Abstract

Potentially misleading results follow from an error in a recent paper, namely [Opt. Express 24, 5448-5462 (2016)], that contains a comparative analysis of schemes for specifying shape. Some corrections are presented for clarification. Additional comments are offered in relation to practical goals in this area of research.

© 2016 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • Article Order
  • |
  • Year
  • |
  • Author
  • |
  • Publication
  1. C. Ferreira, J. L. López, R. Navarro, and E. P. Sinusía, “Orthogonal basis with a conicoid first mode for shape specification of optical surfaces,” Opt. Express 24(5), 5448–5462 (2016).
    [Crossref]
  2. G. W. Forbes, “Fitting freeform shapes with orthogonal bases,” Opt. Express 21(16), 19061–19081 (2013).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. See https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Scikit-Qfit

2016 (1)

2013 (1)

Ferreira, C.

Forbes, G. W.

López, J. L.

Navarro, R.

Sinusía, E. P.

Opt. Express (2)

Other (1)

See https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Scikit-Qfit

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 (1)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 An isometric view of the surface used as an example in [1] is shown at left together with its best-fit sphere. The central plot gives the same result with the original factor of 1/sqrt(2 pi) retained. A best-fit ellipsoid is shown at right with a conic constant of −0.42.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Metrics