Thorlabs Home Create an Account  |  Log In
Search Our Site:
( 0)

Your Shopping Cart is Empty
      
Products Rapid Order Services The Company Partners My Thorlabs

Additional Product Families In this Group
Adaptive Optics Kit
Deformable Mirrors
Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensors
 
Products Home >> Adaptive Optics >> Adaptive Optics Kits Print Friendly 
Adaptive Optics Kits
 
 
Related Products


Features

  • Complete Kit Provides Out-of-the-Box Functionality for Real-Time, High-Precision Wavefront Measurement and Control
  • Kit Includes (See the AO Kit Components tab for Details)
    • Deformable Mirror (Multi- or Mini-DM)
    • Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor
    • All Imaging Optics and Associated Mounting Hardware
    • Fully Functional Stand-Alone Control Software (Windows XP Compatible)
    • A Low-Level Support Library to Assist with Tailored Applications Authored by the End User
  • Preassembled and Pre-Aligned Optomechanical System Minimizes Assembly Time
  • Continuous DM Capable of Achieving High Spatial Resolution Shapes Due to High Actuator Count and Low Inter-Actuator Coupling
  • Electrostatic Actuators Ensure Deformation with Zero Hysteresis
  • Compact DM Driver Electronics with Built-In High Voltage Power Supply Suitable for Benchtop or OEM Integration
  • Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor has High Resolution CCD Camera and High-Quality Microlens Array
  • Choose from a Gold- or Aluminum-Coated Deformable Mirror with either 32 or 140 Electrostatic Actuators
  • AO Kit Operating Wavelengths: 400 - 1100 nm for Al-Coated DM or 600 - 1100 nm for Au-Coated DM
  • Full DLL for Customized Applications
Schematic of Closed-Loop flow of AO Kit
Flow Diagram Showing the AO Kit Closed-Loop Correction Mode

Thorlabs offers four Adaptive Optics Kit options, two that incorporate our 140 actuator Multi-DM deformable mirrors and two that incorporate our 32 actuator Mini-DM deformable mirrors. AOK1-UM01 and AOK2-UM01 contain a DM with a gold mirror coating, while AOK1-UP01 and AOK2-UP01 contain a DM with an aluminum mirror coating (Refer to the Graphs tab for coating curve information). When combined with the WFS150-5C wavefront sensor, these kits are designed for use in the 600 - 1100 nm range and the 400 - 1100 nm range, respectively. Regardless of the kit chosen, the three constituent components provide a closed-loop sample rate of 8 Hz when in the correction mode. Although the use of DMs in astronomy is well known, these miniature, precision wavefront control devices are also helping researchers to make breakthroughs in beam forming, microscopy, laser communication, and retinal imaging. To learn more how the wavefront sensor, deformable mirror, and software operate as a closed-loop system to correct wavefront distortion, please see the Tutorial tab or the Adaptive Optics 101 white paper.

 

Multi DM Close up

Deformable Mirror System:
Through a new partnership with Boston Micromachines Corporation (BMC), Thorlabs is pleased to offer BMC's Mini-DM and Multi-DM micromachined deformable mirror systems for advanced optical control as part of these Adaptive Optics Toolkits. Micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) deformable mirrors are currently the most widely used technology in wavefront shaping applications given their versatility, maturity of technology, and the high resolution wavefront correction that they afford. These popular and versatile deformable mirrors offer sophisticated aberration compensation in easy-to-use packages. The mirror consists of a mirror membrane that is deformed by either 32 electrostatic actuators (i.e., a 6 x 6 actuator array with four inactive corner actuators in the case of the Mini-DM) or 140 electrostatic actuators (i.e., a 12 x 12 actuator array with four inactive corner actuators in the case of the Multi-DM), each of which can be individually controlled. These actuators provide 3.5 μm stroke over a compact area. Unlike piezoelectric mirrors, the electrostatic actuation used with BMC's mirrors ensures deformation without hysteresis. The AOK1-UM01 and AOK2-UM01 kits come with a gold-coated DM while the AOK1-UP01 and AOK2-UP01 kits contain an aluminum-coated -DM. In either case, there is also a protective 6° wedge in front of the mirror, which has a broadband AR coating for the 400-1100 nm range. To learn more about the aberrations that a deformable mirror can correct, please see the Types of Aberrations tab.


Wavefront Sensor Photo

Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor:
The WFS150-5C Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor is equipped with a chrome mask microlens array (MLA150-5C) and provides accurate, high-speed wavefront measurements of the beam shape and intensity distribution. This is done by analyzing the location and intensity of spots (spot field) formed by imaging a beam of light onto a CCD with a microlens array in front of it. With Thorlabs' Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor, it is possible to measure the wavefronts of laser sources, characterize the wavefront aberrations caused by optical components, and provide real-time feedback for the control of the deformable mirror. The Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor consists of a high resolution (1.3 Megapixels) USB 2.0 CCD camera, a microlens array, and analysis software. The full featured control and analysis software has a user-friendly graphical interface with menu-driven tools for camera settings, calibration, analysis, and display options. The wavefront sensor housing features C-Mount threading. To prevent camera saturation, mounted neutral density filters can be threaded into the front of the wavefront sensor using an SM1A9 C-Mount to SM1 adapter. The SM1 thread standard provided by this adapter also accommodates Thorlabs’ lens tubes, which can be used to reduce scattered light and allow for the mounting of additional optical components.


AO Kit Software Screen Shot

Control Software:
A Windows XP compatible control software is included with our AO Kits. Itt is capable of minimizing wavefront aberrations by analyzing the signals from the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor and using those signals to determine the appropriate drive signals to send to the deformable mirror actuators so that the mirror can compensate for wavefront aberrations. The control software allows the user to monitor the wavefront corrections and intensity distribution in real time. In addition, user-defined aberrations can be introduced via the software, and wavefront deviations can be compared to this new user-defined reference.

Please consider sharing with us your adaptive optics applications by emailing technicalmarketing@thorlabs.com. We would like to present them on this site.

Related White Papers
Adaptive Optics 1011x140 Deformable MirrorMEMS Optical Modulator
Boston Micromachines Deformable Mirrors
Deformable Mirror TypeMulti-DMMini-DM
Actuator Array12 x 126 x 6
Actuator Stroke (Max.)3.5 µm
Actuator Pitch400 µm
Clear Aperture4.4 mm x 4.4 mm2.0 mm x 2.0 mm
Mirror CoatingGold or Aluminum
Sampling Rate8 Hz
Average Step Size<1 nm
Resolution14 Bit
Head Dimensions4.5" x 2.95" x 2.8"
(114.3 mm x 74.9 mm x 71.1 mm)
Driver Dimensions9.0" x 7.0" x 2.5"
(229 mm x 178 mm x 64 mm)
4.0" x 5.25" x 1.25"
(102 mm x 133 mm x 32 mm)
Computer InterfaceUSB 2.0
Thorlabs' WFS150-5C Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor
Wavelength Range200 - 1100 nm
Aperture Size (Max)5.95 mm x 4.76 mm
Camera Resolution (Max)1280 x 1024 pixels (selectable)
Pixel Size4.65 x 4.65 µm
ShutterGlobal
Lenslet Pitch150 µm
Lenslet Diameter146 µm
Number of Lenslets (Max)39 x 31 (selectable)
Effective Focal Length3.7 mm
Reflectivity<25%
Wavelength Sensitivityλ/15 rms (@ 633 nm)
Wavefront Dynamic Range>100λ (@ 633 nm)
Local Radius of Curvature>7.4 mm
Exposure Range77 µs - 66 ms
Frame Rate (Max)15 Hz
Image Digitization8 Bit
Optical Input ConnectorC-Mount
Physical Size (H x W x D)34 mm x 32 mm x 48.3 mm
Power Supply<1.5 W via USB

Depicted here are typical reflectivity plots for aluminum- and gold-coated surfaces (without the protective window) as well as the AR Coating Curve for the protective 5o wedge. The data for the unprotected aluminum and gold coatings was obtain with using unpolarized light that was incident at 45 degrees.

DM Reflectivity curveDM AR Coating Curve

Introduction:
Adaptive optics (AO) is a rapidly growing multidisciplinary field encompassing physics, chemistry, electronics, and computer science. AO systems are used to correct (shape) the wavefront of a beam of light. Historically, these systems have their roots in the international astronomy and US defense communities. Astronomers realized that if they could compensate for the aberrations caused by atmospheric turbulence, they would be able to generate high resolution astronomical images; with sharper images comes an additional gain in contrast, which is also advantageous for astronomers since it means that they can detect fainter objects that would otherwise go unnoticed. While astronomers were trying to overcome the blurring effects of atmospheric turbulence, defense contractors were interested in ensuring that photons from their high-power lasers would be correctly pointed so as to destroy strategic targets. More recently, due to advancements in the sophistication and simplicity of AO components, researchers have utilized these systems to make breakthroughs in the areas of femtosecond pulse shaping, microscopy, laser communication, vision correction, and retinal imaging.  Although dramatically different fields, all of these areas benefit from an AO system due to undesirable time-varying effects. 

