Research Article Vol. 29, No.

15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23300

Ronchi-Hartmann type null screens for testing a

plano-freeform surface with a detection plane
inside a caustic surface
J ESÚS D EL O LMO -M ÁRQUEZ , 1 G ABRIEL C ASTILLO -S ANTIAGO, 1
M AXIMINO AVENDAÑO -A LEJO, 1,* I VAN M ORENO, 2 E DWIN
R OMÁN -H ERNÁNDEZ , 3 AND M ARÍA C. L ÓPEZ -B AUTISTA 1
1 Instituto de Ciencias Aplicadas y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, C. P. 04510,
Apdo. Postal 70-186, CD.MX., Mexico
2 Unidad Académica de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Luz y la Materia, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas,
C. P. 98060, Zacatecas, Mexico
3 Universidad de Istmo, Campus Tehuantepec. División de Estudios de Posgrado, Cd. Universitaria s/n, C.P.
70760, Oaxaca, Mexico
* maximino.avendano@icat.unam.mx

Abstract: We have implemented an exact ray trace through a plano-freeform surface for an
incident plane wavefront. We obtain two caustic surfaces and provide the critical points related
to the ray tracing process. Additionally, we study the propagation of the refracted wavefronts
through the plane-curved surface. Finally, by using the Ronchi-Hartmann type null screen
and placing the detection plane within the caustic region, we have evaluated the shape of a
plano-freeform optical surface under test, obtaining an RMS difference in sagitta value of 6.3 µm.

© 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

1. Introduction
Nowadays most optical systems are rotationally symmetric, because such systems are the simplest
to deal with, and there exist many methods for testing their shape and performance with either
geometrical or interferometrical tests. It is common to design non-rotational symmetric systems,
with properties which significantly differ from rotational symmetry optics. In particular, those
elements are called freeform optical surfaces, and they provide a third independent axis during
the fabrication process to create an optical surface having non-symmetric features [1]. This
capability of adaptation allows designers to increase the fields of usage to areas such as imaging
and non-imaging forming optics, providing more complex optical systems which have diversified
to achieve applications in multidisciplinary approaches. Therefore, it is essential to verify if the
instrumentation traditionally implemented to quantitatively evaluate the properties of these new
optical systems is still valid.
Additionally, a freeform surface can be mathematically expressed by equations with two
variables, or by small segments of continuous equations, such as splines, B-splines [2]. These
have been utilized in imaging and non-imaging optical systems, they can be designed either for
correcting aberrations or producing uniform intensity patterns with a specific geometric shape
[3]. Some techniques to manufacture freeform surfaces consider the use of predefined molds, 3D
printers or computer numerical control machines [4]. Alternatively, in the literature there exist
several definitions for caustic surfaces, related to their physical or geometrical approaches, each
with at least one method to obtain a mathematical representation [5–7]. On the other hand, a set
of points where the intensity of the refracted rays becomes infinite [8]. Additionally, considering
a three-dimensional transformation between object-image space, we can calculate its critical
points [9–11] obtaining the caustic surfaces. In this manuscript we study the formation of caustic
surfaces formed through plano-freeform optical surfaces.

#432007 https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.432007
Journal © 2021 Received 20 May 2021; revised 29 Jun 2021; accepted 30 Jun 2021; published 8 Jul 2021
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23301

Finally, null tests are motivated by the fact that the interpretation of the surface shape is
simplified, and the visual analysis turns out to be straightforward for both qualitative and
quantitative tests [12–14]. Recently, an attempt to describe the evolution of the null Ronchi-
grating considering the plane of detection inside the caustic region was presented in [15,16], and
references cited there in. Unfortunately, the null Ronchi-grating obtained in Refs. [15,16], does
not properly work experimentally because these null screens are not binarized. Alternatively,
there exist papers where null screens have been properly implemented. For instance, for testing
plano-convex spherical lens demanding that the detection plane is placed at effective focal length
see [17]. Otherwise, for testing aspherical surfaces assuming a detection plane inside the caustic
surface see [18]. Finally, a preliminary trial for testing plano-freeform surfaces was presented in
[19]. In this paper we design a null screen that produces a uniform distribution of spots, in which
the interspacing between contiguous circular spots has the same width at the detection plane,
also straight fringes like a Ronchi-grating for testing quantitatively the shape of a Zernike surface
were implemented. It is worth noting that this optical test is in the geometrical optics regime;
therefore, the effects of diffraction are not considered here, and further work should consider
these issues.

2. Preliminaries
In order to implement an exact ray tracing through a plano-freeform refracting surface, we
demand to know the mathematical representation of the surface under test, which we have simply
called a Zernike surface. For convenience, we assume the equation for the second refracting
surface is given with reference to a coordinate system in which the Z-axis coincides with the
geometrical center of the first face of the optical surface, which is a plane surface and its origin
of coordinates is placed at an arbitrary point on X-Y plane as is shown in Fig. 1(a). We assume
that the rear surface is represented by a continuous and differentiable function with two variables
z = f (x, y). Additionally, we demand a bundle of rays propagating parallel to Z-axis impinging at
the plano surface, passing without deflection through it and these rays are propagated up to the
second surface defined by a Zernike polynomial, and finally the rays are refracted outside of the
optical surface. In particular, we consider that the second surface can be expressed as an odd
Zernike polynomial [20] according to
[︄ 3 ]︄
∑︂ (−1)k (10 − k)!
Z10 (ρ, θ) =
−4
ρ10−2k
sin(4θ) = R410 (ρ) sin(4θ), (1)
k=0
k!(7 − k)!(3 − k)!

