See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341837205

A Retrospective of Roland Shack’s Global View of Diffraction

Article  in  Applied Optics · June 2020

DOI: 10.1364/AO.392365

CITATION READS
1 120

1 author:

James Harvey
University of Central Florida
199 PUBLICATIONS   2,970 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solar UltraViolet Imager (SUVI) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Harvey on 23 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G185

Retrospective of Roland Shack’s global view of

diffraction [Invited]
James E. Harvey
Photon Engineering, LLC, 330 S. Williams Blvd., Suite 222, Tucson, Arizona 86711, USA (jimh@photonengr.com)

Received 17 March 2020; revised 28 May 2020; accepted 1 June 2020; posted 2 June 2020 (Doc. ID 392365); published 9 July 2020

In April of 1972, Professor Roland Shack presented a series of four colloquium talks at the Optical Sciences Center
at the University of Arizona in which he reformulated scalar diffraction theory in terms of the direction cosines of
the propagation vectors of the angular spectrum of plane waves described by the Fourier integral transform of the
diffracting aperture. The fourth lecture, entitled Radiometry and Lambert’s Law, described diffuse reflectance and
surface scatter phenomena as merely a diffraction phenomenon caused by random phase variations in the system
pupil function. In 1974, he elegantly condensed these four lectures into a single colloquium talk entitled A Global
View of Diffraction. This paper is intended to provide a compilation showing the further development of that work
over the last 46 years. © 2020 Optical Society of America
https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.392365 Provided under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

1. INTRODUCTION One such application is wide-angle surface scatter, which is

The traditional linear systems formulation (Fourier treat-
ment) of scalar diffraction theory as presented by Bracewell
[1], Goodman [2], and Gaskill [3] results in the irradiance
distribution on a plane in the far field (Fraunhofer region) of
a diffracting aperture being given by the squared modulus of
the Fourier transform of the complex amplitude distribution
emerging from the diffracting aperture
merely a non-paraxial diffraction phenomenon that degrades
the performance of many advanced optical systems. The classi-
cal Rayleigh–Rice surface scatter theory [4] is a rigorous (vector)
perturbation technique which requires an explicit smooth-
surface approximation. The classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff
surface scatter theory [5] is valid for rougher surfaces, but
contains a moderate angle limitation and assumes a Gaussian
surface autocovariance (ACV) function. These two surface
1   2
scatter theories are thus complementary, but not all-inclusive.
E (x 2 , y 2 ) = 2 2  F Uo+ (x 1 , y 1 ) ξ = x 2 ,η= y 2  . (1)

λ z λz λz
Here, Uo+ (x 1 , y 1 ) = Uo− (x 1 , y 1 )t1 (x 1 , y 1 ) is the complex
amplitude distribution emerging from the diffracting aperture
of complex amplitude transmittance t1 (x 1 , y 1 ). Uo− (x 1 , y 1 )
is the complex amplitude distribution incident upon the dif-
fracting aperture, and F { } denotes the Fourier transform
operation
Z ∞Z ∞
F Uo+ (x 1 , y 1 ) = Uo+ (x 1 , y 1 )