Typically, an AO system is comprised from three components: (1) a wavefront sensor, which measures these wavefront deviations, (2) a deformable mirror, which can change shape in order to modify a highly distorted optical wavefront, and (3) real-time control software, which uses the information collected by the wavefront sensor to calculate the appropriate shape that the deformable mirror should assume in order to compensate for the distorted wavefront. Together, these three components operate in a closed-loop fashion. By this, we mean that any changes caused by the AO system can also be detected by that system. In principle, this closed-loop system is fundamentally simple; it measures the phase as a function of the position of the optical wavefront under consideration, determines its aberration, computes a correction, reshapes the deformable mirror, observes the consequence of that correction, and then repeats this process over and over again as necessary if the phase aberration varies with time. Via this procedure, the AO system is able to improve optical resolution of an image by removing aberrations from the wavefront of the light being imaged.

The Wavefront Sensor:
The role of the wavefront sensor in an adaptive optics system is to measure the wavefront deviations from a reference wavefront. There are three basic configurations of wavefront sensors available: Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensors, shearing interferometers, and curvature sensors. Each has its own advantages in terms of noise, accuracy, sensitivity, and ease of interfacing it with the control software and deformable mirror. Of these, the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor has been the most widely used.

A Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor uses a lenslet array to divide an incoming beam into a bunch of smaller beams, each of which is imaged onto a CCD camera, which is placed at the focal plane of the lenslet array. If a uniform plane wave is incident on a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (refer to Fig. 1), a focused spot is formed along the optical axis of each lenslet, yielding a regularly spaced grid of spots in the focal plane. However, if a distorted wavefront (i.e., any non-flat wavefront) is used, the focal spots will be displaced from the optical axis of each lenslet. The amount of shift of each spot’s centroid is proportional to the local slope (i.e., tilt) of the wavefront at the location of that lenslet. The wavefront phase can then be reconstructed (within a constant) from the spot displacement information obtained (see Fig. 2).

Wavefront correction

Figure 1. When a planar wavefront is incident on the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor's microlens array, the light imaged on the CCD sensor will display a regularly spaced grid of spots. If, however, the wavefront is aberrated, individual spots will be displaced from the optical axis of each lenslet; if the displacement is large enough, the image spot may even appear to be missing. This information is used to calculate the shape of the wavefront that was incident on the microlens array.

Screen Shots of Spotfield and Wavefront

Figure 2. Two Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor screen captures are shown: the spot field (left-hand frame) and the calculated wavefront based on that spot field information (right-hand frame).

The four parameters that greatly affect the performance of a given Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor are the number of lenslets (or lenslet diameter, which typically ranges from ~100 – 600 μm), dynamic range, measurement sensitivity, and the focal length of the lenslet array (typical values range from a few millimeters to about 30 mm). The number of lenslets restricts the maximum number of Zernike coefficients that a reconstruction algorithm can reliably calculate; studies have found that the maximum number of coefficients that can be used to represent the original wavefront is approximately the same as the number of lenslets. When selecting the number of lenslets needed, one must take into account the amount of distortion s/he is trying to model (i.e., how many Zernike coefficients are needed to effectively represent the true wave aberration). When it comes to measurement sensitivity θmin and dynamic range θmax, these are competing specifications (see Fig. 3 below). The former determines the minimum phase that can be detected while the latter determines the maximum phase that can be measured. 

A Shack-Hartmann sensor’s measurement accuracy (i.e., the minimum wavefront slope that can be measured reliably) depends on its ability to precisely measure the displacement of a focused spot with respect to a reference position, which is located along the optical axis of the lenslet. A conventional algorithm will fail to determine the correct centroid of a spot if it partially overlaps another spot or if the focal spot of a lenslet falls outside of the area of the sensor assigned to detect it (i.e., spot crossover). Special algorithms can be implemented to overcome these problems, but they limit the dynamic range of the sensor (i.e., the maximum wavefront slope that can be measured reliably). The dynamic range of a system can be increased by using a lenslet with either a larger diameter or a shorter focal length. However, the lenslet diameter is tied to the needed number of Zernike coefficients; therefore, the only other way to increase the dynamic range is to shorten the focal length of the lenslet, but this in turn, decreases the measurement sensitivity.  Ideally, choose the longest focal length lens that meets both the dynamic range and measurement sensitivity requirements. 

Comparison of sensitivity and dynamic range

Figure 3. Dynamic range and measurement sensitivity are competing properties of a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor. Here, f, Δy, and d represent the focal length of the lenslet, the spot displacement, and the lenslet diameter, respectively. The equations provided for the measurement sensitivity θ min and the dynamic range θmax are obtained using the small angle approximation. θmin is the minimum wavefront slope that can be measured by the wavefront sensor. The minimum detectable spot displacement Δymin depends on the pixel size of the photodetector, the accuracy of the centroid algorithm, and the signal to noise ratio of the sensor. θmax is the maximum wavefront slope that can be measured by the wavefront sensor and corresponds to a spot displacement of Δymax, which is equal to half of the lenslet diameter.  Therefore, increasing the sensitivity will decrease the dynamic range and vice versa.

The Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor is capable of providing information about the intensity profile as well as the calculated wavefront. Be careful not to confuse these. The left-hand frame of Fig. 4 shows a sample intensity profile, whereas the right-hand frame shows the corresponding wavefront profile. It is possible to obtain the same intensity profile from various wavefuncton distributions.

Schematic of a sample intensity distribution and wavefront profile for the WFS

Figure 4. Several pieces of information are provided by the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor, including information about the total power at each lenslet and the calculated wavefront distribution present. Here, the left-hand frame shows a sample intensity profile, while the right-hand frame shows the corresponding wavefront.

The Deformable Mirror:
The deformable mirror (DM) changes shape in response to position commands in order to compensate for the aberrations measured by the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (refer to the Types of Aberrations tab to learn more about the aberrations that the DM can correct).  Ideally, it will assume a surface shape that is conjugate to the aberration profile (see Fig. 5). In many cases, the surface profile is controlled by an underlying array of actuators that move in and out in response to an applied voltage.  Deformable mirrors come in several different varieties, but the two most popular categories are segmented and continuous (see Fig. 6). Segmented mirrors are comprised from individual flat segments that can either move up and down (if each segment is controlled by just one actuator) or have tip, tilt, and piston motion (if each segment is controlled by three actuators).  These mirrors are typically used in holography and for spatial light modulators. Advantages of this configuration include the ability to manufacture the segments to tight tolerances, the elimination of coupling between adjacent segments of the DM since each acts independently, and the number of degrees of freedom per segment. However, on the down side, the regularly spaced gaps between the segments act like a diffraction pattern, thereby introducing diffractive modes into the beam. In addition, segmented mirrors require more actuators than continuous mirrors to compensate for a given incoming distorted wavefront. To address the optical problems with segmented DMs, continuous faceplate DMs (such as those included in our AO Kits) were fabricated. They offer a higher fill factor (i.e., the percentage of the mirror that is actually reflective) than their segmented counterparts. However, their drawback is that the actuators are mechanically coupled. Therefore, when one actuator moves, there is some finite response along the entire surface of the mirror. The 2D shape of the surface caused by displacing one actuator is called the influence function for that actuator.  Typically, adjacent actuators of a continuous DM are displaced by 10-20% of the actuation height; this percentage is known as the actuator coupling.  Note that segmented DMs exhibit zero coupling but that isn’t necessarily desirable.

Wavefront reflection from a DM

Figure 5. The aberration compensation capabilities of a flat and MEMS deformable mirror are compared. (a) If an unabberated wavefront is incident on a flat mirror surface, the reflected wavefront will remain unabberated. (b) A flat mirror is not able to compensate for any deformations in the wavefront; therefore, an incoming highly aberrated wavefront will retain its aberrations upon reflection. (c) A MEMS deformable mirror is able to modify its surface profile to compensate for aberrations; the DM assumes the appropriate conjugate shape to modify the highly aberrated incident wavefront so that it is unaberrated upon reflection.

  segmented vs continuous mirrors

Figure 6. Cross sectional schematics of the main components of BMC's continuous (left) and segmented (right) MEMS deformable mirrors.
The range of wavefronts that can be corrected by a particular DM is limited by the actuator stroke and resolution, the number and distribution of actuators, and the model used to determine the appropriate control signals for the DM; the first two are physical limitations of the DM itself, whereas the last one is a limitation of the control software. The actuator stroke is another term for the dynamic range (i.e., the maximum displacement) of the DM actuators and is typically measured in microns. Inadequate actuator stroke leads to poor performance and can prevent the convergence of the control loop. The number of actuators determines the number of degrees of freedom that the mirror can correct for. Although many different actuator arrays have been proposed, including square, triangular, and hexagonal, most DMs are built with square actuator arrays, which are easy to position on a Cartesian coordinate system and map easily to the square detector arrays on the wavefront sensors. To fit the square array on a circular aperture, the corner actuators are sometimes removed (e.g., the deformable mirror included with the AOK1-UM01 or AOK1-UP01 has a 12 x 12 actuator configuration but only 140 actuators since the corner ones are not used). Although more actuators can be placed within a given area using some of the other configurations, the additional fabrication complexity usually does not warrant that choice. 

