologies, the main cost is just making the aspheric photo-mask (in the case of the photolithographic technology) or the aspheric mold (in the case of the injection molding technology). This cost when averaged over a large volume of production is negligible. Thus no significant additional costs are incurred in going from a spherical to an aspheric surface. Thus in the AAP design, the third hybrid lens was replaced by the Adjacent Alvarez plate setup.

Fig. 2. Schematic of the Alvarez Humphrey Surfaces

According to the equations formulated by Alvarez and Humphrey1:

The ‘sag’ or z co-ordinate of the first surface is defined by the equation:

Z1=A(xy2+x33)+Bx2+Cxy+Dx+E
(1)

Hence the equation of the conjugate surface will be:

Z2=A(xy2+x33)Bx2CxyDx+E
(2)

Now if the first surface is displaced by a distance ‘d’ in the ‘x’ direction, the equation of that surface will be:

Z1=A[(x+d)y2+(x+d)23]+B(x+d)2+C(x+d)y+D(x+d)+E
(3)

The composite lens optical thickness will be:

Z=Z1+Z2
(4)
Z=Ad(x2+y2)+dx(Ad+2B)+Cdy+constantterm
(5)

where A,B,C, and D are the coefficients of the ‘(xy2+13x3)’, ‘x2’, ‘xy’, and ‘x’ terms respectively, while ‘E’ is a term for constant thickness. Z1 and Z2 are the sags of the first and second Alvarez plates respectively. Z is the total sag of the conjugate pair, i.e. the total optical depth. ‘x’ is the lateral direction, perpendicular to the optical axis. ‘y’ is the direction perpendicular to the optical axis and to the direction of motion of the Alvarez plates, while ‘d’ is the distance moved by the Alvarez plate in the ‘x’ direction.

In the Alvarez surfaces discussed in the patent [1

1. Luis W. Alvarez and William E. Humphrey, “Variable Power Lens and System,” Patent # 3,507,565 United States Patent Office. (1970)

], the symmetrical movement of the plates causes all terms containing ‘x’ and ‘y’ to cancel out leaving only the (x2+y2) term and some constants. Thus with symmetrical movement of the plates, the two plates together form a variable power spherical lens in which the power is a function of the coefficient ‘A’ and the displacement ‘d’. However, this is not exactly the case with the single moving plate. Here along with the variable power term ‘Ad(x2+y2)’, the terms ‘(Ad2+2Bd)x’ and ‘Cdy’, which are basically variable prisms, are also present. In the AAP design, the coefficients ‘B’ and ‘C’ were initially set to zero. This leaves only ‘Ad2’ as the prism term, and this term is negligible for small values of ‘d’ due to its dependence on the square of the value of ‘d’. However, after obtaining the initial designs, a lens design program was used to optimize the variable prisms to get the design with the best imaging performance across all the fields and over all the object planes.

3.1 Basic calculations for the adjacent Alvarez plate design (AAP)

The two Alvarez plates have convex surfaces on the outside and conjugate Alvarez surfaces on the inside. Initially the radius of curvature for the outside surfaces was set at 10mm each in order to get the basic 0.114mm-1 power required for the mid-range object. The design was then simulated using the commercially available lens design software, ZEMAX with the Alvarez plates being simulated using the ‘Extra Data Editor’. Once the basic design was completed, the front and back surface curvatures of the Alvarez plates, the displacement ‘d’ and the coefficients ‘A’ and ‘D’ were set as variables and the system was optimized for maximum performance.

At this stage, a word of caution is needed. While ZEMAX is successful in simulating the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces and tracing rays through them, the author has found, to his surprise, that ZEMAX does not correctly calculate any of the paraxial data such as Paraxial Magnification, Effective Focal Length, F-number, Exit Pupil Location and Diameter and location of principal planes. Thus only ‘real-ray trace’ data such as Spot diagrams (showing location and nature of spots), MTF curves and Working F-number can be trusted. In addition, since the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces are behind the aperture stop the paraxial quantities such as Object Space NA and Entrance pupil diameter and location can also be trusted. Hence while calculating parameters such as the magnification, the author has used a set of separated point objects and calculated the magnification by seeing the separation in the corresponding point images.

Table 2 lists the basic optical parameters of the AAP design, while Table 3 gives a detailed list of the exact values of all the required dimensions. The specifications for the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces have been included in Table 4. Currently for ease of manufacture and to illustrate the basic concept, no other coefficients were used. However, further improvement can be achieved by setting other coefficients, which correspond to prism surfaces and astigmatic surfaces, as variables and optimizing for best performance over the entire object.