where the series yields R410 (ρ) = ρ4 (120ρ6 − 252ρ4 + 168ρ2 − 35), defined inside a unitary
circle of radius ρ ∈ [0, 1]. In order to simplify the equations involved in the ray tracing process,
we have rewritten the radial variable ρ = r/R, where D = 2R is the diameter of the surface
under test, being a circular pupil which is coincident with area covered by the Zernike surface,
r ∈ [0, R]. Additionally, for practical purposes we rewrite Eq. (1) in Cartesian coordinates
instead of trigonometric form, thus we consider x = r cos θ, y = r sin θ and r = [x2 + y2 ]1/2 , by
introducing these transformations into Eq. (1) and reducing further we get

(x2 + y2 )3 (x2 + y2 )2 (x2 + y2 )

[︃ ]︃
x y [︁
z(x, y) = A 4 x2 − y2 480 +
]︁
− 1008 672 − 140 , (2)
R R6 R4 R2

where the parameter A is a scaling factor, which modulates the height of the optical surface, in
this particular case A = 0.2 mm, where D = 54.8 mm. We can see an schematic representation of
the exact ray tracing through a Zernike surface as is shown in Fig. 1(a). It is important to state
that the material for the optical surface is a transparent optical plastic, whose axial thickness is
t = 1.56 mm, its refractive index nl = 1.5151 for a wavelength λ = 633 nm according to [20],
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23302

assuming that is immersed within a medium with refraction index na = 1 (commonly is the
air). An elevation map of the Zernike surface is shown in Fig. 1(b), where we can clearly see
the Peak-to-Valley regions on the optical surface, and it is nearly plane around the optical axis.
Alternatively, a 3D plot for the Zernike surface is shown in Fig. 1(c) displaying a non-rotational
symmetry around the optical axis.

Fig. 1. (a) Process of refraction in a Zernike surface. (b) Elevation map of Zernike surface
with a diameter D = 54.8 mm. (c) 3D model of the Zernike surface.

Let P⃗ 1 be a point where the incident ray intersects the plano-curved surface whose coordinates
⃗ 1 = (x, y, zm ), where zm is constant, for practical purposes we consider zm = 0. Furthermore,
are P
the incident ray will be propagated inside the Zernike surface along the direction of a unitary
vector R̂1 = Î1 . We also assume that Î1 = (0, 0, 1) is a unitary vector representing the direction of
the incident ray, and N̂1 = (0, 0, −1) is the normal vector on the first refracting surface, the ray is
propagated up to the second surface defined by P ⃗ 2 = {xi , yi , z(xi , yi )}, where the suffix i means
incident point, and z(x, y) was defined by Eq. (2). Following all the steps explained in [7], the
refracted ray outside of the Zernike surface is given by
√︄
n2l (︂
⎡ (︂ ⎤
⎢ nl ]︁ )︂ ]︁ 2 )︂ ⎥
X2 = P2 + L ⎢
⃗ ⃗ Î1 − Î1 · N̂2 N̂2 − 1 − 2 1 − Î1 · N̂2 N̂2 ⎥⎥ = P ⃗ 2 + L R̂2 , (3)
[︁ [︁
⎢
⎢ na na ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where L represents an arbitrary distance from the point where the ray impinges on the second
surface to a distant point outside of the Zernike surface, propagating along the unitary refracted
ray R̂2 as is shown in Fig. 2, and N̂2 represents a unitary vector defined by
|︁
|︁
(∂z/∂x , ∂z/∂y , −1) |︁|︁
N̂2 = √︂ |︁ , (4)
(∂z/∂x)2 + (∂z/∂y)2 + 1 |︁
|︁
x→xi , y→yi

where the vector N̂2 is evaluated at the coordinates x → xi and y → yi , respectively. We have
implemented an exact 3D ray tracing through the Zernike surface as is shown in Fig. 2(a), where
we can see that all the refracted rays are perpendicular to the wavefronts propagated on the X ′-Z
plane. Additionally, there are many rays which lie on the X ′-Z plane, being those meridional rays.
We have considered a tilted plane with an angle θ = 75◦ , thus we can clearly see that there exists
symmetry around the Z axis, in other words, at the borders for this plane the rays have a divergent
behavior. In addition, for two particular sections there exist rays which are focused having a
convergent behavior as are shown in Fig. 2(b), showing that the convergence and divergence are
displayed either above or below of the optical axis. Finally, in Y ′-Z plane we can see skew rays
propagating outside of the meridional plane as is shown in Fig. 2(c). It is important to state that
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23303

Fig. 2. (a) Exact ray tracing considering a bundle of parallel rays impinging on the Zernike
surface on the plane θ = 75◦ . (b) Refracted rays projected in a meridional plane X ′ -Z (see
Visualization 1). (c) Refracted rays projected in a sagittal plane Y ′ -Z, where X ′ ⊥ Y ′ .

the Zernike surface has symmetry for θ ′ = θ + [nπ]/2 for n = 0, 1, 2, . . . ., as is shown in the
Visualization 1.
For the Visualization 1, from Fig. 2(a), the green continuous curves represent the sagittal
caustic surface and the red continuous curves represent the refracted wavefronts. Additionally,
we have shown the four axis X, Y, X ′ and Y ′, assuming that a rotation is an anticlockwise rotation
through an angle θ between X and X ′ axes respectively about Z-axis. Let us choose a Cartesian
coordinates system (X, Y, Z) in the space under consideration for simplicity in such a way that we
can denote a rotation through an angle θ about the Z-axis by R(θ), and substituting Eq. (3) we get

⎛cos θ − sin θ 0⎞
′
X2 = R(θ) · X2 = ⎜⎜ sin θ
⎜
⃗ ⃗ 0⎟⎟ · X⃗2 ,
⎟
cos θ (5)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ 0 0 1⎠
′
in the particular case for θ = 0◦ , the X⃗2 vector is brought in coincidence with the X⃗2 vector,
while for the case θ = 90◦ , provides that X ′ coincides with the Y-axis. We can clearly see the
symmetry for the ray tracing trough the Zernike surface.