Cross-like pattern shown on DM

Figure 7. A cross-like pattern is created on the DM surface by applying the voltages necessary for maximum deflection of the 44 actuators that comprise the middle two rows and middle two columns of the array. The frame on the left shows a screen shot of the AO kit software depicting the DM surface, whereas the frame on the right, which was obtained through quasi-dark field illumination, shows the actual DM surface when programmed to these settings. Note that the white light source used for illumination is visible in the lower right-hand corner of the photograph.

Figure 7 (left frame) shows a screen shot of a cross formed on the 12 x 12 actuator array of the DM included with the adaptive optics kit. To create this screen shot, the voltages applied to the middle two rows and middle two columns of actuators were set to cause full deflection of the mirror membrane. In addition to the software screen shot depicting the DM surface, quasi-dark field illumination was used to obtain a photograph of the actual DM surface when programmed to these settings (see Fig. 7, right frame)

The Control Software:
In an adaptive optics setup, the control software is the vital link between the wavefront sensor and the deformable mirror. It converts the wavefront sensor’s electrical signals, which are proportional to the slope of the wavefront, into compensating voltage commands that are sent to each actuator of the DM. The closed-loop bandwidth of the adaptive optics system is directly related to the speed and accuracy with which this computation is done, but in general, these calculations must occur on a shorter time scale than the aberration fluctuations. 

In essence, the control software uses the spot field deviations to reconstructs the phase of the beam (in this case, using Zernike polynomials) and then sends conjugate commands to the DM. A least-squares fitting routine is applied to the calculated wavefront phase in order to determine the effective Zernike polynomial data outputted for the end user. Although not the only form possible, Zernike polynomials provide a unique and convenient way to describe the phase of a beam. These polynomials form an orthogonal basis set over a unit circle with different terms representing the amount of focus, tilt, astigmatism, comma, et cetera; the polynomials are normalized so that the maximum of each term (except the piston term) is +1, the minimum is –1, and the average over the surface is always zero.  Furthermore, no two aberrations ever add up to a third, thereby leaving no doubt about the type of aberration that is present.

Related White Papers
Adaptive Optics 1011x140 Deformable MirrorMEMS Optical Modulator

Monochromatic Aberrations

There are five primary monochromatic aberrations, which can be further divided into two subgroups: those that deteriorate the image (spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism) and those that deform the image (field curvature and distortion). These aberrations are a direct result of departures from first-order (i.e., sinθ≈θ) theory, which assumes the light rays make small angles with the principal axis. As soon as one wants to consider light rays incident on the periphery of a lens, the statement sinθ≈θ, which forms the basis of paraxial optics, is no longer satisfactory and one must consider more terms in the expansion:

sine expansion

The five primary monochromatic aberrations were first studied by Ludwig von Seidel, and hence, they are frequently referred to as the Seidel aberrations. Please note that since the expansion of sinθ is an infinite sum, the five monochromatic aberrations discussed below are not the only ones possible; there are additional higher-order aberrations that make smaller contributions to image degradation. The surface of the deformable mirror can be altered to accommodate all of these types of monochromatic aberrations.

1) Spherical Aberrations

For parallel incoming light rays, an ideal lens will be able to focus the rays to a point on the optical axis as shown in Fig. 1a; consequently, under ideal circumstances, the image of a point source that is located on the optical axis will be a bright circular disk surrounded by faint rings (see the Airy diffraction pattern shown in Fig. 1b). However, in reality, the light rays that strike a spherical converging lens far from the principal axis will be focused to a point that is closer to the lens than those light rays that strike the spherical lens near the principal axis (see Fig. 1c). Consequently, there is no single focus for a spherical lens, and the image will appear to be blurred; instead of having an Airy diffraction pattern in which nearly all the light is contained in a central bright circular spot, spherical aberration will redistribute some of the light from the central disk to the surrounding rings (see Fig. 1d), thereby reducing image contrast. Whenever spherical aberration is present, the best focus for an uncorrected lens will be somewhere between the focal planes of the peripheral and axial rays. Please note that spherical aberration only pertains to object points that are located on the optical axis.

Figure of Spherical Aberration

Figure 1.  Comparison of an ideal situation to one in which spherical aberration is present. (a) For a perfect lens, all incoming light rays get focused to a single point. (b) The Airy diffraction pattern corresponding to a point source that has been imaged by a perfect lens consists of a bright central spot surrounded by faint concentric rings. (c) For a real lens, light incident on the edges of a lens is refracted more than the light striking the center of the lens, and thus, there is not one unique focal point for all incident light rays. (d) Spherical aberration degrades resolution by redistributing some of the light from the central bright spot to the surrounding concentric rings.

 

2) Coma

Coma, or comatic aberration, is an image-degrading aberration associated with object points that are even slightly off axis. When an off-axis bundle of light is incident on a lens, the light will undergo different amounts of refraction depending on where it strikes the lens (see Fig. 2a); as a result, each annulus of light will focus onto the image plane at a slightly different height and with a different spot size (see Fig. 2b), thereby leading to different transverse magnifications. The resulting image of a point source, which is shown in Fig. 2c, is a complicated asymmetrical diffraction pattern with a bright central core and a triangular flare that departs drastically from the classical Airy pattern shown in Fig 1b above. The elongated comet-like structure from which this type of aberration takes its name can extend either towards or away from the optical axis depending on whether the comatic aberration is negative or positive, respectively. Due to the asymmetry that coma causes in images, many consider it to be the worst type of aberration.   

Figure showing Coma

Figure 2.  The effects of positive coma are shown. (a) When a light source is off-axis, the various portions of the lens do not refract the light to the same point on the image plane. (b) The central region of the lens forms a point image at the vertex of the cone, while larger rings on the periphery of the lens correspond to larger comatic circles that are displaced farther from the principal axis. (c) Coma leads to a complicated asymmetrical comet-like diffraction pattern characterized by an elongated structure of blotches and arcs. Note that the diffraction pattern shown assumes no spherical aberration.

3) Astigmatism

Astigmatism, like coma, is an aberration that arises when an object point is moved away from the optical axis. Under such conditions, the incident cone of light will strike the lens obliquely, leading to a refracted wavefront characterized by two principal curvatures that ultimately determine two different focal image points. Figure 3a shows the two planes one needs to consider: the tangential (also known as the meridional) plane and the sagittal plane; the tangential plane is defined by the chief ray (i.e., the light ray from the object that passes through the center of the lens) and the optical axis, while the sagittal plane is a plane that contains the chief ray and is perpendicular to the tangential plane. In addition to the chief light ray, Fig. 3a also shows two other off-axis light rays, one passing through the tangential plane and the other passing through the sagittal plane. For complex multi-element lens systems (e.g., microscope objective or ASOM system), the tangential plane remains coherent from one end of the system to the other while the sagittal plane usually changes slope as the chief ray’s propagation direction is altered by the various components in the lens system. Consequently, in general, the focal lengths associated with these planes will be different (see Fig. 3b). If the sagittal focus and the tangential focal points are coincident, then the object point is on axis and the lens is free of astigmatism. However, as the amount of astigmatism present increases, the distance between these two foci will also increase, and as a result, the image will lose definition around its edges. The presence of astigmatism will cause the ideal circular point image to be blurred into a complicated elongated diffraction pattern that appears more linelike when more astigmatism is present (see Figs. 3c and 3d).

diagram depicting astigmatism

Figure 3. The effects of astigmatism, assuming the absence of spherical aberration and coma, are illustrated. (a) The tangential and sagittal planes are shown. (b) Light rays in the tangential and sagittal planes are refracted differently, ultimately leading to two different focal planes, which are labeled as the tangential focus and sagittal focus. (c) The Airy diffraction pattern of a point source as viewed at the tangential focal plane. (d) The Airy diffraction pattern of a point source as viewed at the sagittal focal plane.