Table 2. Basic optical parameters for adjacent Alvarez plate design.

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

Table 2 lists the basic optical parameters of the AAP design, while Table 3 gives a detailed list of the exact values of all the required dimensions. The specifications for the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces have been included in Table 4. Currently for ease of manufacture and to illustrate the basic concept, no other coefficients were used. However, further improvement can be achieved by setting other coefficients, which correspond to variable prisms and variable astigmatic surfaces, as variables and optimizing for best performance over the entire object.

Table 3. Specifications for the AAP design.

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

Table 4. Specifications for the Alvarez Humphrey surfaces in the AAP design. Note: The signs of the coefficients do not have to be changed since the conventions in Zemax does that automatically

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

3.2. Performance of the AAP

All the subsequent graphs and calculations are at the image plane. The design is at its best in the middle of the object range, i.e. near 350µm. The layout of the system, as shown in Fig. 3, corresponds to this object distance. At these conjugates the system spot size on the image plane is smaller than the Airy disk diameter on axis and increases slightly for the outer field positions as shown in Fig. 4. Figure 5 shows the MTF performance of the system at the image plane for this mid-range object conjugate. In fact, the imaging performance of the system remains remarkably unchanged over most of the object range between 250µm and 400µm. Beyond this range, i.e. from 400µm to 450µm, the performance begins to degrade very rapidly, especially at the outer field positions. This is clearly shown in Fig.6., which plots the RMS spot size versus field position for object planes at 350µm and 450µm. Finally, the lateral displacement of the moving Alvarez plate is linearly proportional to the change in object depth for the central region from about 300µm to 400µm. At object depths less than 300µm and greater than 400µm, there is a slight non linearity in the curve.

Fig. 3. Optical Layout of the Adjacent Alvarez Plate Design
Fig. 4. Spot sizes for various fields. Obj. Dist=350µm
Fig. 5. MTF curves for various fields. Obj. dist.=350µm
Fig. 6. Rms spot radius v/s field position for different object locations.

3.3 Object resolution

For the AAP design, the diffraction limited resolution, according to the Rayleigh Criterion (i.e., resolution=0.61λ/N.A.), varies between 1.15µm and 1.37µm as the object space NA varies between 0.379 to 0.444 for the different object planes. The MTF curves shown in Fig. 5 indicate that the performance of this system is close to being diffraction limited for the fields closer to the optical axis. For the field further away from the axis, the MTF curves are much lower than the diffraction limit. This is one of the drawbacks of the AAP design.

Thus from an imaging and spatial frequency point of view, the 4M device with the Alvarez plates works to practically diffraction limited specifications on axis over object depths ranging from 250µm to 400µm. However, for outer field positions and for object plane locations beyond 400µm, the imaging performance is not diffraction limited.

4. The separated Alvarez plate design (SAP)

4.1 Problems associated with separating the Alvarez plates

The mathematical derivation of the working of the Alvarez plates in Alvarez and Humphrey’s patent [1

1. Luis W. Alvarez and William E. Humphrey, “Variable Power Lens and System,” Patent # 3,507,565 United States Patent Office. (1970)

] assumes that the plates are very close to each other. Hence it assumes that the coordinates of the point at which the ray of light exits the first Alvarez surface and the coordinates of the point at which it intersects the second Alvarez surface are the same. However, if the plates are separated then this is not the case and there can be a significant difference between the co-ordinates. This difference causes induced aberrations, which are dependent on the displacement of the Alvarez plate. The theory governing the induced aberrations was first developed by Iwona Palunsinski et al. in their paper on lateral shift variable aberration generators [4

4. Iwona A. Palusinski, Jose M. Sasian, and John E. Greivenkamp, “Lateral Shift Variable Aberration Generators,” Applied Optics 38, 86–90 (1999) [CrossRef]

]. In their publication, Palusinski et al. outline the method of calculating the induced aberrations and illustrate it by calculating the induced coma due to the prism terms in the Alvarez plates. For the SAP design, the induced aberrations due to the ‘A(xy2+13x3)’ term, which is the crucial term causing the variable optical power, were calculated.