−∞ −∞
× exp [−i2π (x 1 ξ + y 1 η)] dx 1 dy 1 . (2)
The spatial frequencies ξ and η are the reciprocal variables in
Fourier transform space. Also, the Fresnel diffraction integral
is given by the Fourier transform of the product of the aperture
function with a quadratic phase factor [2,3]. Implicit in both the
Fresnel and Fraunhofer approximations is a paraxial limitation
that restricts their use to small diffraction angles and small angles
of incidence [2]. It is this paraxial limitation that has prevented
the conventional Fourier treatment of scalar diffraction theory
to be readily applied to many practical non-paraxial optical
engineering applications.
1559-128X/20/22G185-19 Journal © 2020 Optical Society of America
Neither of them, nor the combination of them, are adequate to
calculate scattered light effects from surfaces of arbitrary rough-
ness, arbitrary incident, and/or scattered angles or arbitrary
surface ACV functions.
In April of 1972, Professor Roland Shack presented a series
of four colloquium talks at the Optical Sciences Center at the
University of Arizona in which he reformulated scalar diffrac-
tion theory in terms of the direction cosines of the propagation
vectors of the angular spectrum of plane waves described by
the Fourier integral transform of the diffracting aperture.
The fourth lecture, entitled Radiometry and Lambert’s Law,
described diffuse reflectance and surface scatter phenomena
as merely a diffraction phenomenon caused by random phase
variations in the system pupil function. In 1974, he elegantly
condensed these four lectures into a single colloquium talk
entitled A Global View of Diffraction [6].
2. RETROSPECTIVE
Professor Roland Shack’s global view of diffraction removed
the inherent paraxial limitation in the conventional linear
systems formulation (or Fourier treatment) of scalar diffraction
 G186 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 1. Illustration of the physical situation for the case of a spheri-
cal wavefront incident upon a diffraction grating, and converging to a
hemispherical observation space (adapted from Ref. [7]).
theory as presented in the Introduction. It thus represents the
most significant advance in the understanding of scalar diffrac-
tion theory since Sommerfeld removed the inconsistencies in
Kirchhoff’s boundary conditions in 1896, stimulating a series
of advances in the understanding of scalar diffraction that is still
going on today. Nine separate cases, applying to different appli-
cations, will be briefly described and illustrated in the following
retrospective. References of peer-reviewed journal articles are
cited for each case to provide access to detailed derivations and
explanations.
Case#1, Aberrations of Diffracted Wave Fields (1978):
Perhaps the first new insight stimulated by Professor Shack’s
Global view of diffraction was that of showing that the
Rayleigh–Sommerfeld diffraction integral is equivalent to
the Fourier transform integral of a generalized pupil func-
tion which includes a term that represents phase errors in the
aperture [7,8]. This term can be interpreted as describing a
conventional wavefront aberration function. The resulting
aberration coefficients can be calculated and expressed in terms
of the aperture diameter, observation distance, and appropriate
Fig. 2. Aberrations inherent to the diffraction process are illustrated here as magnified diffraction orders from a 10-line per millimeter Ronchi
Ruling placed in a converging cone of light (r is the radius of the observation hemisphere, d is the aperture diameter in which grating is placed, and β
is the sin of diffracted angle) (adapted from Ref. [7]).
Review
field parameter for several different geometrical configurations
of incident beam and observation space. These aberrations,
which are inherently associated with the diffraction process, are
precisely the effects ignored when making the usual Fresnel and
Fraunhofer approximations. Furthermore, these aberrations
have the same functional form as the familiar aberrations caused
by the refraction or reflection process in imperfect imaging
systems. All third-order aberrations are present when a plane
wave is incident upon the aperture and the observation space
is a plane. Defocus and all orders of spherical aberration are
eliminated by changing the incident beam into a spherical wave
converging to the observation plane. Distortion, field curvature,
and all orders of piston error vanish when the observation space
is a hemisphere centered upon the diffracting aperture as shown
in Fig. 1 [7,8]. This leaves only coma and astigmatism (through
third-order aberrations), as shown in Fig. 2.
The Fresnel diffraction integral is valid only if all third-
and higher-order aberrations are negligible, and it therefore
merely describes a defocused Fraunhofer diffraction pattern.
This treatment thus provides more accuracy than the Fresnel–
Kirchhoff theory and more insight and understanding than the
Rayleigh–Sommerfeld theory.
Case#2, Wide-angle Diffraction Is Shift-invariant in
Direction Cosine Space (1979): Another early paper stimu-
lated by Shack’s keen physical insight shows that scaling the
spatial variables by the wavelength of light [9]
x̂ = x /λ, ŷ = y /λ, ẑ = z/λ, etc. (3)
causes the reciprocal variables in Fourier transform space to
be precisely the direction cosines α and β of the propagation
vectors of the plane wave components in the angular spectrum
of plane waves discussed by Ratcliff, [10] Goodman, [2] and
Gaskill [3]:
α = x̂ /ˆr , β = ŷ /ˆr , and γ = ẑ/ˆr . (4)
A very simple and elegant derivation of the Rayleigh–
Sommerfeld diffraction integral can now be obtained by the
direct application of Fourier transform theory. We merely
assume that the Fourier transform of the complex amplitude
distribution emerging from the diffracting aperture in Plane
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G187

