Abstract

New methods are introduced that utilize interferometric comparison of images of diffusely reflecting objects from different hologram plates that are sandwiched together. To make the plate positions optically and mechanically identical during reconstruction and exposure, they are also exposed in sandwiches. If the two sandwiched hologram plates are separated by a small distance a new method of fringe evaluation can be used. Fringes caused by object tilt between two exposures can be eliminated by an analogous, but much larger, tilt of the sandwich hologram during reconstruction. Even the direction of tilt, forward or backward, is found this way.

© 1974 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. K. A. Stetson, R. L. Powell, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 1694 (1965).
    [CrossRef]
  2. J. M. Burch, A. E. Ennos, R. J. Wilton, Nature, 209, 1015 (1966).
    [CrossRef]
  3. G. S. Ballard, M. K. Testerman, Proceedings of Conference on Holographic Instrumentation Applications (NASA SP-248, 1970).
  4. J. W. C. Gates, Nature, 220, 473 (1968).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. G. Havener, R. Radley, Opto-Electron. 4, 349 (1972).
    [CrossRef]
  6. R. L. Powell, K. A. Stetson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 1593 (1965).
    [CrossRef]
  7. E. B. Aleksandrov, A. M. Bonch-Bruevich, Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys. 12, 258 (1967).
  8. J. W. C. Gates, Opt. Technol. 1, 247 (1969).
    [CrossRef]
  9. K. A. Stetson, Optic, 29, 386 (1969).
  10. G. Oster, The Science of Moiré Patterns (Edmund Scientific, Chicago, 1969).
  11. N. Abramson, Nature, 231, 65 (1971).

1972 (1)

G. Havener, R. Radley, Opto-Electron. 4, 349 (1972).
[CrossRef]

1971 (1)

N. Abramson, Nature, 231, 65 (1971).

1969 (2)

J. W. C. Gates, Opt. Technol. 1, 247 (1969).
[CrossRef]

K. A. Stetson, Optic, 29, 386 (1969).

1968 (1)

J. W. C. Gates, Nature, 220, 473 (1968).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1967 (1)

E. B. Aleksandrov, A. M. Bonch-Bruevich, Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys. 12, 258 (1967).

1966 (1)

J. M. Burch, A. E. Ennos, R. J. Wilton, Nature, 209, 1015 (1966).
[CrossRef]

1965 (2)

Abramson, N.

N. Abramson, Nature, 231, 65 (1971).

Aleksandrov, E. B.

E. B. Aleksandrov, A. M. Bonch-Bruevich, Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys. 12, 258 (1967).

Ballard, G. S.

G. S. Ballard, M. K. Testerman, Proceedings of Conference on Holographic Instrumentation Applications (NASA SP-248, 1970).

Bonch-Bruevich, A. M.

E. B. Aleksandrov, A. M. Bonch-Bruevich, Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys. 12, 258 (1967).

Burch, J. M.

J. M. Burch, A. E. Ennos, R. J. Wilton, Nature, 209, 1015 (1966).
[CrossRef]

Ennos, A. E.

J. M. Burch, A. E. Ennos, R. J. Wilton, Nature, 209, 1015 (1966).
[CrossRef]

Gates, J. W. C.

J. W. C. Gates, Opt. Technol. 1, 247 (1969).
[CrossRef]

J. W. C. Gates, Nature, 220, 473 (1968).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Havener, G.

G. Havener, R. Radley, Opto-Electron. 4, 349 (1972).
[CrossRef]

Oster, G.

G. Oster, The Science of Moiré Patterns (Edmund Scientific, Chicago, 1969).

Powell, R. L.

Radley, R.

G. Havener, R. Radley, Opto-Electron. 4, 349 (1972).
[CrossRef]

Stetson, K. A.

Testerman, M. K.

G. S. Ballard, M. K. Testerman, Proceedings of Conference on Holographic Instrumentation Applications (NASA SP-248, 1970).

Wilton, R. J.

J. M. Burch, A. E. Ennos, R. J. Wilton, Nature, 209, 1015 (1966).
[CrossRef]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (2)

Nature (3)

J. M. Burch, A. E. Ennos, R. J. Wilton, Nature, 209, 1015 (1966).
[CrossRef]

J. W. C. Gates, Nature, 220, 473 (1968).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

N. Abramson, Nature, 231, 65 (1971).

Opt. Technol. (1)

J. W. C. Gates, Opt. Technol. 1, 247 (1969).
[CrossRef]

Optic (1)

K. A. Stetson, Optic, 29, 386 (1969).

Opto-Electron. (1)

G. Havener, R. Radley, Opto-Electron. 4, 349 (1972).
[CrossRef]

Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys. (1)

E. B. Aleksandrov, A. M. Bonch-Bruevich, Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys. 12, 258 (1967).

Other (2)

G. Oster, The Science of Moiré Patterns (Edmund Scientific, Chicago, 1969).

G. S. Ballard, M. K. Testerman, Proceedings of Conference on Holographic Instrumentation Applications (NASA SP-248, 1970).

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (13)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Photograph of a reconstructed sandwich hologram. The test object in the middle was deformed +3 μm (towards the observer) prior to the exposure of the front plate. The back plate (nearest to the observer) represents zero deformation. The fringes should be counted from the base to the drawn horizontal line. Illumination and observation were parallel to object displacement.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The front plate represents a deformation of +3 μm. The back plate represents a deformation of −1 μm.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

The front plate represents a deformation of +3 μm. The back plate represents a deformation of +1 μm.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

The ring system reveals an error of reposition.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

First exposure, a and b are two sandwiched hologram plates. 01 is the undeformed object. P1 is one speckle.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Second exposure. c and d are two new sandwiched hologram plates. o2 is the object bent forward by the force F. P2 is the new position of the speckle P1.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Reconstruction. a and d are sandwiched. Fringes are formed on the studied part of the object because of the vertical distance separating P1 and P2. (The hologram plates b and c could be substituted by plates without any photographic emulsion.)

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Compensation. No fringes are formed on the studied part of the object because the sandwich hologram is now tilted so that the eye of the observer, P1, P2 and the studied part of the object all are aligned during reconstruction.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

The same hologram as that of Fig. 1, but the top of the sandwich hologram was tilted towards the observer during reconstruction. Fringes appeared on the reference objects but the number of fringes on the test object decreased. When the tilt angle was β (Fig. 8) the fringes on the top of the object disappeared completely. Thus both the sign and the size of object deformation angle (α of Fig. 7) were revealed.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

The same hologram as that of Fig. 1, but the top of the sandwich hologram was tilted away from the observer during reconstruction. Fringes appeared on the two reference objects and the number of fringes on the test object increased.

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

The agreement between βcalc and βmeas indicate that the approximations onto which Eq. (1) is based are acceptable.

Fig. 12
Fig. 12

The same hologram as that of Fig. 1, but this time the sandwich hologram was rotated a small angle around a vertical axis. The angle of the fringes on the test object is a function of the deformation angle. If the object were deformed in the opposite direction, the inclination of the fringes also would be opposite.

Fig. 13
Fig. 13

The same reconstruction as that of Fig. 12, but the top of the sandwich hologram was also tilted towards the observer the angle β (Fig. 8). The fringes present a very clear picture of the deformation and they almost represent a cross section of the bent object.

Equations (2)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

tg β = ( L / d ) tg 2 α .
β = ( L / d ) 2 α .

Metrics