The basic formulae mentioned below are based on the work done by Palusinski et al. [4

4. Iwona A. Palusinski, Jose M. Sasian, and John E. Greivenkamp, “Lateral Shift Variable Aberration Generators,” Applied Optics 38, 86–90 (1999) [CrossRef]

]. The induced aberrations due to the ‘Axy2+13x3)’ term are calculated in the following manner:

The sag of the two surfaces due to this term is given by :

Z1(x,y)=A(xy2+13x3)
(6)
Z2(χ,γ)=A(χγ2+13χ3)
(7)

Assuming that the first plate has been displaced by a distance ‘d’, the net wavefront ‘W(x,y)’ of the wave after it has passed through both Alvarez plates with refractive index ‘n’ is given by:

W(x,y)=(n1)[Z1(x+d,y)+Z2(χ,γ)].
(8)

Since the plates are not close to each other ‘x’ and ‘y’ are not equal to ‘χ’ and ‘γ’. If the distance between the Alvarez plates is assumed to be ‘S’, then

χ=x+S(x,y)(n1)Z1(x+d,y)x
(9)
γ=y+S(x,y)(n1)Z1(x+d,y)y
(10)
S(x,y)=S+Z1(x+d,y)+Z2(x,y)
(11)

After carrying out the above calculations, all the terms having the displacement term ‘d’ in the second or higher order were set to zero as they were negligible due to the small value of ‘d’. In spite of this there were still a large number of terms left. These terms contained values of ‘x’ and ‘y’ up to the eighth order.

Thus it was clear that the resulting induced aberrations were extremely complex involving powers up to the eighth order. According to Palunsinski et al. if the Alvarez plates have terms corresponding to the powers of the induced aberrations, then they can be optimized to cancel out these induced aberrations. Hence the basic forms of these terms were isolated and then set up as variables and optimized. However, a large number of these terms were linearly dependent on the lateral displacement of the Alvarez plate. Thus, while ZEMAX was able to optimize and cancel the induced aberrations to achieve excellent performance for a given object location, it was unable to do so over the entire range. Every time the Alvarez Plate was moved, the amount of the induced aberration would change and hence the aberration correction scheme would fail. Hence due to the dependence of the induced aberrations on the displacement of the Alvarez plate, it proved impossible to exactly apply, as is, the theoretical work done by Palunsinski et al to this particular design. Thus separating the Alvarez plates would require an entirely new approach.

4.2 The separated Alvarez plate design

As mentioned in the above paragraph, while calculating the induced aberrations, all terms which had higher orders of the displacement term ‘d’ were considered negligible. Hence the terms left were those that did not depend on the displacement and those that had a linear dependence on the displacement, i.e. terms that had d1 in them. Now for two sets of Alvarez plates, which are similar to each other, the terms linearly dependent on displacement would cancel out if the plates moved equally in opposite directions. This led to the idea of having four Alvarez surfaces. Thus the four surfaces would basically form two conjugate Alvarez- Humphrey pairs. When the central element is moved down, from the point of view of the first Alvarez pair the rear surface is moving down, while from the point of view of the second Alvarez pair the front surface is moving down. Moving the front surface down has the same effect as moving the rear surface up. Thus by moving the central element, the displacement ‘d’ is equal and opposite for the two pairs of Alvarez plates.

So when the middle Alvarez element is laterally displaced the two Alvarez pairs behave in exactly opposite fashion resulting in a complete canceling out of the displacement dependent induced aberrations. Now having two completely identical pairs of conjugate Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces would not serve any purpose, as along with the canceling out of the induced aberrations, the optical power would cancel out as well. Thus the value of the coefficient ‘A’ for the two pairs is slightly different so that while the induced aberrations are reduced (if not completely cancelled out), there is still a net change in optical power, to allow the different object planes to be imaged on to the same image plane. However, the displacement independent induced aberrations are still present. But, since these induced aberrations do not change with displacement they can be easily corrected by using the higher order terms mentioned by Palusinski et al [4

4. Iwona A. Palusinski, Jose M. Sasian, and John E. Greivenkamp, “Lateral Shift Variable Aberration Generators,” Applied Optics 38, 86–90 (1999) [CrossRef]

]. The resulting layout is a very well corrected system in which the optical power changes with the lateral displacement of the Alvarez surface, with minimum incidence of induced aberrations. In effect, the SAP design could be thought of as a very well corrected variable lens. The SAP design is implemented by replacing the rear surface of the second hybrid lens by the first Alvarez surface. This is followed by the central element that has an Alvarez-Humphrey surface on both sides. This central element is followed by the last element, which has an Alvarez surface in the front and a convex surface at the back.