Po in Fig. 3 exists; and likewise, for the complex amplitude Consider now a unit circle in the α−β plane of direction
distribution in the observation plane, P . This is not a severe cosine space as shown in Fig. 4. Inside the unit circle, γ is real
restriction, as Bracewell [1] points out that physical possibility is and the corresponding part of the disturbance will propagate
a sufficient condition for the existence of a Fourier transform. and contribute to the wave field in plane P . However, those
We can thus write the following Fourier transform pairs for components of the direction cosine spectrum which lie outside
planes Po and P : the unit circle have imaginary values of γ and represent that part
Z ∞Z ∞ of the disturbance which experiences a rapid exponential decay.
A o (α, β; 0) = Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0) exp[−i2π(α x̂ + β ŷ )]dx̂ d ŷ , This is the part of the disturbance which is commonly referred
−∞ −∞
to as the evanescent wave.
Z ∞Z ∞ The convolution theorem of Fourier transform theory
Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0) = A o (α, β; 0) exp[i2π(α x̂ + β ŷ )]dαdβ, requires that a convolution operation exists in the domain of real
−∞ −∞
(5) space that is equivalent to Eq. (8) [1–3]. We thus have the alter-
native method of expressing the complex amplitude expression
Z ∞Z ∞
A(α, β; ẑ) = Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; ẑ) exp[−i2π(α x̂ + β ŷ )]dx̂ d ŷ , in the observation plane by the convolution of the original dis-
−∞ −∞ turbance with a system impulse response. The impulse response,
Z ∞Z ∞
obtained by taking the inverse Fourier transform of the transfer
U (x̂ , ŷ ; ẑ) = A(α, β; ẑ) exp[i2π(α x̂ + β ŷ )]dαdβ. function in Eq. (9), is given by [7,9]
−∞ −∞
(6) ẑ exp(i2π rˆ )
 
1
h(x̂ , ŷ ; ẑ) = F −1 exp(i2π γ ẑ) =

−i .
We will now call A o and A the direction cosine spectrum of 2π rˆ rˆ rˆ
plane waves in planes Po and P , respectively, in analogy to the (11)
angular spectrum of plane waves obtained in the conventional
The above equation is an exact mathematical expression for a
linear systems formulation of scalar diffraction theory. This is
Huygens’ wavelet that is valid right down to the initial disturb-
consistent with a more general treatment which is not restricted
to small angles. ance emerging from the diffracting aperture. However, for rˆ 
1, it reduces to the familiar expression for a spherical wave with
In the scaled coordinate system, ∇ˆ 2 = λ2 ∇ 2 and
a cosine obliquity factor, ẑ/ˆr , and a π/2 phase delay [7–9]. The
k̂ = λ2 k 2 = (2π )2 . Hence, the Helmholtz equation becomes
2
convolution of this impulse response with the initial disturbance
[∇ˆ 2 + (2π )2 = λ2 ∇ 2 ]U (x̂ , ŷ ; ẑ) = 0. (7) emerging from the diffracting aperture yields
Z ∞Z ∞  
Now, by utilizing Eq. (6) and requiring the individual plane 1
U (x̂ , ŷ ; ẑ) = Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0)
0 0
−i
wave components to satisfy the Helmholtz equation, we −∞ −∞ 2π `ˆ
find that
ẑ exp(i2π `)
ˆ
A(α, β; γ ) = A o (α, β; 0)e i2π γ ẑ , where γ = 1 − α 2 − β 2 . dx̂ 0 d ŷ 0 ,
p
× (12)
(8) `ˆ `ˆ

A system transfer function is defined as the ratio of the system

output spectrum to the system input spectrum. Eq. (8) can thus
be rewritten as the transfer function of free space, H(α, β; ẑ):

H(α, β; ẑ) ≡ A(α, β; ẑ)/A o (α, β; ẑ) = e i2π γ ẑ . (9)