3. Caustics produced by a Zernike surface

Without loss of generality, we can consider that Eq. (3) provides the direction of propagation
for all the rays outside the Zernike surface, which is represented by X⃗2 = (X2x , X2y , X2z ), and
their respective rays are propagated along the unitary refracted vector R̂2 = (R2x , R2y , R2z ). In
order to obtain the caustic surface produced by the refracted rays through the Zernike surface, we
calculate the critical points from Eq. (3), because the singularities of the mapping will define
both sagittal and tangential caustic surfaces. Subsequently, we calculate the Jacobian matrix of
the transformation according to Eq. (3), obtaining

∂X2x ∂X2y ∂X2z

⎜ ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi ⎟
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ∂X ∂X2y ∂X2z ⎟⎟
Det |J {xi , yi , L}| = Det ⎜⎜ 2x = 0, (6)
⎜ ∂yi ∂yi ∂yi ⎟⎟
⎜ ∂X2x ∂X2y ∂X2z ⎟
⎝ ∂L ∂L ∂L ⎠
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23304

as is well known, to solve Eq. (6), all their coefficients are expanded, and terms in the powers of
L are collected providing a quadratic polynomial, whose solutions L± are related to the caustic
surface, the quadratic equation is given by
AL 2 + BL + C = 0, (7)
where the coefficients are in terms of the partial derivatives of Eq. (3) leading to
[︄ ]︄ [︄ ]︄
∂ R̂2 ∂ R̂2 ∂P
⃗ 2 ∂ R̂2 ∂ R̂2 ∂ P⃗2 ∂P
⃗ 2 ∂P⃗2
[︃ ]︃
A = R̂2 · × , B = R̂2 · × + × , C = R̂2 · × , (8)
∂xi ∂yi ∂xi ∂yi ∂xi ∂yi ∂xi ∂yi

whose solutions from Eq. (7) yield L± = (−B ± [B 2 − 4AC]1/2 )/(2A). Finally, we substitute
the solutions from Eq. (7) into Eq. (3), and reducing further we get
√︄
n2l (︂
⎡ (︂ ⎤
⎢ nl ]︁ )︂ ]︁ 2 )︂ ⎥
C⃗± = P⃗2 + ⎢
[︁ [︁
Î
⎢ na 1 − Î1 · N̂2 N̂2 − 1 − 1 − Î1 · N̂ 2 N̂2 ⎥ L± ,
⎥ (9)
⎢ n2a ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where C ⃗ − provides the sagittal caustic as is shown in Fig. 3(a), additionally the C ⃗ + yields the
tangential caustic as is shown in Fig. 3(b). We can clearly see that the both caustic surfaces are
formed by very complex discontinuous surfaces. In order to visualize the behavior of the caustic
surfaces we have displayed forward or backward spot diagrams along the optical axis, producing
real and virtual caustic surfaces respectively. Those surfaces are produced because there exist
regions on the Zernike surface, which behave like convergent lenses providing sections of real
caustics, and they are formed behind of the Zernike surface as are shown in Figs. 3(c)–3(d).
Besides, there exist regions on the Zernike surface, where the surface behaves like divergent
lenses and produces sections of virtual caustic, and they are formed in front of the Zernike surface.
Finally, both sagittal and tangential caustic surfaces are overlapped at the plane Z = 450 mm
as shown in Fig. 3(e). It is important to comment that we have implemented a qualitative and
quantitative evaluation of the surface under test placing a detection plane inside of the real parts
for either sagittal or tangential caustic surfaces, as we will explain in the next sections.

Fig. 3. (a) Sections of the real and virtual sagittal caustics. (b) Sections of the real and
virtual tangential caustic. (c) Sections for real sagittal caustic. (d) Sections for real tangential
caustic. (e) Real sagittal and tangential caustics placing an observation plane at Z = 450
mm.
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23305

4. Wavefront produced through the Zernike surface

In this section we study the propagation of the refracted wavefront through the Zernike surface,
for a plane wavefront impinging on the refracting surface. In such a way that the initial wavefront
reaches the plane face of the Zernike surface, which is connected by the curved interface f (x, y).
It is equivalent to require that the optical path length (OPL) of a light ray from a given point on
the initial wavefront to the refracting point be equal to a given constant for all the refracted rays
passing through the Zernike surface. In other words, all the rays that emerge from the wavefront
leaving the Zernike surface should have the same OPL. Therefore, considering an arbitrary vector
′
P⃗1 = {x, y, zm }, impinging on the Zernike surface, where the rays begin to be refracted outside
of the Zernike surface. Thus the OPL is simply determined by the following expression
′
(︂ )︂ (︂ )︂
OPL = na L = nl P⃗2 − P⃗1 · Î1 + na W ⃗ − P⃗2 · Rˆ2 , (10)

where Î1 is the direction of the incident light ray passing through the plano face of the surface, Rˆ2
is the direction of the refracted light ray outside of the Zernike surface, L is a real constant, which
represents an arbitrary distance along the optical axis for each refracted wavefront, and W ⃗ defines
the propagated wavefront along the optical axis assuming that the OPL is constant, as is shown in
Fig. 4. We have plotted several spot diagrams instead of continuous surfaces for representing
different propagated wavefronts along the optical axis, because they are too complicated to
be properly displayed. We can clearly see that the distances for L satisfy L1 <L2 < . . . <L9 .
Furthermore, the wavefronts displayed for L4 and L5 provide four central regions where the rays
are accumulated forming a kind of foci. Alternatively, by solving W ⃗ from Eq. (10) and reducing
a bit more, we can obtain the wavefront as a function of the incident vector and the parameters
involved in the process of ray tracing and leads to
[︃ ]︃
nl
W = P2 + L −
⃗ ⃗ (z(xi , yi ) − zm ) Rˆ2 . (11)
na

Fig. 4. Propagation of wavefronts through the Zernike surface, L represents arbitrary

distances, and L = 0, is the 0 phase wavefront.