4) Field Curvature 

For most optical systems, the final image must be formed on a planar surface; however, in actuality, a lens that is free of all other off-axis aberrations creates an image on a curved surface known as a Petzval surface. This nominal curvature of this surface, which is known as the Petzval curvature, is the reciprocal of the lens radius. For a positive lens, this surface curves inward towards the object plane, whereas for a negative lens, the surface curves away from that plane. The field curvature aberration arises from forcing a naturally curved image surface into a flat one. For the image, the presence of field curvature makes it impossible to have both the edges and central region of the image be crisp simultaneously. If the focal plate is shifted to the vertex of the Petzval surface (Position A in Fig. 4), the central part of the image will be in focus while the outer portion of the image will be blurred, making it impossible to distinguish minor structural details in this outer region. Alternatively, if the image plane is moved to the edges of the Petzval surface (Position B in Fig. 4), the opposite effect occurs; the edges of the image will come into focus, but the central region will become blurred. The best compromise between these two extremes is to place the image plane somewhere in between the vertex and edges of the Petzval surface, but regardless of its location, the image will never appear sharp and crisp over the entire field of view.

Diagram showing field curvature

Figure 4. Field curvature, an aberration associated with off-axis objects, arises because the best image is not formed on the paraxial image plane but on a parabolic surface called the Petzval surface. (a) Depending on the location of the focal plane along the optic axis, either the central (if at location A) or peripheral (if at location B) portions of the field of view will be in focus but not both. (b) The central portion of the image will be crisp if the image plane is located at position A. (c) The edges of the image will be sharply in focus if the image plane is located at position B.

5) Distortion 

The last of the Seidel aberrations is distortion, which is easily recognized in the absence of all other monochromatic aberrations because it deforms the entire image even though each point is sharply focused. Distortion arises because different areas of the lens usually have different focal lengths and magnifications. If no distortion is present in a lens system, the image will be a true magnified reproduction of the object (see Fig. 5b). However, when distortion is present, off-axis points are imaged either at a distance greater than normal or less than normal, leading to a pincushion (see Fig. 5a) or barrel (see Fig. 5c) shape, respectively.

Image Distortion

Figure 5. The effects of astigmatism, assuming the absence of all other forms of aberration, are illustrated. (a) Positive or pincushion distortion occurs when the transverse magnification of a lens increases with the axial distance; this effect causes each image point to be displaced radially outward from the center, with the most distant points undergoing the largest displacements. (b) If no distortion is present, the image will be a scaled duplicate of the object. (c) Negative or barrel distortion occurs when the transverse magnification of a lens decreases with axial distance; in this case, each image point moves radially inward toward the center; again, the most distant points undergo the largest displacements.

 

Chromatic Aberrations

The monochromatic aberrations discussed above can all be compensated for using a deformable mirror such as the one included in these adaptive optics kits. However, when a broadband light source is used, chromatic aberrations will result. Since a DM cannot compensate for these aberrations, we will only briefly mention them here. Chromatic aberrations, which come in two forms (i.e., lateral and longitudinal), arise from the variation of the index of refraction of a lens with incident wavelength. Since blue light is refracted more than red light, the lens is not capable of focusing all colors to the same focal point; therefore, the image size and focal point for each color will be slightly different, leading to an image that is surrounded by a halo.  Generally, since the eye is most sensitive to the green part of the spectrum, the tendency is to focus the lens for that region; if the image plane is then moved towards (away from) the lens, the periphery of the blurred image will be tinted red (blue).

Introduction
Off-axis scanning is frequently used in many imaging techniques including Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), Confocal Microscopy, and Adaptive Scanning Optical Microscopy (ASOM). Without adaptive optics, images obtained using these techniques will suffer from the off-axis aberrations discussed in the Types of Aberrations tab, thereby requiring one to choose between resolution and field of view. However, by using a deformable mirror, this tradeoff is overcome. To learn more about how a deformable mirror works and its role in an adaptive optics system, please see the Tutorial tab.

An Example: ASOM
As an example, consider Thorlabs’ Adaptive Scanning Optical Microscope (ASOM), which is shown in Fig. 1 at the right and combines a high-speed steering mirror, large aperture scan lens, and micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) deformable mirror to provide a large field of view (Ø40 mm) while preserving resolving power (1.5 μm over the entire field of view) and a high image acquisition rate (30 fps). As the imaged area on the sample is changed (by changing the orientation of the fast steering mirror), the deformable mirror is used to correct the off-axis aberrations introduced by the scan lens, thus maintaining the diffraction-limited 1.5 μm resolution across the extended composite field of view.

ASOM works by taking a sequence of small spatially separated images in rapid succession and then assembling them to form a large composite image. Although mosaic construction has been used in the past to expand the field of view while preserving resolution, it necessitated the use of a moving stage. In contrast, the ASOM uses a high speed 2D mirror, a specially designed scanner lens assembly, a deformable mirror, and additional imaging optics to overcome this tradeoff.

ASOM Photo

Figure 1. (a) A schematic of Thorlabs' ASOM system, which consists of a custom-designed scan lens, a fast steering mirror, a 4.4 mm x 4.4 mm DM with a 12 x 12 grid of electrostatic actuators, and a CCD camera. (b) A photograph of the ASOM (Item# ASM9600) system.

Figure 2 shows a schematic of the ASOM scanner lens assembly (SLA). Unlike a traditional microscope objective, which must image onto a flat surface, the ASOM allows for a curved image field (i.e., the natural image field shape for a lens – refer to the Field Curvature Section under the Types of Aberrations tab), thereby greatly simplifying the optical design and number of lens elements necessary. The figure shows four different scan angle positions. The blue lines represent on-axis scanning, whereas the green, red, and yellow lines correspond to various off-axis scan angles. For each scan angle illustrated, the wavefront distortion as a function of linear displacement from the central position on the image tile of the wavefront sensor is given.

Off-Axis Wavefront Distortion for ASOM system

Figure 2. Adaptive Scanning Optical Microscopy (ASOM) utilizes a curved image field, thereby greatly simplifying the scanner lens assembly shown. The blue, green, red, and yellow rays represent various off-axis scan angles (0o, 2 o, 4 o, and 6 o, respectively). For each angle, the corresponding wavefront distortion is shown. The graphs show the distortion (in waves) as a function of position on the wavefront sensor tile. Regardless of scan angle, notice that no waves of distortion are present at the exact center of each image tile. Please note that for this figure, the term "distortion" is meant to encompass all types of aberrations.

Although the large aperture scan lens and overall system layout are specifically designed to deal with field curvature, all other off-axis aberrations, such as coma and astigmatism (see the Types of Aberrations tab for a detailed discussion), are still present in the ASOM system. These aberrations are compensated for at each individual field position throughout the scanner’s range by a deformable mirror. Figure 3 shows the optimal DM shape for a given angular position of the high speed steering mirror.

ASOM Scan Mirror Positions and Corresponding DM Surface Profiles

Figure 3. The angular position of the 2D steering mirror defines the observable field position. Here, the various mirror positions map out the image at five points along the y-axis. For each angular position of the high speed steering mirror shown in frame (a), the corresponding optimal deformable mirror shape is shown in frame (b). Note that the DM topology configuration necessary to correct the image at each field position is not trivial.

 

The deformable mirror's impressive wavefront correction abilities are demonstrated in Fig. 4, which shows an air force target imaged using a flat mirror in frame (a) and a deformable mirror in frame (b). In frame (a), the image is completely blurred, making it impossible to distinguish any structure, whereas, in frame (b), the smallest lines, which are only separated by 2 μm, are now discernable.

Air Force Target Image

Figure 4. Air force target imaged using (a) a flat mirror (b) an optimized deformable mirror. The smallest lines are separated by 2 μm.

 

In addition to the WFS150-5C Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor, your choice of an Al- or Au-Coated Mini- or Multi-DM deformable mirror, and control software (Windows XP Compatible), these adaptive optics kits also include a source, all collimation/imaging optics, and all mounting hardware necessary to build the layout depicted in the schematic below.

AO kit setup photo

Figure 1. Schematic showing the major components included with the AOK1-UM01, AOK1-UP01, AOK2-UM01, and AOK2-UP01 Adaptive Optics Kits. L, M, DM, BS, and BD refer to lens, mirror, deformable mirror, beamsplitter, and beam dump, respectively. The "X" marks the position of the CB1 U-bench, which is also the location of an image plane in the setup; thus, if desired, a user-supplied sample can be inserted at this location.


Figures 2 and 3 below are photographs showing two different views of an assembled AO Kit. The cage components are divided into three pre-aligned pieces that need to be arranged on a user-supplied breadboard: two sections of preassembled cage components are used together to image a beam waist onto the DM surface and a third preassembled cage system is used to image a beam waist onto the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor.

If you are not familiar with Thorlabs' 30 mm cage assemblies, they consist of cage-compatible components that are interconnected with cage rods. Each cage component features four tapped holes with center-to-center spacings of 30 mm, and they are joined together into a cage system using Ø6 mm rigid steel cage rods of varying lengths. For this setup, cage rods with lengths of 1", 1.5", 3", and 6" were used. The reason for building a cage system is to ensure that the optical components housed inside the cage system have a common optical axis.