We have thus far applied no restrictions on γ and two regions
are apparent: that for real values of γ and that for imaginary
values
for(α 2 + β 2 ≤ 1 γ is real
p 
γ = 1−α −β 2 2
for(α 2 + β 2 ≥ 1 γ is imaginary.
(10)

Fig. 4. Unit circle in direction cosine space. The planewave compo-

nents inside the circle will propagate, and the planewave components
Fig. 3. Geometrical configuration of Planes Po and P (adapted outside the circle do not propagate and constitute the evanescent wave
from Ref. [7]). (adapted from Ref. [7]).
 G188 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 5. (a) Geometric relationship between the normally incident beam, diffracting aperture, and observation hemisphere. (b) Geometric configu-
ration when the incident beam strikes the diffracting aperture at an oblique angle (adapted from Ref. [7]).
which is identical to the general Rayleigh–Sommerfeld diffrac-
tion formula [7,9].
We have thus derived the general form of the Rayleigh–
Sommerfeld diffraction integral from two basic assumptions:
(i) that the Fourier transform of the optical disturbance exists,
and (ii) that in propagating, each of the plane wave components
obeys the Helmholtz wave equation.
When a spherical wave is incident upon the diffracting aper-
ture and the observation space is a hemisphere (as shown in
Fig. 5(a), this scaled coordinate system results in the extremely
powerful result that the diffracted wave field on the obser-
vation hemisphere is given directly by the Fourier transform
of the aperture function multiplied by a spherical Huygen’s
wavelet [7–9]:
U (α, β; rˆ ) = γ [exp(i2π rˆ )/(i rˆ )]F {Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0)}.
Furthermore, this Fourier transform relationship is valid
not merely over a small region about the optical axis, but over
the entire hemisphere [7,9]. Adding a linear phase variation
causes the incident spherical wavefront to strike the diffracting
aperture at an arbitrary angle θo , as shown in Fig. 5(b). Applying
the shift theorem of Fourier transform theory to Eq. (13), we
find that the complex amplitude distribution in direction cosine
space is a function of β − βo :
U (α, β − βo ; rˆ ) = γ [exp(i2π rˆ )/(i rˆ )]F {Uo0 (x̂ , ŷ ; 0)
× exp(i2π βo ŷ )}, (14)
√
where Uo0 (x̂ , ŷ ; 0) = γo Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0).
Here, β is the direction cosine of the position vector of
the observation point in Fig. 5(b), and βo is the direction
cosine of the position vector of the undiffracted beam. Note
that the direction cosines are obtained by the mere projection of
the respective points on the hemisphere back onto the plane of
the aperture and normalizing to a unit radius.
The complex amplitude at an arbitrary point on the observa-
tion hemisphere can now be said to be a function of the distance
Review
of the observation point from the undiffracted beam in direction
cosine space.
As a specific example, suppose we have an incident beam of
light striking a diffraction grating at an angle θo , as illustrated
in Fig. 5(b). This is the situation usually referred to as conical
diffraction, where the diffracted orders do not lie in the plane of
incidence, but instead the diffracted orders lie on the surface of
a cone centered on the z axis with its apex at the intersection of
the z axis and the grating. The diffracted orders will strike the
observation hemisphere in a cross section which is not a great
circle but instead a latitude slice, as shown in Fig. 6(a).
Thus, for large angles of incidence, the various orders appear
to lie in a straight line only if they are projected onto the α−β
plane in direction cosine space. It is therefore clear that varying
the angle of incidence merely shifts the diffracted wave field in
(13) the direction cosine space without changing its functional form.
Figure 6(a) is the “globe” from whence Shack’s global view of
diffraction comes.
For a reflection grating, Fig. 6(b) shows the location of the
incident beam, and the diffracted orders are displayed in direc-
tion cosine space when the grating grooves are parallel to the y
axis. Note that the diffracted orders are always exactly equally
spaced and lie in a straight line parallel to the α axis in direction
cosine space. Those diffracted orders that lie inside the unit
circle are real and propagate, whereas the diffracted orders that
lie outside the unit circle are evanescent (and thus do not propa-
gate). For reflection gratings, the undiffracted zero order always
lies diametrically opposite the origin of the α−β coordinate
system from the incident beam. As the incident angle is varied,
the diffraction pattern (size, shape, separation, and orientation
of diffracted orders) remains unchanged but merely shifts its
position, maintaining the just-described relationship between
the undiffracted order and the incident beam [11].
Figure 7 illustrates the direction cosine diagram for a beam
obliquely incident (αi = −0.3, βi = −0.4) upon a reflection
grating for different orientations of the grating. Note that in all
cases the zero order is diametrically opposite the origin from the
incident beam and the diffracted orders remain equally spaced
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G189