In particular when the parameter L equate the difference between the minimum zm and the zM
maximum point on the Zernike surface, we can define the zero-distance phase wavefront L0 , in
other words, when L0 = nl (zM − zm ) the first wavefront that leaves completely of the plane-curved
plate is called the zero-distance phase wavefront. Several wavefronts refracted and propagated at
arbitrary distances are shown in Fig. 4. It is important to state that traditionally the difference
between peak to valley is considerably greater in freeform surfaces than rotationally symmetric
systems such as simple lens. Therefore, it is not possible to implement an interferometric test to
evaluate the shape of the Zernike surface, for this reason we will implement a geometrical test
based on null screens as is explained below in order to quantitatively test the Zernike surface.
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23306

5. Design of Ronchi-Hartmann type null screens

To implement the null screens test, we follow all the steps explained in [18], where square and
linear arrays of circular spots uniformly spaced in the plane of detection have been designed.
In this work we design predefined patterns similar to Hartmann-Ronchi type null screens,
corresponding to spots and fringes respectively. Then by solving Eq. (3) through numerical
methods for predefined uniform array pattern for either circular spots or straight fringes, we
obtain multiple solutions for designing the null screen, which is placed in front of the Zernike
surface as shown in Fig. 5. The null screens are formed for either non-uniform spots or irregular
curves which allow us to retrieve a uniform array pattern recorded at detection plane, only if the
surface under test does not have any deformation. In previous works, a CCD sensor has been
used to be placed at detection plane, however, in this work an opaque screen is used at detection
plane, because to the area of a Zernike surface is too large to be quantitatively evaluated.

Fig. 5. Diagram of the experimental setup to test a freeform surface by using null screens.

The main idea is to fill with either circular spots or straight lines as much as possible a circle
inscribed in a square area belonging to the detection plane provided by (ld × ld ) mm2 , being ld
the length of the detection plane. For simplicity we have chosen both quasi-angular and linear
strips arrays as are shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), respectively, to be drawn at detection plane such
that (Xd , Yd ) ∈ [−ld /2, ld /2]. Furthermore, we should regard for practical purposes the size and
technical properties of the sensor, considering that the number of spots is already defined to
be registered inside the detection plane. For the null screens whose images are recorded near
the focal distances, they very often produce a hot spots, which make it difficult to process the
Hartmanngram in order to evaluate quantitatively the centroids for all spots images as will be
show latter. We have chosen the detection plane at Zd along the optical axis, the predefined
pattern has coordinates (Xd , Yd ), to calculate the null screen we must solve for the variables
(xi , yi , Li ) from the complete set of equations given by
√︄
n2l (︂
⎡ (︂ ⎤
⎢ nl ]︁ )︂ ]︁ 2 )︂ ⎥
{Xd , Yd , Zd } = P
⃗ 2 + Li
[︁ [︁
⎢ na Î1 − Î1 · N̂2 N̂2 − 1 − n2 1 − Î1 · N̂2 N̂2 ⎥ , (12)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ a ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where the unitary vector N̂2 as was pointed out is evaluated at the coordinates x → xi and y → yi ,
respectively. It is important to state that the coordinates (xi , yi ) will form the null screen. In
order to be self consistent in this work, we briefly explain the process for designing null screens.
It is enough to describe the process to obtain a uniform quasi-angular array of spots inscribed
in a circumference inside the detection plane, although the process could be extended to draw
arbitrary patterns at detection plane such as linear or curved figures. To calculate the positions
xi , yi of the points on the null screen that yield non-uniform holes, we proceed backwards, starting
at detection plane, placed at Zd . We define a priori a number of circular spots P along Y-axis
with a uniform interspacing between bright spots defined by ∆, demanding simultaneously to get
bright spots at the center and also at borders of the sensor along the Y-axis, therefore P must be
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23307

an odd integer number. It is easy to show that the equation of interspacing ∆ can be written as

∆ = ld /(2P − 1) = 2rd , (13)

where rd indicates the radii of the circles to be displayed at detection plane. Additionally, along
the Y-axis the centers of two contiguous circles are separated by the distance 2∆. In order to define
the circular rings, we exclusively assume that the upper half of the Y-axis will form concentric
circumferences whose radii for each one ring is given by ρI = 4rd I, for I = 0, 1, . . . , (P − 1)/2,
the centers for each one of these circumferences are positioned along different I-rings given
by (HIJ , KIJ ) = (ρI sin τIJ , ρI cos τIJ ), where the subscript I will denote the number of ring and
the superscript J will define an angle for the position of the center of the circumference. Thus
the parameter τIJ provides discrete values according to τIJ = JτI , for J = 0, 1, 2, . . . , 2[Iπ] − 1.
Assuming that the parameter τI imposes uniform separations for two contiguous circumferences
according to τI = π/[Iπ], where the denominator of τI is related to the ratio between the
upper semi-perimeter for I-ring and the radius of the J-circumference positioned along of them.
Furthermore the parenthesis [] means a round to the nearest integer.

Fig. 6. (a) Predefined pattern of the quasi-angular spots, with P = 11 and Q = 95 circular
spots. (b) Ronchi-type vertical stripes predefined pattern, with Q = 9 bright fringes.