Image of AO Kit numbered

Figure 2. An areal view of an AOK1-UM01 Adaptive Optics kit. Please note that the breadboard is not included with the purchase of an AO kit. The key components, which will be discussed in the text below, are numbered.


The first two preassembled cage sections consist of the laser diode source, four 75 mm focal length lenses, two cage-compatible turning mirrors, and a U-shaped bench. The CPS180 Laser Diode Module (labelled as #1 in Fig. 2), which outputs ~1 mW of light at 635 nm, is housed inside a CP02 Cage Plate (#2 in Fig. 2) using an AD11F Ø11 mm-to-SM1 Adapter. Light exiting the module is centered within the cage system and on the surface of the DM using the adjustment knobs on the two KCB1 Right-Angle Cage-Compatible Kinematic Mounts (the first of which is labeled as #4 in Fig. 2), which house BB1-E03 Broadband Dielectric Mirrors; these mirrors have an antireflection coating for the 750 - 1100 nm range. A CPA1 alignment plate, which locates a small through-hole at the exact center of a cage assembly, is used to assist with this alignment. Please note that with the purchase of AOK1-UP01 or AOK2-UP01, the two BB1-E03 mirrors are replaced by two BB1-E02 mirrors, which have an antireflection coating for the 400-750 nm range.

Two LA1608-B 75 mm focal length lenses (the first of which is housed in the HPT1 Translating Lens Mount labeled as #2 in Fig. 2 and the second of which is housed in the CP02 Cage Plate labeled as #3 in Fig. 2) are used to image a beam waist at the center of the CB1 30 mm Cage System U bench (represented by an X in Fig. 1 and labeled as #6 in Fig. 2 above). A sample can be placed in this image plane. Please note that the LA1608-B lenses used for the AOK1-UM01 and AOK2-UM01 are replaced by LA1608-A lenses with the purchase of an AOK1-UP01 or AOK2-UP01 adaptive optics kit. In either case, the first lens is placed ~94 mm from the source (since the collimation optic built into the laser diode module source has a focal length of ~19 mm), and the second lens is placed in the optical path so that it is ~150 mm after the first lens. Then, during the alignment process done at Thorlabs, fine adjustments are made to the lens locations by using an SI050 Shearing Interferometer to ensure the laser beam is collimated.

Then, two more LA1608-B lenses (one is housed in the HPT1 mount labeled as #7 in Fig. 2 and the other in the CP02 mount labeled as #8 in the figure) are used to image a beam waist onto the DM (#9); by having a beam waist at the DM surface, the range of actuation needed to correct for any aberrations is minimized. All of these components are connected using ER Cage Rods to build a cage system, which ensures that a common optical axis is maintained. Since both KCB1 turning mirror mounts are internally threaded, four ERSCA Adapters must be used to connect them with cage rods. These adapters are visible in the foreground of Fig. 3.

The DM is mounted onto a DM-KM1 Kinematic Mount (available only with this kit), which in turn is mounted on an RS2 Post and secured to the breadboard using an RB2 Post Base. The DM is placed on the breadboard such that it is located 75 mm after the fourth lens and so that the reflected beam makes as shallow of an angle as possible. In this case, the angle of reflection is ~35o.

The third preassembled cage section consists of two more 75 mm focal length lenses, which are once again housed using an HPT1 Translating Lens Mount (#10 in Fig. 2) and a CP02 Cage Plate (#11 in Fig. 2). Two CP02B Cage Plate Adapters, which are mounted onto TR3 Posts and secured to the breadboard using UPH2 Universal Post Holders, are placed approximately 1/3 and 2/3 of the way between the lenses to support the weight of the cage components. These lenses are used to place the DM in a plane that is conjugate with the Shack-Hartmann lenslet array, thereby enabling the AO kit software to optimize the position of the DM actuators. This section of cage components is placed on the breadboard so that the first lens is located 75 mm after the DM.

After exiting the third cage subassembly, a 92:8 pellicle beamsplitter (#12 in Fig. 2) is used to direct a small portion of the light to the last major component of the AO kit, the WFS150-5C Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor (#13). The sensor is placed on a 1.6" x 1.0" KM100P Kinematic Platform Mount; a PM1 Small Clamping Arm is threaded into one of the #6-32 tapped holes on the platform, and then the clamp is used to hold the wavefront sensor housing in place. The kinematic mount is threaded onto a TR3 Post (Ø1/2" x 1.5" tall) and secured to the breadboard with a UPH2 Universal Post Holder.  To attenuate the amount of light entering the Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor, an NE20A Mounted Ø1" Neutral Density Filter, which has an optical density of 2.0, is used. Since the sensor itself features internal C-mount threading and the ND filter is housed inside a 0.3" long SM1 (1.035"-40) lens tube, an SM1A9 C-Mount to SM1 Adapter is necessary to mate the ND filter to the front of the WFS150C.

The portion of light transmitted by the beamsplitter can be blocked by a beam block (#14) that is constructed from an SM1A7 Alignment Blank that has been threaded into an LMR1 Lens Mount and onto a TR3 Post. The post can be secured to the breadboard using a UPH2 Universal Post Holder. Alternatively, the beam block can be removed and the light can be launched into an application.

Another View of the AO Kit Setup

Figure 3. A photograph showing an alternative view of a preassembled Adaptive Optics Kit. Please note that a breadboard is not included with the purchase of AOK1-UP01, AOK1-UM01, AOK2-UP01, or AOK2-UM01.


AO Kit Component Pieces

ItemQty.Photo
WFS150-5C Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Senor1small image of wavefront sensor
DM140-35-UP01, DM140-35-UM01, DM32-35-UM01, or DM32-35-UP01 Deformable Mirror1DM photo
Source
CPS180 Collimated Laser Module
1Cropped Photo of Laser Module
LDS1 5V DC Regulated Power Supply1Photo of LDS1
Optics
LA1608-A 75 mm Focal Length Lens* 6photo of LA1608-A
BB1-E02 Broadband Dielectric Mirror**2Cropped Photo of BB1-E02
NE20A Mounted Ø1" Absorptive Neutral Density Filter1photo of ND10A
BP108 Pellicle Beamsplitter1Cropped Beamsplitter Photo
Mechanics
DM-KM1 Kinematic Mount (Sold in Kit Only)1Kinematic Mount for DM
KCB1 Right-Angle Kinematic 30 mm Cage Mount2Photo of KCB1
HPT1 30 mm Cage-Compatible XY Translation Mount3photo of HPT1
CP02 Threaded 30 mm Cage Plate4photo of CP02
CP02B Cage Plate Adapter4Cropped photo of CP02B
CB1 30 mm Cage System U Bench1CB1 photo
LMR1 Lens Mount for Ø1" Optics1Photo of LMR1
AD11F SM1 Adapter for Ø11 mm Collimators1AD11F image
SM1A9 C-Mount to SM1 Adapter1Photo of SM1A9
KM100BP Pellicle Kinematic Mount1KM100BP photo
KM100P Kinematic Prism Mount1photo of KM100P
PM1 Small Clamping Arm1Image of PM1
UPH2 2" High Universal Post Holder10Photo of UPH2
TR3 Ø1/2" x 3" Post10photo of TR3
ER1 Ø6 mm x 1" Cage Rod4Photo of ER Rod
ER1.5 Ø6 mm x 1.5" Cage Rod4Photo of ER Rod
ER3 Ø6 mm x 3" | Cage Rod4Photo of ER Rod
ER6 Ø6 mm x 6" Cage Rod12photo of ER6
ERSCA ER Rod Adapter4Cropped photo of ERSCA
RB2 Adjustable Height Post Base1Photo of RB2
RS2 Ø1" x 1" Pillar Post Extension1Photo of RS1
Alignment Tools
CPA1 30 mm Cage System Alignment Plate1CPA1 alignment disk photo
SM1A7 SM1 Alignment Disk1SM1A7 Photo
*AOK1-UM01 contains LA1608-B.
**AOK1-UM01 contains BB1-E03.

A Note about the Optics Included with the Adaptive Optics Kits:
The AOK1-UM01 (kit with gold-coated Multi-DM), AOK1-UP01 (kit with aluminum-coated Multi-DM), AOK2-UM01(kit with gold-coated Mini-DM), and AOK2-UP01 (kit with aluminum-coated Mini-DM) contain the same exact components with 3 exceptions. AOK1-UM01 and AOK2-UM01 contain a gold-coated DM (DM140-35-UM01 or DM32-35-UM01, respectively), two Ø1" broadband dielectric mirrors with antireflection coatings for the 750-1100 nm range, and six 75 mm focal length plano-convex lenses with antireflection coatings for the 650-1050 nm range. In contrast, the AOK1-UP01 and AOK2-UP01 contain an aluminum-coated DM (DM140-35-UP01 or DM32-35-UP01, respectively), two Ø1" broadband dielectric mirrors with antireflection coatings for the 400-750 nm range, and six 75 mm focal length plano-convex lenses with antireflection coatings for the 350-650 nm range. Although all kits ship with a 635 nm source, Thorlabs anticipates that in many cases, the end user will use our kit light source for testing purposes and then swap it out for a different light source. Hence, the optics have been matched to the AR-coating of the DM itself (i.e., the aluminum-coated DMs ship with optics for the visible range, whereas the gold-coated DMs ship with optics for the near IR spectral range).