Fig. 6. (a) Illustration of the position of the diffracted orders in real space and in direction cosine space, showing that the diffracted orders strike
the observation hemisphere in a latitude slice, not a great circle (adapted from Ref. [7]). (b) Relative position of the diffracted orders and the incident
beam (for a reflection grating) in direction cosine space. Diffracted orders outside the unit circle are evanescent (adapted from Ref. [11]).

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of reflectance from a rough surface

(adapted from Ref. [7]).

Fig. 7. Direction cosine diagrams for four different orientations of
a diffraction grating with period d = 3λ illuminated with an obliquely
incident beam (αi = −0.3, βi = −0.4) (adapted from Ref. [11]).
in a straight line, but this line is rotated about the zero order
such that it is always perpendicular to the grating grooves. This
simple shift-invariant behavior of “conical” diffraction from
linear gratings, when expressed in direction cosine space, pro-
vides understanding and insight not provided by most textbook
treatments of this topic [11].
Case#3, The Original Harvey–Shack (OHS) Surface
Scatter Theory (1976): When light is reflected from an
imperfect optical surface, the reflected radiation consists of
a specularly reflected component and a diffusely reflected com-
ponent, as illustrated in Fig. 8. Professor Shack described surface
scatter as merely a diffraction phenomenon caused by random
phase variations in the system pupil function [6]. This suggested
that surface scatter should also exhibit shift-invariant behavior
in direction cosine space.
It was customary to present angular scattering data as scat-
tered intensity (radiant power per unit solid angle) versus
scattering angle. The resulting scattered light profiles change
shape drastically with angle of incidence, becoming quite
skewed and asymmetrical at large angles of incidence, as shown
in Fig. 9(a). However, if we divide each data point by the cosine
of the scattering angle (thus converting scattered intensity to
scattered radiance), then re-plot in direction cosine space, the
five curves with the incident angle varying from 0 to 60◦ coin-
cide almost perfectly. This shift-invariant behavior, illustrated
in Fig. 9(b), drastically reduces the quantity of data required
to completely characterize the scattering properties of the
surface [7,12].
Scattered light data is usually collected on an observa-
tion hemisphere with some type of goniometric instrument.
Figure 10 shows an incident beam striking a scattering surface at
some angle of incidence (θi = −θo ), a specularly reflected beam
striking the observation hemisphere at the position indicated,
and the scattered intensity distribution being sampled at an
arbitrary angle, θ.
 G190 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 9. (a) Experimentally measured scattered intensity plotted
versus scattered angle. (b) Scattered radiance plotted versus β − βo in
direction cosine space (adapted from Ref. [7]).
Fig. 10. Illustration of the geometrical configuration for scatter
measurements (adapted from Ref. [7]).
The scattered intensity distribution illustrated on the obser-
vation hemisphere becomes very skewed and asymmetrical as
the angle of incidence is increased; however, when this data
is divided by the cosine of the scattering angle and projected
onto the plane of the scattering surface, as indicated in Fig. 10,
the scattered radiance distribution does not change shape with
incident angle. It merely shifts in direction cosine space while
maintaining the symmetrical shape indicated in the figure [7].
Scatter measurements outside of the plane of incidence were
confined to a plane passing through the specular beam and
orthogonal to both the plane of incidence and the plane of the
scattering sample; i.e., a latitude slice (not a great circle) on the
observation hemisphere, as illustrated in Fig. 11 [7].
Extensive experimental surface scatter measurements were
made from optical surfaces polished by various techniques on
different optical materials. Note in Fig. 12(a) that experimen-
tal data taken in the plane of incidence (α = 0) for different
incident angles and plotted on a log–log scale as a function
of distance from the specular beam in direction cosine space
(β − βo ) exhibits not only a shift-invariant behavior, with
respect to incident angle, but an inverse power, or fractal,
behavior as well [7].
The behavior exhibited in Fig. 12(b) is strong experimen-
tal evidence that (for isotropically random rough surfaces)
the angular size of the scattering function remains fixed, and
rotationally symmetric, in direction cosine space [7].
Review
Fig. 11. Geometrical configuration of the two principal planes
in which the scattered light distribution was sampled (adapted from
Ref. [7]).
In 1976, based upon the empirical experimental observation
that scattered radiance is shift-invariant in direction cosine
space, Harvey and Shack reported upon a linear systems for-
mulation of surface scatter phenomena in which the scattering
behavior is characterized by a surface transfer function expressed
mathematically as [7]
Hs (x̂ , ŷ ) = exp{−(4π σ̂s )2 [1 − C s (x̂ , ŷ )/σs2 ]}, (15)
where C s (x̂ , ŷ ) ≡ C 12 is the two-dimensional autocovariance
function of the surface, and σs is the rms surface roughness.
Insight into the scattering process was inferred by consider-
ing the nature of the surface transfer function and its Fourier
transform, the angle spread function (ASF) [7]. Note that this
ASF is scattered radiance, not irradiance or intensity. This was
consistent with the fact that the bidirectional reflectance dis-
tribution function (BRDF) was defined as reflected radiance
divided by incident irradiance [13]. An expression very similar
to Eq. (15) had been derived by Hufnagel for the atmospheric
structure function in the presence of random turbulence, [14]
and by Chandley and Welford for a reformulation of Beckmann
scattering for rough surfaces [15].
Case#4, The Modified Harvey-Shack (MHS) Surface
Scatter Theory (1988, 2006): The transfer function charac-
terization of scattering surfaces was modified in the late 1980s
to include grazing incidence effects in x-ray telescopes, and
“mid” spatial frequency surface errors that span the gap between
“figure” and “finish” errors [16]. This allowed an understanding
of image degradation due to scattering effects from residual
optical fabrication errors on NASA’s Chandra Observatory and
NOAA’s Solar X-ray Imager (SXI) [17,18].
Figure 13 shows a ray incident upon a scattering surface at
an arbitrary angle of incidence θi . The optical path difference
(OPD) experienced by a ray reflected from the surface in the
specular (θo = −θi ) direction is given by
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G191