For instance, if we assume P = 1 then we obtain I = 0, substituting this value into τ00
provides a circumference placed at origin. For P = 3, it yields I = 0, 1, providing one
circumference placed at the origin for τ00 and also a ring with τ1 = π/3, yielding six values
according to τ10 = 0 , τ11 = π/3 , τ12 = 2π/3 , τ13 = π , τ14 = 4π/3 , τ15 = 5π/3. For P = 5, we
get I = 0, 1, 2, providing a circumference placed at the origin and two rings, the first has 6
values as was explained above and for the second ring we get τ2 = π/6, obtaining 12 values
given by τ20 = 0 , τ21 = π/6 , τ22 = π/3 , τ23 = π/2 , τ24 = 2π/3 , τ25 = 5π/6 , τ26 = π , τ27 =
7π/6 , τ28 = 4π/3 , τ29 = 3π/2 , τ210 = 5π/3 , τ211 = 11π/6, and so on. In particular for P = 11
yields I = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 having a circumference placed at the origin, and also five rings having 6,
12, 18, 26 and 32 circumferences distributed along of them as is shown in Fig. 6(a). Therefore,
we can write the traditional equation for circumferences, which will form the ideal pattern for
designing the null screens leading to

[Xd − HIJ ]2 + [Yd − KIJ ]2 = [Xd − ρI sin τIJ ]2 + [Yd − ρI cos τIJ ]2 = rd2 . (14)

It is important to state that introducing the values for τIJ into Eq. (14) are displayed circumfer-
ences starting at Y-axis having a clockwise rotation through the subsequent angles τIJ , arising
from the center to border of the diameter producing Hartmann type null screens. We can define
properly the center for each circumference inside the array, which will be useful for evaluate the
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23308

shape of surface under test as we will explain in the next section. All the circles will be formed
as a set of M discrete points for Xd and Yd , which form part of a continuous curve joined with
straight lines, yielding a regular polygon with M sides inscribed in a circumference with radius rd .
We must keep in mind that by reducing the numbers for M, we could accelerate the design of null
screens. Furthermore, if the number M is very large, the contiguous points are not too widely
separated, then the polygon turns out practically to be a circumference. Finally, the inner area
for all circumferences will be transparent and the outer area will be blackened, forming the null
screen, which is printed on an acetate foil using a commercial laser printer specified at 2400 dpi.
For simplicity, we consider the letter Q to define the total number of circumferences or circular
spots, which will be displayed inside of detection plane.
Analogously, to design null screens in such a way that their image formed through refraction
yields a uniform array of bright fringes at the detection plane, we start defining a set of
points (Xdm , Ydm ) placed on straight lines. Thus, we defined a uniform interspacing along
the X-axis, according to Xdm = (i − 1/2)∆, for i = 0, 1, . . . , P, where P is the number of
lines, which will form Q bright fringes, whose separation is given by ∆ = ld /(2P − 1). We
have also defined Ydm , formed by a sequence of m-points which will form a closed curve for
each Q-fringe, the height for Ydm is limited up to the circumference with diameter ld , in other
words Ydm ∈ [−([ld /2]2 − Xd2m )1/2 , ([ld /2]2 − Xd2m )1/2 ]. To produce the null screen we select two
contiguous straight lines and put them together, for instance the set (Xdm−1 , Ydm−1 ) ∪ (Xdm , Ydm )
form a closed curve in such a way, the inner area will be transparent passing light through it.
On the other hand, the set (Xdm , Ydm ) ∪ (Xdm+1 , Ydm+1 ) will form a closed curve, and the inner
area is blackened to obstruct incident light. The process is repeated until the area is completely
filled with fringes, providing the ideal pattern for design Ronchi type null screen as is shown in
Fig. 6(b).
We have designed null screens considering two ideal patterns to be recorded in a CCD camera
as was explained above, assuming a diameter at detection plane given by ld = 50 mm in both
cases. For designing Hartmann type null screens (HNS), we consider a quasi-angular uniform
array, assuming P = 29, and by substituting these values into Eq. (13), provides ∆ = 0.877 mm,
and the radius for all circumferences is rd = 0.439 mm, obtaining a total of Q = 661 circles as
is shown in Fig. 7(a). Alternatively, for designing Ronchi type null screens (RNS), we assume
P = 33, and substituting into Eq. (13) we get a width ∆ = 0.769 mm for each fringe, providing a
total of 33 straight lines, and yield 16 black and Q = 17 white stripes as is shown in Fig. 7(e). We
can see in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) the behavior for sagittal and tangential caustic surfaces, covering
an extensive region along the optical axis, so the detection plane apparently always lies within
the caustic surfaces. The coordinates (Xd , Yd ) of the ideal patterns are substituted into Eq. (12)
and we can clearly see that the null screen has a dependence of the coordinate Zd , the size of the
detection plane ld , and the diameter of the surface under test proving a set of non-linear equations
as a function of (xi , yi , Li ) coordinates, in such a way that the null screens are unique and works
very well if the experimental conditions a priori established are properly fulfilled.
For example, assuming Zd = 60 mm the ideal circles of the HNS become asymmetrical ovals,
and we call them drop shaped spots, the HNS is formed by Q = 730 drop shape spots as is shown
in Fig. 7(b), in other words 730 drop spots are overlapped with 661 circular spots at image plane,
the central drop shape spots are slightly deformed, because the surface is nearly plane around of
the optical axis. Additionally, a RNS become non-uniform closed curved stripes, and we call
them curved stripes, the RNS produces Q = 33 curved stripes as is shown in Fig. 7(f), which
should be overlapped with 17 ideal straight fringes. Subsequently, placing the detection plane at
Zd = 150 mm the HNS is formed by Q = 761 drop spots as is shown in Fig. 7(c), and the RNS is
formed by Q = 41 curved stripes as is shown in Fig. 7(g). Subsequently, assuming that Zd = 240
mm the number of holes for the HNS have substantially increased, which is formed by Q = 905
drop shaped spots as is shown in Fig. 7(d). Finally, the number of transparent curved stripes
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23309

forming the RNS has also increased, having now Q = 43 curved stripes as is shown in Fig. 7(h).
It is important to comment that increasing the distance for Zd the Q number for either drop spots
or curved stripes substantially increases and they should coincide with the Q number for either
ideal circular spots or bright straight fringes respectively. A graphical visualization for different
null screens considering diverse planes of detection are shown in Visualization 2.