Fig. 7. Optical layout of the Separated Alvarez Plate Design

Table 5. Basic Optical Parameters for the SAP design

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

Table 6. Specifications for the SAP design

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

Table 7. pecifications for the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces in the SAP design

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

Note: The signs of the coefficients do not have to be changed since the conventions in Zemax do that automatically. The above coefficients are the commonly used ones. The performance of a system with these surfaces is almost as good as the AAP design. However, so far no attempt has been made to correct the induced aberrations. Correction of these aberrations involves the inclusion of higher order terms for the third surface. These higher order terms allow for that further increase in performance that leads to diffraction limited performance across all the fields and for all the object plane locations. As mentioned before, induced aberrations containing terms up to the eighth order are present. However, only the terms up to the fourth order were required to achieve diffraction limited performance. (*)→ Surface 3 is only partially defined here and has higher order terms which have been listed in table 8.

Table 8. Higher order coefficients for the third A-H surface required for correction of Induced Aberrations

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

4.3 Performance of the separated Alvarez plate design (SAP)

Fig. 8. Spot diagrams for all field positions(obj,dist=350µm)
Fig. 9. MTF curves for object distance=350µm
Fig. 10. Rms spot size v/s field position for different object distances.

5. Comparison of the advantages and drawbacks of both designs

The chief differences between the two designs are as follows:

(i) In the SAP design, the moving element is separated by 1.5 mm from the elements on either side of it. Hence there is plenty of space for the actuator. However, in the AAP design, the separation between the glass substrates of the Alvarez plates is only 220µm. The most suitable micro-actuators found during research (those discussed by Jeremy Rogers et al in their paper [6

6. J Rogers, T Tkaczyk, M Descour, and T Christiensen, “Characterization and testing of a MEMS scanning grating for structured illumination in a miniature microscope,” presented at the OSA Conference, Tucson, Arizona, USA, October 2003.

]) held the moving element symmetrically in the middle and extended up to 1.5mm on either side. Thus a custom made actuator for the SAP design can be easily implemented with present actuator technology, while making an actuator for the AAP design would present a greater degree of difficulty.

(ii) The lateral displacement range required for the moving element in the SAP design is only ±135µm, while that required for the AAP design is ±250µm. Once again, the smaller range means that the requirements on the actuator for the SAP design are far less stringent.

(iv) However, there are some areas where the AAP design scores over the SAP design. For instance, in the SAP design the image is laterally displaced across the CCD image plane by around 280µm. In the AAP design, the lateral displacement is only 184µm. Thus in the case of the SAP design there will be a greater movement or ‘jitter’ of the image.

(v) Another drawback for the SAP design is that the Field of View of this system is reduced to 200µm from the 250µm FOV for the rest of the 4M device family, including the AAP design. Secondly the vignetting is also higher, especially for the outer fields. In fact, for some fields the vignetting can be as high as 5%. However, the reduction in the Field of View and the increase in vignetting have nothing to do with nature or working of the Alvarez plates in the SAP design. It is simply due to the increase in the overall length of the system due to the space left on each side of the moving element. In addition, a vigentting of 5% is a very minor drawback and the resulting drop in MTF performance and illumination is not discernible.

(vi) The final and really only serious drawback in the SAP design is the increased sag required for these systems. This increased sag is not really due to increased curvatures but instead due to increased prism terms. Hence it should not really increase the difficulty associated with the manufacturing process. Currently the plates in the SAP design require sol-gel depths of up to 170µm as against the 100µm depth required by the AAP design.

6. Conclusions

The primary aim of this thesis was to present a design that applied the concept of the Alvarez-Humphrey surfaces to a miniature modern optical device. In that respect, the Adjacent Alvarez plate design is a more direct application of the Alvarez-Humphrey concept. It is able to achieve the required change in optical power through the movement of only one element and is therefore much more feasible than the traditional zoom lens designs that require the synchronized movements of two or more elements. However, while this design does work in principle it would be difficult to fabricate since it requires an actuator with a higher range and smaller size than currently available. The imaging performance of the AAP design is also not up to the diffraction limited standard of the other 4M devices.

However, before attempting to fabricate the above designs, it would be necessary to tolerance the aspheric surfaces and develop a method to test them. The tolerancing procedure will depend on the method of fabrication. For the photolithographic process using sol-gel, a tolerancing procedure relating surface height departure of the aspheric to imaging performance will have to be developed. The testing of these surfaces will also present significant challenges. The Shack-Hartman sensor has been used before for the measurement of such surfaces [9

9. Junwon Lee, “The Development of a Miniature Imaging System: Design, Fabrication and Metrology,” Dissertation, University of Arizona, 2003.