Fig. 12. (a) Illustration of shift-invariance, relative to incident angle, when displayed in direction cosine space. (b) illustrates that the forward,
backward, left, and right surface scatter profiles (for a fixed 45◦ incident angle) are also superposed (adapted from Ref. [7]).

A(γi ) = exp[−(4π γi σ̂s )2 ], B(γi ) = 1 − exp[−(4π γi σ̂s )2 ],

(20)
θi θs
Surface Height

h
Fig. 13. Illustration of the OPD for a specularly reflected ray
(adapted from Ref. [37]).
OPD = (γi + γo )h(x̂ , ŷ ) = 2γi h(x̂ , ŷ ),
where γi = cos θi and γo = cos θo . The corresponding phase
variation is given by
2π
φ(x̂ , ŷ ) = OPD = 4π γi ĥ(x̂ , ŷ ).
λ matically for 50◦ < θi < 70◦ . A more detailed description of
Provided that the scattering angles are small relative to the
angle of specular reflection, the phase function of Eq. (17)
describes the phase variations introduced upon reflection from a
scattering surface for a wavefront incident at an arbitrary angle.
Krywonos has shown that the surface transfer function for an
arbitrary incident angle (assuming small angle scattering) can be
expressed as [19]
Hs (x̂ , ŷ ; γi ) = exp{−(4π γi σ̂rel )2 [1 − C s (x̂ , ŷ )/σ̂s2 ]}, (18)
where γi = cos θi and σ̂rel is the relevant band-limited rms sur-
face roughness (see Ref. [20]).
This can again be written in the form
Hs (x̂ , ŷ ; γi ) = A(γi ) + B(γi )G x̂ , ŷ ; γi ,


