|
I have uploaded large number of plots which are describing the relationship between the data and the Zemax predictions. We can separate the plots in 2 groups:
1. z5 - z11 shows the comparison between the Zemax predictions and real data for a selection of points across the detector. Each figure comprises of 4 panels:
a) upper left: fit to the data, slit moved +4 mm
b) upper right: Zemax predictions, slit moved +4 mm
c) lower left: fit to the data, slit moved -4 mm
d) lower right: Zemax predictions, slit moved -4 mm
The fits for the data used the fits from Zemax as an initial suggestion, i.e., I initialized the fitting with the zemax predictions to ensure that the discrepancies are not caused by my fitting missing the relevant part of the parameter space.
2. Upper_left.png, Upper_right.png, Lower_left.png, Lower_left.png show the dependencies of the different Zernike order for different positions on the detector. The name of the image (e.g., Lower_left) refers to where on the detector is the spot located. Exact position on the detector is mentioned in title above each figure.
I had some trouble identifying the correct orientation of Zemax detector plane and making sure that it is Zemax definitions are consistent with I am using when I am looking at the real data - having said that, I believe that I am correctly matching Zemax data with the real data.
As these images show, there are some quite large discrepancies, in particular when looking at astigmatism terms (z5 and z6) and vertical coma (z7). I do not understand those differences. My expectation was that there would be some difference in the trefoil term, as grating should have some trefoil contribution which is not accounted in the Zemax file; actually trefoil terms look kinda ok....
I suggest closing this ticket for now and having further exploration of this topic captured in any following tickets...
| 
Lower_left.png