Fig. 7. Ideal patterns for designing: (a) HNS. (e) RNS. Design of null screens for Zd = 60
mm: (b) HNS. (f) RNS. Design of null screens for Zd = 150 mm: (c) HNS. (g) RNS. Design
of null screens for Zd = 240 mm: (d) HNS. (h) RNS.

6. Qualitative and quantitative tests for a Zernike surface

The images were recorded with a CCD color camera (Thorlabs Model DCU223M), with a sensor
of 5.95 mm × 4.76 mm, attached to a lens with F = 8 mm focal length, which is used to focus
light on CCD. The null screens were printed on an acetate foil and were placed on an acrylic
ring base to give them mechanical strength. The light source used is a polarized He-Ne laser
(λ = 633 nm). The diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 5, where we can also
see a polarizer near the laser beam, which has exclusively been used to reduce the amount of
irradiance impinging on the CCD, and we have also implemented a collimator lens (F/# = 5)
with a large focal distance in order to reduce the hot spots exposed at CCD. The surface under test
was mounted on a rotational stage for easy centering along the X- and Y-directions, furthermore
to incline the surface at the right angle. The CCD camera was mounted on a XYZ stage to locate
it in such a position that the detection plane can be observed; we have used an opaque screen
for recording either bright circular spots or fringes in such a way that the whole surface can be
evaluated at once.
After placing the null screens according to Fig. 5, with the detection plane located at Zd = 60
mm, we can see the images recorded on the CCD camera as are shown in Fig. 8(a) and (d),
showing an array of bright circular spots and illuminated fringes with a quasi-uniform intensity
distribution, respectively. They slightly differ from ideal patterns as are shown in Figs. 7(a) and
7(e), respectively. Additionally, placing the detection plane at Zd = 150 mm, the images were
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23310

recorded as are shown in Fig. 8(b) and 8(e), we can see a non-uniform intensity distribution in
many regions of the images due to divergence of the rays passing through the Zernike surface.
There are many bright spots on the borders of the image, which are not overlapped at detection
plane, and they slightly differs from ideal pattern, the illuminated fringes is less sensitive than
the bright circular spots. Finally, considering the detection plane placed at Zd = 240 mm, the
images are shown in Figs. 8(c) and 8(f), where the borders differ substantially from the ideal
pattern because the bright circular spots are not in coincidence as we expected. Furthermore,
there exist bright fringes that resemble four focal regions. We can also see that both images have
non-uniform intensity distribution, and make it difficult to obtain the centroids of the images.

Fig. 8. Images recorded experimentally placing the detection plane at Zd = 60 mm for: (a)
HNS, and (d) RNS. Placing Zd = 150 mm for: (b) HNS, and (e) RNS. Placing Zd = 240
mm for: (c) HNS, and (f) RNS, showing that the intensity distribution becomes irregular.

The test is very sensitive to alignment and positioning. For example, in Figs. 9(a) and 9(e) the
images were recorded considering an incident plane wavefront refracted through the Zernike
surface without null screens in such a way that the detection plane was placed very far from
the surface under test, Zd = 330 mm and Zd = 2360 mm, respectively. We can see effects of
diffraction and the formation of caustic surfaces in Fig. 9(e). In particular, the Fig. 9(a) resembles
a zoom of the Fig. 3(e) as we expected. Figure 9(b) was recorded at Zd = 50 mm with a null
screen rotated around the Y-axis (we called tilt misalignment) an angle θ y = 17◦ , while Fig. 9(f)
the null screen was rotated θ y = 38◦ with the detection plane placed at Zd = 150 mm. The
images with tilt misalignment produce an elliptical boundary registered at CCD as is shown in
Figs. 9(b) and 9(f). On the other hand, in Fig. 9(c) the null screen was rotated around the Z-axis
(we called rotational misalignment) an angle θ z = 45◦ and recorded considering Zd = 150 mm.
Subsequently, in Fig. 9(g) the rotation angle is θ z = 36◦ placing the detection plane at Zd = 240
mm. The null screen in Fig. 9(d) was designed to be placed at Zd = 240 mm, but it was recorded
at Zd = 50 mm. Additionally, in Fig. 9(h) also shows a rotational misalignment, in this case
θ z = 23◦ , considering that the detection plane was placed at Zd = 60 mm. It is important to
comment that we can see a quasi-uniform intensity distribution on the images.
We have considered Fig. 8(a) to retrieve the centroids as are shown in Fig. 10(a) by using
an image-processing program, which considers for all pixels their intensity value recorded
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23311

Fig. 9. Surface illuminated without null screen for (a) and (e) placed at Zd = 330 mm,
and Zd = 2360 mm, respectively. (b) and (f) present tilt misalignment. (c), (g), (d) and (h)
present rotational misalignment having different Zd distances.

by the CCD. All the centroids were corrected for the lens distortion introduced by the CCD
camera (E = −2.6509 × 10−5 mm −2 ) as is shown in Fig. 10(b). The next step is calculating the
approximated normal vectors to the surface under test, according to the formula

na R̂2 − nl Î
N̂2 = (nx , ny , nz ) = , (15)
|na R̂2 − nl Î|

where R̂2 represents the refracted ray at second surface, although we only know points P3 =
(Xc , Yc , Zd ) placed at detection plane, where the subscript C mean coordinate of the centroids.
Thus, we have to approximate a second point P2 on the surface under test for obtaining the
direction of the refracted ray by intersecting the deflected ray with a reference surface. In other
words, considering (Xd → Xc , Yd → Yc , Zd ) we solve Eq. (12) for (xi , yi ); in practice we choose
the design surface of the null screen as a reference surface, thus the errors in the determination of
the normals are minimal, and therefore its direction will be known because after the refraction
arrives at detection plane, and Î = (0, 0, 1) is the incident ray.