2010
Andrew Norton, Donald Gavel, Daren Dillon, and Steven Cornelissen, “High-power visible-laser effect on a Boston Micromachines' MEMS deformable mirror” Proc. SPIE Vol. 7736
Dani Guzman, Francisco Javier De Cos Juez, Richard M. Myers, Fernando Sanchez Lasheras, Laura K. Young, and Andrés Guesalaga, “Deformable mirror models for open-loop adaptive optics using non-parametric estimation techniques,” Proc. SPIE Vol. 7736
Thomas Bifano, “Shaping light: MOEMS deformable mirrors for microscopes and telescopes,” Proc. SPIE Vol. 7595
2009
Andrew Norton, Julia W. Evans, Donald Gavel, Daren Dillon, David Palmer and Bruce Macintosh, Katie Morzinski, and Steven Cornelissen, “Preliminary characterization of Boston Micromachines' 4096-actuator deformable mirror" Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7209
Steven A. Cornelissen, Paul A. Bierden, Thomas G. Bifano, Charlie V. Lam, “4096-element continuous face-sheet MEMS deformable mirror for high-contrast imaging” J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS, Vol. 8, 031308
Marie Levine and Rémi Soummer, “Overview of Technologies for Direct Optical Imaging of Exoplanets” NASA, JPL
Kevin L. Baker, Eddy A. Stappaerts, Doug C. Homoelle, Mark A. Henesian, Erlan S. Bliss, Craig W. Siders, and Chris P. J. Barty, “Interferometric adaptive optics for high-power laser pointing and wavefront control and phasing” J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS, Vol. 8, 033040
Byung-Wook Yoo, Jae-Hyoung Park, I. H. Park, Jik Lee, Minsoo Kim, Joo-Young Jin, Jin-A Jeon, Sug-Whan Kim, and Yong-Kweon Kim, “MEMS micromirror characterization in space environments” Optics Express, Vol. 17, Issue 5, pp. 3370-3380
Sandrine Thomas, Julia W. Evans, Donald Gavel, Daren Dillon, and Bruce Macintosh, “Amplitude variations on a MEMS-based extreme adaptive optics coronagraph testbed” Applied Optics, Vol. 48, Issue 21, pp. 4077-4089
K. Enya, T. Kotani, T. Nakagawa, H. Kataza, K. Haze, S. Higuchi, T. Miyata, S. Sako, T. Nakamura, T. Yamashita, N. Narita, M. Tamura, J. Nishikawa, H. Hayano, S. Oya, Y. Itoh, M. Fukagawa, H. Shibai, M. Honda, N. Baba, N. Murakami, M. Takami, T. Matsuo, S. Ida, L. Abe, O. Guyon, M. Venet, T. Yamamuro, P. Bierden and SPICA coronagraph team, “SPICA Coronagraph Instrument (SCI) for the Direct Imaging and Spectroscopy of Exo-Planets” SPICA Workshop, 01004 (2009) DOI: 10.1051/spica/200901004
Julia W. Evans, Robert J. Zawadzki, Steve Jones,  Scot Olivier and John S. Werner, “Performance of a MEMS-based AO-OCT system using Fourier reconstruction” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7209, 720905 (2009); doi:10.1117/12.808002
Choi, Philip I.; Horn, R. B.; Rudy, A. R.; Gurman, Z. R.; Beeler, D. J.; Penprase, B. E.; Esin, A. A.; Zook, A. C. “CUCAO-Cam: The Claremont Undergraduate Colleges Adaptive Optics Camera” American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #214, #409.17; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 41, p.674
Jason D. Kaya, Laurent A. Pueyob, and N. Jeremy Kasdin, “Demonstration of a symmetric dark hole with a stroke-minimizing correction algorithm” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7209, 72090G (2009); doi:10.1117/12.809815
Weiyao Zou and Stephen A. Burns, “High-accuracy wavefront control for retinal imaging with Adaptive-Influence-Matrix Adaptive Optics” Optics Express, Vol. 17, Issue 22, pp. 20167-20177
Belikov, Rusian; Angel, Roger; Bekele, Asfaw; Cahoy, Kerri; Connelley, Michael; Dettmann, Lee; Gavel, Donald; Give'on, Amir; Guyon, Olivier; Jay, Daniel; Kasdin, N. Jeremy; Kendrick, Rick; Kern, Brian; Levine, Marie; Lynch, Dana; McKelvey, Mark; Peters, Bridget; Pluzhnik, Eugene; Shaklan, Stueart; Shao, Michael; Sylvester, Clay; Traub, Wesley; Trauger, John; Vanderbei, Robert; Witteborn, Fred; Woodruff, Robert, “Overview of Technology Development for the Phase-Induced Amplitude Apodization (PIAA) Coronagraph” Astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Technology Development Papers, no. 38
Ying Geng, Kenneth P. Greenberg, Robert Wolfe, Daniel C. Gray, Jennifer J. Hunter, Alfredo Dubra, John G. Flannery, David R. Williams, and Jason Porter,“In Vivo Imaging of Microscopic Structures in the Rat Retina” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2009;50:5872-5879
Chaohong Li, Nripun Sredar, Hope Queener, Kevin Ivers and Jason Porter, “Direct slope reconstruction algorithm for woofer-tweeter adaptive optics systems” Optical Society of America, 2009
Lawrence C Sincich, Yuhua Zhang, Pavan Tiruveedhula, Jonathan C Horton & Austin Roorda, “Resolving single cone inputs to visual receptive fields,” Nature Neuroscience, 28 June 2009
2008
Delphine D´ebarre, Edward J. Botcherby, Martin J. Booth, and Tony Wilson, “Adaptive optics for structured illumination microscopy,” University of Oxford, (2008)
O. Keskin, R. Conan, P. Hampton, C. Bradley, “Derivation and experimental evaluation of a point-spread-function reconstruction from a dual-deformable-mirror adaptive optics system,” Optical Engineering, 2008
Robert J. Zawadzki, Barry Cense, Yan Zhang, Stacey S. Choi, Donald T. Miller, and John S. Werner, “Ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography with monochromatic and chromatic aberration correction,” Optics Express, Vol. 16, Issue 11, pp. 8126-8143
Daniel X. Hammer, Nicusor V. Iftimia, R. Daniel Ferguson, Chad E. Bigelow, Teoman E. Ustun, Amber M. Barnaby, and Anne B. Fulton, “Foveal Fine Structure in Retinopathy of Prematurity: An Adaptive Optics Fourier Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Study,” The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., (2008)
Keyvan Sayyah, David M. Pepper, “Dynamic optical tag communicator and system using corner cube modulating retroreflector,” 2008
A. Leray, K. Lillis and J. Mertz, “Enhanced Background Rejection in Thick Tissue with Differential-Aberration Two-Photon Microscopy,” The Biophysical Society, (2008)
Robert D. Peters, Oliver. P. Lay, and Muthu Jeganathan, “Broadband phase and intensity compensation with a deformable mirror for an interferometric nuller,” Applied Optics, Vol. 47, Issue 21, pp. 3920-3926
Huanqing Guo, David A. Atchison, Benjamin J. Birt, “Changes in through-focus spatial visual performance with adaptive optics correction of monochromatic aberrations,” Vision Research
Volume 48, Issue 17, August 2008, pp. 1804-1811
Zhangyi Zhong, Benno L. Petrig, Xiaofeng Qi, and Stephen A. Burns , “In vivo measurement of erythrocyte velocity and retinal blood flow using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy,” Optics Express, Vol. 16, Issue 17, pp. 12746-12756
Toco Yuen Ping Chui,  HongXin Song, and Stephen A. Burns, “Individual variations in human cone photoreceptor packing density: variations with refractive error,” 2008
Lisa A. Poyneer, Daren Dillon, Sandrine Thomas, and Bruce A. Macintosh, “ Laboratory demonstration of accurate and efficient nanometer-level wavefront control for extreme adaptive optics,” Applied Optics, Vol. 47, Issue 9, pp. 1317-1326, (2008)
JI Morgan, JJ Hunter, B Masella, R Wolfe, DC Gray, WH Merigan, FC Delori, DR Williams, “Light-induced retinal changes observed with high-resolution autofluorescence imaging of the retinal pigment epithelium,” Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., (2008)
Nicholas Devaney, Derek Coburn, Chris Coleman, J. Christopher Dainty, Eugenie Dalimier, Thomas Farrell, David Lara, David Mackey, and Ruth Mackey, “Characterisation of MEMs mirrors for use in atmospheric and ocular wavefront correction,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6888
Julia W. Evans, Robert J. Zawadzki, Steve Jones, Samelia Okpodu, Scot Olivier, John S. Werner, “Performance of a MEMS-based AO-OCT system,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6888, (2008)
Benjamin Potsaid and John Ting-Yung Wen,  “Design of Adaptive Optics Based Systems by Using MEMS Deformable Mirror Models,” International Journal of Optomechatronics, Volume 2, Issue 2 April 2008, pages 104 – 125
T.D. Farrel and J.C. Dainty, “Woofer-Tweeter Adaptive Optics” 2008
P. Bierden, “MEMS Deformable Mirrors for High Performance AO Applications,” 2008
2007
N. Jeremy Kasdin, Robert J. Vanderbei, and Ruslan Belikov, “Shaped pupil coronagraphy,” Comptes Rendus Physique, Volume 8, Issues 3-4, pp. 312-322 (2007)