(19)
where
and
exp[(4π γi )2 C s (x̂ , ŷ )] − 1
G(x̂ , ŷ ; γi ) = . (21)
exp[(4π γi σ̂s )2 ] − 1
Figure 14 illustrates the very substantial difference in both
ŷ the peak value and the shape of the relative intensity profile (in
the plane of incidence) predicted by the original Harvey–Shack
and the modified Harvey–Shack surface scatter theories as the
incident angle increases. A Gaussian surface autocovariance
function with rms roughness of 2.27 µm; autocovariance width,
`c , of 20.9 µm; and a wavelength of 10.6 µm was assumed for
these calculations.
(16) The difference between the two theories is striking, and the
O’Donnell–Mendez experimental data [21] agrees well with
the MHS predictions for the large incident angle of 70◦ . Note
that the total integrated scatter (TIS) calculated from the MHS
theory decreases with increasing incident angle, dropping dra-
(17)
the MHS surface scatter theory and the calculations resulting in
Fig. 14 is available in Section 3.4 of Ref. [22].
Clearly the surface scatter process is no longer shift-invariant
with respect to incident angle, as Eq. (18) can be interpreted as a
one-parameter family of surface transfer functions, i.e., a differ-
ent surface transfer function is required for each incident angle.
This is analogous to imaging in the presence of field–dependent
aberrations, where a different optical transfer function (OTF) is
required for each field angle.
Case#5, Diffracted Radiance, Fundamental Quantity in
Scalar Diffraction Theory (1999): Before proceeding to show
that radiance is the fundamental quantity that is shift-invariant
with respect to incident angle in a non-paraxial scalar diffraction
theory, we will briefly review the definitions of a few radiometric
quantities. In the past, scientists have generally used the word
intensity to mean the flow of energy per unit area per unit time.
 G192 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 14. Comparison of scattered intensity predictions from the OHS and the MHS surface scatter theories for different incident angles.
Experimental data is also displayed for θi = 70◦ (this figure previously published as Fig. 3–23 in Ref. [22]).
However, by international, if not universal agreement, that term
is slowly being replaced by the word irradiance, [23]
∂P
Irradiance ≡ E − (watts/area). (22)
∂A c
Irradiance is defined as the radiant power density incident
upon a collecting surface (thus the subscript c ). Radiant inten-
sity, on the other hand, carries the units of watts per steradian
[24]. Intensity is properly used when describing the radiation
emanating from a point source (or a source that has negligible
area compared to the square of the viewing distance) [25,26]
∂P
Radiant Intensity ≡ I = (watts/steradian). (23)
∂ωc
And radiance, the radiometric analog to the more familiar
photometric term brightness, is defined as radiant power per
unit solid angle per unit projected source area. The quantity
radiance is used to characterize an extended source, that is, one
that has appreciable area compared to the square of the viewing
distance [25,26]. In differential form,
∂2 P
Radiance ≡ L = (watts/steradian projected area).
∂ωc ∂A s cos θs
(24)
The radiance of a source is, in general, a function of position
on the source and a function of the two angular variables θs and
φs in conventional spherical coordinates.
Review
Source Collector
13
θs θc
∂ As r ∂Ac
Fig. 15. Geometrical configuration used to demonstrate the fun-
damental theorem of radiometry from which the quantity radiance is
obtained.
Rearranging the just-given defining equation for radiance
and noting that ∂ωc = ∂A c cos θc /r 2 and ∂ωs = ∂A s cos θs /r 2 ,
we obtain the double differential
∂ 2 P = L(θs , φs , x , y )∂A s cos θs ∂ωc
= L(θs , φs , x , y )∂A s cos θs ∂A c cos θc /r 2
= L(θs , φs , x , y )∂ωs ∂A c cos θc . (25)
Here, r is the distance between the source and the collector as
illustrated in Fig. 15. This equation can be considered to be the
fundamental theorem of radiometry, as it describes the radiant
power transfer between an elemental source and an elemental
collector.
Most textbook treatments of the propagation of diffracted
wave fields include a paraxial (small angle) assumption.
Although this assumption may be reasonable for imaging
systems with clear apertures, it is clearly inappropriate when
dealing with diffraction gratings (inherently wide-angle devices)
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G193