Fig. 10. (a) Centroids in the CCD sensor plane. (b) Centroids and their ideal position. (c)
Integration paths to evaluate the surface under test.

By using the calculated normal vectors the shape of the surface is obtained through the integral
∫P
z = z0 − P ([nx /nz ]dx + [ny /nz ]dy), or alternatively, the simplest method for the numerical
0
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23312

integration is the trapezoidal rule leading to

m−1 [︃ (︃ )︃ (︃ )︃ ]︃
∑︂ nxi nxi+1 (︂ xi+1 − xi )︂ nyi nyi+1 (︂ yi+1 − yi )︂
z ≈ zo − + + + , (16)
i=1
nzi nzi+1 2 nzi nzi+1 2

where the superscript m is the number of points along some integration path. The integration
paths were obtained by using the Dijkstra algorithm [21]. The initial starting integration point z0
and the integration paths for the quasi-angular array is shown in Fig. 10(c). Some integration
paths are very large and introduce large numerical error in the integration. In Fig. 11(a) we show
a reconstruction of the shape of the test surface. To analyze the details of the evaluation we fit
the data to Eq. (17) by using the Levenberg–Marquardt method [22] for nonlinear least squares
fitting that is suitable for this task, according to the following formula

f (x, y) = t0 + B(x − x0 ) + C(y − y0 ) + AXY X 2 − Y 2 F4 ρ6 + F3 ρ4 + F2 ρ2 + F1 , (17)

[︁ ]︁ [︁ ]︁

where we define X = x/R, Y = y/R and ρ2 = X 2 + Y 2 , being R = D/2 a constant value.

Additionally, x0 and y0 are decentering terms, B, C are the terms of tilt in X and Y-axis,
respectively, and A is the scaling factor. From Eq. (17) we can clearly see that assuming the
values t0 = B = C = 0, it is reduced to Eq. (2) as we expect, where the coefficients F1 , F2 , F3 and
F4 for an ideal Zernike surface are given in Table 1. The tilt term in X-axis is B = 9.396 × 10−4
and for Y-axis is C = 3.46 × 10−4 , finally, we have obtained a shift of the centre according to
x0 = 0.792 mm and y0 = 0.56 mm. It is important to comment that for the numerical integration
we have selected z0 = t0 = 1.56 as was pointed out in Eq. (16). We can see the difference between
ideal and fitted surface by using contour color maps as is shown in Fig. 11(c), whose values
decrease in each iteration.

Fig. 11. (a) Discrete points and the retrieved surface. (b) Difference between ideal versus
fitted surface. (c) Elevation maps for the differences between ideal versus fitted surface.

Table 1. Parameters Obtained From the Nonlinear Least Square Fitting of

the Experimental Data
Parameter t0 (mm) A (mm) F1 F2 F3 F4
Ideal 1.56 0.2 -140 672 −1008 480
Fitted 1.574 0.19 −140.021 664.152 −1001.229 488.754

From Table 1, the fitted parameter F1 differs by approximately 0.021 or about 0.015% of the
ideal value, for the parameter F2 , it differs by 7.848 or about 1.168%. For the parameter F3 , it
differs by 6.771 or 0.671%, finally, for the parameter F4 it differs by 8.754 or about 1.824%.
We can clearly see in Fig. 11(a), the retrieved surface for the best fitting and the set of discrete
data numerically obtained by the integration process for the surface under test. In addition, the
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23313

differences in sagitta between the ideal Zernike surface and the best fitting freeform surface is
shown in Fig. 11(b), showing greatest departures at the borders of the surface. In this case the
P-V differences in sagitta between the evaluated points and the best fitting is δzPV = 0.03 mm,
and the RMS difference in sagitta value is δzRMS = 6.3µm. Then the null screen method allows
measurement of the shape of the surface with medium precision [23]. Here, departures from the
perfect shape have been clearly observed. We present a color contour map of the differences
between ideal and fitted surface as is shown in Fig. 11(c).
It is important to state the following: there are slight non-uniformities of intensity displayed
on the opaque screen and recorded on the CCD sensor, which could be produced by several
factors. For instance there is an inevitable non-isotropy of light exiting from the laser beam and
passing through the collimator lens producing a quasi-monochromatic and quasi-plane wavefront
propagating along the experimental setup, which could slightly modify the images recorded.
Additionally, we have printed the null screens on acetate foil, assuming that the acetate foil is a
quasi-perfect plane-parallel sheet and that all foils are free of strain and stress after the printing
process, furthermore, we are assuming that the printer produces a perfect mark impressed for the
null screens on the foil surface, these imperfections can considerably alter the images recorded
on the sensor due to errors of printing. The surface departures from the best surface fit are of
the order of one µm when the errors in the determination of the coordinates of the centroids of
the refracted images are less than 1 pixel, and the errors in the coordinates of the spots of the
null screens are less than 0.5 mm, according to [23]. Furthermore, we are assuming that the first
face of the Zernike surface completely is plane. Certainly, possible slight misalignment in the
experimental setup could also modify the images recorded.