Pircher, Michael; Zawadzki, Robert J, “Combining adaptive optics with optical coherence tomography: unveiling the cellular structure of the human retina in vivo,” Expert Review of Ophthalmology, Volume 2, Number 6, pp. 1019-1035 (2007)
Delphine Debarre, Martin J. Booth, and Tony Wilson, “Image based adaptive optics through optimisation of low spatial frequencies,” Optics Express, Vol. 15, Issue 13, pp. 8176-8190
J.K. Wallace, B. Macintosh, M. Shao, R. Bartos, P. Dumont, B.M. Levine, S. Rao, R. Samuele, C. Shelton, “An Interferometric Wave Front Sensor for Measuring Post-Coronagraph Errors on Large Optical Telescopes,” Aerospace Conference, pp. 1-7, (2007)
Amir Give'on, Ruslan Belikov, Stuart Shaklan, and Jeremy Kasdin , “Closed loop, DM diversity-based, wavefront correction algorithm for high contrast imaging systems,” Optics Express, Vol. 15, Issue 19, pp. 12338-12343
Daniel X. Hammer, Nicusor V. Iftimia, Chad E. Bigelow, Teoman E. Ustun, Benjamin Bloom, R. Daniel Ferguson, Stephen A. Burns, “High resolution retinal imaging with a compact adaptive optics spectral domain optical coherence tomography system,” Vol. 6426, (2007)
David A. Horsley , Hyunkyu Park, Sophie P. Laut and John S. Werner , “Characterization of a bimorph deformable mirror using stroboscopic phase-shifting interferometry,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Volume 134,  (2007), Pages 221-230
Alfredo Dubra , “Wavefront sensor and wavefront corrector matching in adaptive optics,” Optics Express, Vol. 15, Issue 6, pp. 2762-2769
Jacque L. Duncan, Yuhua Zhang, Jarel Gandhi, Chiaki Nakanishi, Mohammad Othman, Kari E. H. Branham, Anand Swaroop,  and Austin Roorda, “High-Resolution Imaging with Adaptive Optics in Patients with Inherited Retinal Degeneration,” Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007
Diana C. Chen, Steven M. Jones, Dennis A. Silva, and Scot S. Olivier , “High-resolution adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope with dual deformable mirrors,” JOSA A, Vol. 24, Issue 5, pp. 1305-1312
Gordon T. Kennedy, Carl Paterson, “Correcting the ocular aberrations of a healthy adult population using microelectromechanical (MEMS) deformable mirrors,” Optics Communications, Volume 271, Pages 278-284, (2007)
Bruce Macintosha, James Grahama, David Palmera, Rene Doyond, Don Gavela, James Larkina, Ben Oppenheimera, Leslie Saddlemyerh, J. Kent Wallacea, Brian Baumana, Darren Eriksonh, Lisa Poyneera, Anand Sivaramakrishnana, Rémi Soummera, and Jean-Pierre Veranh, “Adaptive optics for direct detection of extrasolar planets: the Gemini Planet Imager,” Comptes Rendus Physique, Volume 8, pp. 365-373, (2007)
2006
Michael Shao, Bruce M. Levine, James K. Wallace, Glenn S. Orton, Edouard Schmidtlin, Benjamin F. Lane, Sara Seager, Volker Tolls, Richard G. Lyon, Rocco Samuele, Domenick J. TenerelliRobert Woodruff, Jian Ge, “A nulling coronagraph for TPF-C,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6265, (2006)
Robert D. Peters, Oliver P. Lay, Akiko Hirai, and Muthu Jeganathan, “Adaptive nulling for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Interferometer,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6268, (2006)
Volker Tolls, Michael Aziz, Robert A. Gonsalves, Sylvain Korzennik, Antoine Labeyrie, Richard Lyon, Gary Melnick, Ruth Schlitz, Steve Somerstein, Gopal Vasudevan, and Robert Woodruff, “Study of coronagraphic techniques,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6265, (2006)
Elizabeth Daly, Eugenie Dalimier, and Chris Dainty, “Requirements for MEMS mirrors for adaptive optics in the eye,” 2006
Bruce Macintosh, Katie Morzinski, Dave Palmer and Lisa Poyneer“The extreme adaptive optics testbed at UCSC: current results and coronagraphic upgrade,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6272, (2006)
Aymeric Leray and Jerome Mertz, “Rejection of two-photon fluorescence background in thick tissue by differential aberration imaging,” Optics Express, Vol. 14, Issue 22, pp. 10565-10573
Yuhua Zhang, Siddharth Poonja, and Austin Roorda, “AOSLO: from benchtop to clinic,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6306, (2006)
Steven A. Cornelissen, Paul A. Bierden, Steven Menn and Thomas G. Bifano, “A 4096-element micromirror for high-contrast astronomical imaging,” Proc. SPIE, 2006
Katie M. Morzinski, Julia W. Evans, Scott Severson, Bruce Macintosh, Daren Dillon, Don Gavel, Claire Max, andDave Palmer, “Characterizing the potential of MEMS deformable mirrors for astronomical adaptive optics,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6272, (2006)
Brian P. Wallace, Peter J. Hampton, Colin H. Bradley and Rodolphe Conan, “Evaluation of a MEMS deformable mirror for an adaptive optics test bench,” Optics Express, Vol. 14, Issue 22, pp. 10132-10138
B. Potsaid, J.T. Wen, Automation of Challenging Spatial-Temporal Biomedical Observations with the Adaptive Scanning Optical Microscope (ASOM), pp. 8-10 Oct. 2006.
Julia W. Evans, Bruce Macintosh, Lisa Poyneer, Katie Morzinski, Scott Severson, Daren Dillon, Donald Gavel, and Layra Reza, "Demonstrating sub-nm closed loop MEMS flattening," Optics Express, Vol. 14, Issue 12, pp. 5558-5570, 2006.
Daniel X. Hammer, R. Daniel Ferguson, Chad E. Bigelow, Nicusor V. Iftimia, Teoman E. Ustun, and Stephen A. Burns, Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope for stabilized retinal imaging, Optics Express, Vol. 14, Issue 8, pp. 3354-3367, 2006.
L Abe, M. Tamura, T. Nakagawa, K. Enya, S. Tanaka, K. Fujita, J. Nishikawa, N. Murakami, and H. Kataza, "Current status of the coronagraphic mode for the 3.5m SPICA space telescope," Proceedings of the IAU Colloquium #200, pp. 329-334, 2006.
Onur Keskin, Peter Hampton, Rodolphe Conan, Colin Bradleyk, Aaron Hilton, and Celia Blain, "Woofer-Tweeter Adaptive Optics Test Bench," First NASA/ESA Conference on Adaptive Hardware and Systems, pp. 74-80, 2006.
Curtis R. Vogel and Qiang Yang, Modeling, simulation, and open-loop control of a continuous facesheet MEMS deformable mirror," Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp. 1074-1081, 2006.
Jason B. Stewart, Thomas G. Bifano, Paul Bierden, Steven Cornelissen, Timothy Cook, and B. Martin Levine, Design and development of a 329-segment tip-tilt piston mirrorarray for space-based adaptive optics," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6113, pp. 181-189, 2006.
Keigo Enya, Takao Nakagawa, Hirokazu Kataza, Hidehiro Kaneda, Yukari Yamashita Yui, Motohide Tamura, Lyu Abe, Yoshiyuki Obuchi, Takashi Miyata, Shigeyuki Sako, Takashi Onaka, and Hidenori Takahashi, Cryogenic infrared optics for SPICA coronagraph," Proceedings of the IAU Colloquium #200, pp. 467-472, 2006.
Alexandros Papavasiliou and Scot Olivier, Nanolaminate foils used to make deformable mirrors," SPIE Newsroom, 2006.
R. Daniel Ferguson, Daniel X. Hammer, Chad E. Bigelow, Nicusor V. Iftimia, Teoman E. Ustun, Stephen A. Burns, Ann E. Elsner, and David R. Williams, Tracking adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6138, pp. 232-240, 2006.
Daniel X. Hammer, R. Daniel Ferguson, Chad E. Bigelow, Nicusor V. Iftimia, Teoman E. Ustun, Gary D. Noojin, David J. Stolarski, Harvey M. Hodnett, Michelle L. Imholte, Semih S. Kumru, Michelle N. McCall, Cynthia A. Toth, and Benjamin A. Rockwell, Precision targeting with a tracking adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6138, pp. 241-250, 2006.
Yuhua Zhang, Siddharth Poonja, and Austin Roorda, "Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope using a micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) deformable mirror," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6138, pp. 221-231, 2006.
J. W. Evans, K. Morzinski, S. Severson, L. Poyneer, B. Macintosh, D. Dillon, L. Reza, D. Gavel, D. Palmer, S. Olivier, and P. Bierden, Extreme Adaptive Optics Testbed: Performance and Characterization of a 1024 Deformable Mirror," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6113, pp. 131-136, 2006.
Yaopeng Zhou and Thomas Bifano, Characterization of contour shapes achievable with a MEMS deformable mirror," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6113, pp. 123-130, 2006.
Robert J. Zawadzki, Steven M. Jones, Mingtao Zhao, Stacey S. Choi, Sophie S. Laut, Scot S. Olivier, Joseph A. Izatt, and John S. Werner, Adaptive optics-optical coherence tomography for in vivo retinal imaging: comparative analysis of two wavefront correctors," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6079, pp. 38-46, 2006.
Loading Support DocumentsLoading...