]. However, once tested and toleranced the Separated Alvarez Plate system will be a unique method of adding an object depth scanning ability to a miniature microscope.

References and links

1.

Luis W. Alvarez and William E. Humphrey, “Variable Power Lens and System,” Patent # 3,507,565 United States Patent Office. (1970)

2.

M.R. Descouret al. “Toward the Development of Miniaturized Imaging Systems for the Detection of Pre-Cancer,” IEEE J. Quantum. Electron. 38, 122–130 (2002) [CrossRef]

3.

Junwon Lee, Jeremy D. Rodgers, and Michael R. Descour, “Imaging Quality Assessment of Multi-Modal Miniature Microscope,” Opt. Express 11, 1436–1451 (2003), http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-12-1436 [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4.

Iwona A. Palusinski, Jose M. Sasian, and John E. Greivenkamp, “Lateral Shift Variable Aberration Generators,” Applied Optics 38, 86–90 (1999) [CrossRef]

5.

Karkkainen-A.-H.-O, J Rantala, J Tamkin, and Michael Descour, “Photolithographic processing of hybrid glasses for microoptics,” J. Lightwave Technol. 21, 614–623 (2003) [CrossRef]

6.

J Rogers, T Tkaczyk, M Descour, and T Christiensen, “Characterization and testing of a MEMS scanning grating for structured illumination in a miniature microscope,” presented at the OSA Conference, Tucson, Arizona, USA, October 2003.

7.

K Fischer and H Guckel, “Long throw linear magnetic actuators stackable to one millimeter of structural height,” Microsystem-Technologies 4, 180–183 (1998) [CrossRef]

8.

Matthew Chidley, “Preliminary imaging results of a high NA miniature injection-molded objective designed for fiber-confocal reflectance microscopy,” presented at the OSA Conference Tucson, USA, October 2003.

9.

Junwon Lee, “The Development of a Miniature Imaging System: Design, Fabrication and Metrology,” Dissertation, University of Arizona, 2003.

OCIS Codes
(170.2150) Medical optics and biotechnology : Endoscopic imaging
(220.3620) Optical design and fabrication : Lens system design

ToC Category:
Research Papers

History
Original Manuscript: April 26, 2004
Revised Manuscript: May 24, 2004
Published: June 14, 2004

Citation
Siddharth Rege, Tomasz Tkaczyk, and Michael Descour, "Application of the Alvarez-Humphrey concept to the design of a miniaturized scanning microscope," Opt. Express 12, 2574-2588 (2004)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-12-12-2574


Sort:  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. Luis W. Alvarez & William E. Humphrey, �??Variable Power Lens and System,�?? Patent # 3,507,565 United States Patent Office. (1970)
  2. M.R. Descour et al . �??Toward the Development of Miniaturized Imaging Systems for the Detection of Pre- Cancer,�?? IEEE J. Quantum. Electron. 38, 122-130 (2002) [CrossRef]
  3. Junwon Lee, Jeremy D. Rodgers and Michael R. Descour, �??Imaging Quality Assessment of Multi-Modal Miniature Microscope,�?? Opt. Express 11, 1436-1451 (2003), <a href="http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-12-1436">http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-12-1436</a>. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Iwona A. Palusinski, Jose M. Sasian and John E. Greivenkamp, �??Lateral Shift Variable Aberration Generators,�?? Applied Optics 38, 86-90 (1999) [CrossRef]
  5. Karkkainen-A.-H.-O, Rantala J, Tamkin J and Michael Descour, �??Photolithographic processing of hybrid glasses for microoptics�?? J. Lightwave Technol. 21, 614-623 (2003) [CrossRef]
  6. Rogers J, Tkaczyk T, Descour M, Christiensen T, �??Characterization and testing of a MEMS scanning grating for structured illumination in a miniature microscope,�?? presented at the OSA Conference, Tucson, Arizona, USA, October 2003.
  7. Fischer K, Guckel H, �??Long throw linear magnetic actuators stackable to one millimeter of structural height,�?? Microsystem-Technologies 4, 180-183 (1998) [CrossRef]
  8. Matthew Chidley, �?? Preliminary imaging results of a high NA miniature injection-molded objective designed for fiber-confocal reflectance microscopy,�?? presented at the OSA Conference Tucson , USA, October 2003.
  9. Junwon Lee, �?? The Development of a Miniature Imaging System: Design, Fabrication and Metrology,�?? Dissertation, University of Arizona, 2003.

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