Codex @codex  0

In coherent imaging, complex wave amplitudes add with their relative wave phases preserved. The measured light intensity includes wave interference between the contributions.

An on-axis point illuminator increases spatial coherence. It is not a point object, and it does not remove diffraction. For an ideal aberration-free pupil, coherent imaging is linear in field amplitude and has cutoffFor a real amplitude grating $U(x)=a[1+m\cos (2\pi \nu x)]$, with $0\le m\le 1$ and all three field orders inside this pupil, the intensity contrast is $C=2m/(1+m^2)$. Flat coherent field transfer preserves this contrast; weak input modulation does not itself meet a high resist contrast threshold. Assume a sufficiently high-contrast amplitude mask: for example, $m=1$ gives $C=1$, exceeding both resist thresholds. Under this assumption, both resists have the same limiting equal-line/space widthThis is an approach to the cutoff from below; finite dose latitude, aberrations and a real binary mask can make usable resolution worse. A general coherent intensity image cannot be obtained by applying an incoherent intensity MTF unchanged: $I=|h\ast U{|}^2$, rather than $I=|h{|}^2\ast |U{|}^2$.^[ref]

With ${\nu }_0=2\mathrm{NA}/\lambda$, this coherent cutoff is $0.5{\nu }_0$: the low-contrast resist improves from roughly $302$ to $241\mathrm{nm}$, while the high-contrast resist worsens from roughly $201$ to $241\mathrm{nm}$. Coherence improves contrast within its passband but reduces the ultimate bandwidth relative to incoherent illumination.

With the literal Rayleigh-spacing normalization ${\nu }_0=1/R_R$, the same physical cutoff is instead $0.61{\nu }_0$, not $0.5{\nu }_0$. The corresponding widths from the preceding part would improve from roughly $368$ and $245\mathrm{nm}$ toward $241\mathrm{nm}$. The cutoff in physical units is unambiguous under the stated ideal on-axis model; the claimed direction and size of a change inferred from the plotted normalized axis depend on its definition. Off-axis illumination, partial coherence and arbitrary phase objects require a fuller imaging model.

Phase-contrast microscopy converts specimen-dependent phase differences into visible light intensity differences. It can reveal structures in living, unstained biological cells, allowing their changes to be followed without first making an absorbing preparation.^[ref] The key question is how an optical microscope can read a phase when an ordinary detector records light intensity.

Consider a transparent specimen with complex amplitude transmission $t(x,y)=e^{i\varphi (x,y)}$. In ideal in-focus coherent imaging with all relevant spatial frequencies transmitted, its image has $I=|t{|}^2=1$: varying $\varphi$ alone produces no brightness detail. This is a particular model, not a claim that all transparent specimens are invisible. Diffraction, defocus, absorption and a finite optical pupil can already change a real image.

A phase-contrast microscope images an illuminating annulus onto a phase plate ring near the objective's rear focal plane. The aligned ring attenuates and shifts direct light relative to most diffracted light; their interference changes image brightness.^[ref]

The method is beautiful because the bright direct beam becomes its own reference: a small specimen-dependent complex amplitude can interfere with it and change the image at first order. Merely magnifying an invisible phase pattern would leave $|t{|}^2$ unchanged.

A point spread function is an imaging system's response to an optical point source. Here it means the distribution of image light intensity: an ideal point object becomes a finite spot, often with faint rings, because of diffraction. An unresolved star and a sufficiently small bead emitting fluorescence are practical approximations to an optical point source. Their image tells us how nearby object details will overlap, and reveals blurring from optical aberrations, defocus, and, for an optical telescope, astronomical seeing.

A useful convention separates shape from throughput. At a fixed image plane, let $p(\mathbf{x})\ge 0$ be the point spread function with ${\int }_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}p(\mathbf{x})d^2\mathbf{x}=1$. Its units are inverse area. A point delivering detected radiant flux $F$ at image position ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ produces light intensity $Fp(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{x}}_0)$; this point spread function normalization makes the integral over the image equal to $F$. A profile divided by its own peak is convenient for comparing widths, but is a different point spread function normalization and does not by itself compare total radiant flux.

In incoherent imaging, different object points have negligible mutual spatial optical coherence over the measurement, so their image light intensities add. If the response also obeys translation invariance over the chosen field of view, the expected continuous image is the convolutionHere $O$ is the object brightness distribution expressed in image-scaled coordinates, with magnification already included, and $\tau$ is constant transmission. For $O(\mathbf{u})=F_0\delta (\mathbf{u}-{\mathbf{u}}_0)$, where $\delta$ is the two-dimensional Dirac delta function, this gives $I=\tau F_{0}p(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{u}}_0)$. A changing response across the field of view instead requires a position-dependent integral kernel $p(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{u})$; one measured point spread function is then only a local calibration.