Please Give Us Your Feedback
 
Email   Feedback On
(Optional)
Contact Me:
Your email address will NOT be displayed.
 
 
Please type the following key into the field to submit this form:
Click Here if you can not read the security code.
This code is to prevent automated spamming of our site
Thank you for your understanding.
  
 
Would this product be useful to you?       Little Use   1 2 3 4Very Useful

Enter Comments Below:
 
Characters remaining 8000    
Posted Comments:
Poster: Thorlabs Posted Date: 2010-09-03 08:56:36.0
Response from Sam at Thorlabs to nssycit: Dear customer, Thank you for contacting us. Our office in China will contact you directly. You can also reach Thorlabs China at chinasales@thorlabs.com.
Poster: nssycit Posted Date: 2010-09-03 08:26:00.0
Im from China, our department want to stock the AOkits, so we would kown the flows of the purchase.Can you introduce an Chinese agent to me. thank you.
Poster: Thorlabs Posted Date: 2010-08-16 15:39:28.0
Response from Javier at Thorlabs to Tiago: thank you for submitting your inquiry. We will contact you directly with some pointers for developing your application.
Poster: tiago-paivas Posted Date: 2010-08-12 07:35:17.0
I am programming the AOKit2 through AOSystem.dll. My code has been developed in visual studio 2005. The application is CLR form based. I get to initialize the AOSystem and get to pointer to AOSystemData structure. I also get to read some values of AOSystemData (e.g. DM_Voltage or SH_Threshold_Off). But I am not able to read the values of the structures and array with pointers in AOSystemData structure (spotinfo, instr, dDMCoeff, and so on). I am going to give a little example: [code] struct AOSystemData *aoSystemData; double dDMCoeff[3]; dDMCoeff={0.0279, 9.3708, 0.0}; DM_SetQuadraticCoeffAndMaxV(dDMCoeff, 225.0); AOS::AOS_GetVarAddress(6, (void**) &aoSystemData); double coeficientes[0]=aoSystemData->dDMCoeff[0]; [#code] In this example, all values in aoSystemData->dDMCoeff array (retrieved to “coeficientes”) are null. But I found these values in aoSystemData->dDMDesired array. I also was not able to read values from, for example, spotinfo structure. In this case I try to point by that through this line: AOS_GetVarAddress(VAR_SPOTINFO, (void **)&aoSystemData->spotinfo). What is wrong? Is there anyone in Thorlabs I could contact through email to help in my problem? Thanks, Tiago Correia.
Poster: jens Posted Date: 2009-09-16 12:00:08.0
A reply from Jens at Thorlabs: We can offer a mirror with the window removed. It will be however necessary to only operate the device in a humidity controlled (<30% relative humidity, preferable dry N2), clean environment. You will need to order the mirror without window since for the standard part it cannot be removed once the deformable mirror has been sealed.
Poster: hyoon Posted Date: 2009-09-15 13:38:39.0
Hi Thorlabs, Can the Multi DM be operated without the window for spectrally flat operations?
Poster: klee Posted Date: 2009-07-28 14:42:49.0
Response from Ken at Thorlabs to misterfig: An engineer from the Advanced Imaging Group will contact you directly to troubleshoot the AO Kit.
Poster: misterfig Posted Date: 2009-07-28 11:45:58.0
Hello, I am working with Professor Bifano at Boston University and Boston Micromachines on writing code using AOSystem.dll. I am working with developer studio 2008, C++. The application is CLR form based. I am able to initialize the dll and get a memory pointer to the aoSystemData record. I can also send voltages to the DM. But there seems to be no data coming from the wavefront sensor. Also, the wavefront sensor is being reported as present even when I disconnect the device. Additionally, the application AOKit2 can not connect to the wavefront sensor as well (although the wavefront sensor application WFS works fine). Is there anyone at Thorlabs I could contact through email to help troubleshoot AOKit2? Thanks, Richard Newton
Poster: Posted Date: 2009-03-14 11:33:30.0
Awesome
Poster: Laurie Posted Date: 2009-02-16 14:09:53.0
Response from Laurie at Thorlabs to walter.collins: Thank you for your post concerning the AO Kit software. We are going to have an expert from our Imaging Group contact you directly so that your questions can be addressed promptly. Based on the results of those conversations, we may update the software so as to facilitate the interfacing process better. As far as the best forum for such concerns, this feedback tool is appropriate. You could also contact us directly if youd prefer.
Poster: walter.collins Posted Date: 2009-02-16 13:13:53.0
The toolkits included software seems to function fairly well, but interfacing with the library has proven rather frustrating. In part this is due to documentation being not quite sufficient in a few areas and also seems to be due to trying to combine the existing products of WFS and DM (though thats just a guess on my part). Is there a proper forum for submitting feature requests?
Poster: Laurie Posted Date: 2008-09-08 12:55:26.0
Response from Laurie at Thorlabs to dreinhardt: Thank you for your feedback concerning this page. I have made our web team aware of the fact that the text is not currently wrapping appropriately on our "Print Friendly" version. We will work to correct the problem as quickly as possible. In the short term, there are two ways for you to print the content found on these pages: (1) If you click on the individual tab of interest, and click print (w/o choosing the print friendly version), that tabs information should print without a problem. (2) Since I authored these pages, I can directly email you the content that you are most interested in. Again, we apologize for this short-term inconvenience, thank you for bringing it to our attention, and will work to address to rectify the problem in a timely manner.
Poster: dreinhardt Posted Date: 2008-09-08 12:30:33.0
Printer friendly pages: text does not wrap when printed (line length hard coded?). Alternatively: is there a PDF version for download?
Loading Tag cloudLoading...


Order
Based on your currency / country selection, your order will ship from Newton, New Jersey  
  +1 QTY Part Number - Imperial Price Available/Ships
AOK1-UM01 Support Documentation AOK1-UM01 -    Adaptive Optics Kit with Gold-Coated Multi-DM (140 Actuators) $23,000.00
  Lead Time
 
AOK1-UP01 Support Documentation AOK1-UP01 -    Adaptive Optics Kit with Aluminum-Coated Multi-DM (140 Actuators) $23,000.00
  Lead Time
 
AOK2-UM01 Support Documentation AOK2-UM01 -    Adaptive Optics Kit with Gold-Coated Mini-DM (32 Actuators) $12,000.00
  Lead Time
 
AOK2-UP01 Support Documentation AOK2-UP01 -    Adaptive Optics Kit with Aluminum-Coated Mini-DM (32 Actuators) $12,000.00
  Lead Time
 

Author: lmorgus Last Updated: Jun 02, 2009
Log in  |  My Account  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy  |  Home  |  Site Index
Copyright © 1999 - 2010 Thorlabs
   HACKER SAFE certified sites prevent over 99.9% of hacker crime.
Sales: 1-973-579-7227     |     Support: 1-973-300-3000