7. Conclusions
In this manuscript, we have implemented an exact ray trace through a plano-freeform Zernike
surface, that allows us to provide both sagittal and tangential caustic surfaces for a plane wavefront
propagating along the optical axis. We provide an exact formula to represent their wavefronts
propagated arbitrary distances outside of the Zernike surface. We believe that the method for
obtaining the caustic surfaces reported here are straightforward, giving formulas to represent
sagittal and tangential caustic surfaces. Additionally, we have properly implemented a quantitative
test to evaluate the shape of the Zernike surface, based on the method of null screens, placing the
detection plane inside the caustic surfaces. We showed that, with this method, it is possible to
evaluate, in a simple manner, the shape of plane-curved freeform surfaces with large deformations,
with PV values greater than 0.43 mm, and values greater than 6.3 µm in δRMS . Another advantage
of this work is that with this alternative method we can design arbitrary null-screens and their
image that will be observed on the detection plane is displayed in real time. We recovered with a
simple process the Zernike coefficients making a polynomial fit and reducing the errors added
with these issues. The work presented here opens the door to test freeform surfaces using null
screens with the detection plane inside the caustic surfaces.
Funding. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (A1-S-44220); Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal
Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IN116420).
Acknowledgments. The authors are indebted to Richard N. Claytor and D. Nelson E. Claytor from Fresnel
Technologies Inc. for providing us the Zernike surface to implement the test of this manuscript.
Disclosures. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.
Data availability. No data were generated or analyzed in the present research.
References
1. K. P. Thompson and J. P. Rolland, “Freeform optical surfaces: A revolution in imaging optical design,” Opt. Photonics
News 23(6), 30–35 (2012).
2. R. Wu, J. Sasián, and R. Liang, “Algorithm for designing free-form imaging optics with nonrational B-spline
surfaces,” Appl. Opt. 56(9), 2517–2522 (2017).
 Research Article Vol. 29, No. 15 / 19 July 2021 / Optics Express 23314

3. X. Mao, Y. Xie, J. Li, and W. Zhao, “Fast design method of smooth freeform lens with an arbitrary aperture for
collimated beam shaping,” in Optical Design and Fabrication 2019 (Freeform, OFT-OSA), p. JT5A.2.
4. S. Wills, “Freeform optics: Notes from the revolution,” Opt. Photonics News 28(7), 34–41 (2017).
5. E. Wolf, Progress in Optics, Vol. XXVI (Elsevier, 1988), pp. 289–302.
6. T. Poston and I. Steward, Catastrophe Theory and Its Applications, (Dover Publications, 1978), chap. 12, pp. 246–255.
7. O. N. Stavroudis, The mathematics of Geometrical and Physical Optics, (Wiley-VHC Verlag, 2006) chap. 12, pp.
246–255.
8. M. Herzberger, “Light distribution in the optical image,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 37(6), 485–493 (1947).
9. D. L. Shealy, “Analytical illuminance and caustic surface calculations in geometrical optics,” Appl. Opt. 15(10),
2588–2596 (1976).
10. D. L. Shealy and J. A. Hoffnagle, “Wavefront and caustics of a plane wave refracted by an arbitrary surface,” J. Opt.
Soc. Am. A 25(9), 2370–2382 (2008).
11. M. Avendaño-Alejo, E. Román-Hernández, G. Castillo-Santiago, J. DelOlmo-Márquez, and L. Castañeda, “Sagittal
and tangential foci produced by tilted plane wavefronts refracted through simple lenses,” Appl. Opt. 58(22), 5959–5967
(2019).
12. D. Aguirre-Aguirre, B. Villalobos-Mendoza, R. Díaz-Uribe, and M. Campos-García, “Null-screen design for highly
freeform surface testing,” Opt. Express 28(24), 36706–36722 (2020).
13. D. Malacara and A. C. Rodríguez, “Null Ronchi test for aspherical surfaces,” Appl. Opt. 13(8), 1778–1780 (1974).
14. A. C. Davila, A. C. Rodríguez, and O. C. Nunez, “Null Hartmann and Ronchi-Hartmann tests,” Appl. Opt. 29(31),
4618–4621 (1990).
15. E. Román-Hernández, J. G. Santiago-Santiago, G. Silva-Ortigoza, R. Silva-Ortigoza, and J. Velázquez-Castro,
“Describing the structure of ronchigrams when the grating is placed at the caustic region: the parabolical mirror,” J.
Opt. Soc. Am. A 27(4), 832–845 (2010).
16. S. A. Juárez-Reyes, M. Marciano-Melchor, P. Ortega-Vidals, E. Román-Hernández, G. Silva-Ortigoza, R. Silva-
Ortigoza, R. Suárez-Xique, G. Torres del Castillo, and M. Velázquez-Quesada, “Wavefronts, caustic, ronchigram and
null ronchigrating of a plane wave refracted by an axicon lens,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 31(2), 448–459 (2014).
17. M. Avendaño-Alejo D. González-Utrera, N. Qureshi, L. Castañeda, and C. L. Ordoñéz-Romero, “Null Ronchi-
Hartmann test for a lens,” Opt. Express 18(20), 21131–21137 (2010).
18. G. Castillo-Santiago, D. Castán-Ricaño, M. Avendaño-Alejo, L. Castañeda, and R. Díaz-Uribe, “Design of Hartmann
type null screens for testing a plano-convex aspheric lens with a ccd sensor inside the caustic,” Opt. Express 24(17),
19405–19416 (2016).
19. J. DelOlmo-Márquez, G. Castillo-Santiago, and M. Avendaño-Alejo, “Exact ray tracing through freeform lenses,” in
Optical Design and Fabrication 2019, (Optical Society of America 2019) paper FW4B.3
20. M. Kyrish, N. Cardenas, M. Fraelich, O. Lechuga, R. Claytor, and N. Claytor, “Fabricated freeform optics,” in
Imaging and Applied Optics 2015, (Optical Society of America 2015) p. JT5A.5
21. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms (MIT, 2009), Chap. 24.
22. P. R. Bevington and D. K. Robinson, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 2nd ed.
(McGraw-Hill, 1992), pp. 161–166.
23. M. Avendaño-Alejo, I. Moreno-Oliva, M. Campos-García, and R. Díaz-Uribe, “Quantitative evaluation of an off-axis
parabolic mirror by using a tilted null screen,” Appl. Opt. 48(5), 1008–1015 (2009).