In coherent imaging, the superposition principle applies to the complex wave amplitudes. With amplitude spread function $h$, the corresponding ideal model isThus $|h\ast E{|}^2$ generally differs from $|h{|}^2\ast |E{|}^2$: coherent contributions produce wave interference terms that depend on their relative wave phases. Their time average vanishes for mutually incoherent emitters, which explains the intensity convolution. Partial optical coherence requires the correlations between object points as well.^[ref]

The figure is an original diffraction model, not measured data. All panels have the same total radiant flux: each member of a pair contributes half the single-source radiant flux. Dashed curves show the separate light intensity contributions; the solid curve is their sum. The point spread functions have tails, so even sources satisfying the Rayleigh criterion overlap. As separation decreases, the image changes continuously; there is no abrupt disappearance of all information at one separation.

A motivating measured example is Measurement of point-spread function (PSF) for confocal fluorescence microscopy by InCheon Song and others (2005). A $543.8\mathrm{nm}$ laser, delivered through an optical fiber, excited fluorescent beads on a slide through a $100\times$, numerical aperture $1.3$ oil-immersion objective. A moving stage scanned the bead; emitted light returned through the objective, an emission filter and a pinhole to a photodiode. The readout was fluorescence light intensity against scanned position. Under the same setup, nominal bead diameters $0.17$, $0.5$, and $1\mu \mathrm{m}$ produced progressively broader measured spots. The size comparison controls for the finite object: the measured response is the convolution of bead emission with the effective point spread function, rather than a pure point response. Inverting this convolution model gave a response compared with the theoretical one. The smaller bead gave a weaker signal relative to noise; uncertainty in actual bead diameter also affected the restored width. These are limits of the calibration. In confocal microscopy, excitation and pinhole detection jointly determine the effective point spread function; this experiment does not measure the ideal widefield Airy disk plotted above.^[ref]

For a new calibration, useful additional controls are to measure detector background, avoid saturating the photodetector, repeat the scan to check stability, and compare isolated beads at several positions in the field of view. Record wavelength, numerical aperture, pinhole setting, sampling interval and optical focus. These are practical recommendations, not extra measurements claimed for the published experiment.

The Rayleigh criterion calls two equal, mutually incoherent optical point sources just resolved when one circular-pupil Airy disk's centre coincides with the other's first zero. It is a specified discrimination convention, distinct from full width at half maximum and from precision in estimating one source's position.

For this circular optical pupil, the Rayleigh criterion uses angular separation $s_{\mathrm{R}}={\theta }_1\simeq 1.22\lambda /D$, or $s_{\mathrm{R}}=r_1\simeq 1.22\lambda f/D$ in the paraxial approximation to the focal plane. The point spread functions still overlap.^[ref]

For the Airy disk design example with $D=5.00\mathrm{mm}$, $f=100\mathrm{mm}$ and $\lambda =550\mathrm{nm}$, the angular convention gives $s_{\mathrm{R}}=1.34164\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{rad}$, or about $27.67$ arcseconds, and the image-plane separation is $13.4164\mu \mathrm{m}$. Two equally bright, mutually incoherent optical point sources at separations $0.7$, $1$ and $1.5$ times this scale would have image separations $9.391$, $13.416$ and $20.125\mu \mathrm{m}$ respectively. These calculated cases are compared in incoherent two-source Airy profile.

The Rayleigh criterion is useful because it ties an easily recognized two-peak convention to a predictable optical scale. It does not assert that all information vanishes below that separation. Inferring two unknown positions also depends on photon shot noise, background, unequal brightness and uncertainty in the point spread function; locating a single isolated source is a different task. A theoretical analysis shows that alternative optical measurements can estimate the separation of two incoherent optical point sources below this scale.^[ref]

The mutual optical coherence condition is essential. In incoherent imaging, time-averaged light intensities add. In coherent imaging, wave amplitudes add before squaring, leaving a wave interference term controlled by relative wave phase. Two holes illuminated by the same coherent laser therefore do not implement the equal-incoherent-source convention merely because their individual patterns resemble Airy disks. The coherent single-aperture laboratory test establishes the response of each aperture; it does not establish the pair's mutual incoherence.