or with scattering surfaces, both of which are frequently used

with large oblique incident angles.
Recall that in Case#2 above, we showed that wide-angle
scalar diffraction phenomena are shift-invariant with respect to
changes in incident angle when formulated in direction cosine
space. Furthermore, when a spherical wave is incident upon
the diffracting aperture and the observation space is a hemi-
sphere, this Fourier transform relationship is valid not merely
over a small region about the optical axis, but over the entire
hemisphere.
In References [27] and [28], it has been shown that the
squared modulus of the Fourier transform of the complex
amplitude distribution emerging from the diffracting aperture Fig. 16. Illustration of a moderately broad Gaussian diffracted
yields diffracted radiance, not irradiance or intensity: radiance distribution. (a) Normal incidence, (b) 64◦ incident angle
(adapted from Ref. [27]).
λ2   2
L(α, β) = F Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0)  .
As
Furthermore, this equation, unlike the more familiar Eq. (1),
is not restricted to small diffraction angles. From the shift theo-
rem of Fourier Transform theory, [3] it is clear that changes
in the angle of incidence of the radiation illuminating the dif-
fracting aperture will merely result in a shift of the radiance
function in direction cosine space and an attenuation by the
factor γo = cos θo
λ2
L(α, β − βo ) = γo |F {Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0) exp(i2πβo ŷ )}|2 .
As
(27)
Since the functional form does not change, the diffracted
radiance is shift-invariant in direction cosine space, and the
simple Fourier techniques that have proven to be so useful in
paraxial applications can be used for non-paraxial applications
as well.
In Ref. [27], after an egregious error was corrected in an errata
(Ref. [28]), sound radiometric principles were incorporated
into this linear systems formulation of non-paraxial scalar
diffraction theory which resulted in the following expression
replacing Eq. (1):
(26)
radiance distribution of unit height and half-width 1β = 0.4, as
illustrated in Fig. 16(a). An incident angle of 64◦ (βi = 0.9) will
cause 26.5% of the shifted radiance function, L(α, β − βo ),
to fall outside of the unit circle in direction cosine space. The
evanescent (imaginary) waves created produce no scattered
light. This requires a renormalization factor of K = 1.36, as
shown in Fig. 16(b) [27,28].
In either case, evanescent waves are produced, and the expres-
sion for radiance must be renormalized. This is not done in
a heuristic manner merely to conserve energy, but is a direct
result of Parseval’s theorem from Fourier transform theory.
The well-known Wood’s anomalies that occur in diffraction
grating efficiency measurements are entirely consistent with
this predicted renormalization in the presence of evanescent
waves.
Case#6, Predicting Rayleigh Anomalies with Non-
paraxial Scalar Diffraction Theory (2006): The application
of the preceding non-paraxial scalar diffraction theory to sinus-
oidal phase gratings is shown in Fig. 17 and compared to the
classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory, the standard parax-
ial scalar diffraction theory and rigorous vector theory [29]

2 2
L 0 (α, β − βo ) = K γo λAs F Uo (x̂ , ŷ ; 0) exp(i2π βo ŷ )  for α 2 + β 2 ≤ 1,

(28)
L 0 (α, β − βo ) = 0 for α 2 + β 2 > 1,

where K is a renormalization factor required for extreme cases

where the diffracted radiance distribution function extends
beyond the unit circle in direction cosine space. This can occur The nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory provides remark-
due to high spatial frequency content in the diffracting aperture ably good agreement with rigorous integral electromagnetic
resulting in very large diffracted angles, or due to large incident theory, not merely in the paraxial regime and the smooth
angles that shift a radiance distribution function of modest surface (shallow grating) regime, but over the entire range of
width such that a portion of it extends beyond the unit circle in λ/d . Figure 17 not only shows good agreement between our
direction cosine space, as shown in Fig. 16:
non–paraxial scalar theory and rigorous calculations, it also
R∞ R∞
L(α, β − βo )dαdβ demonstrates that our non-paraxial scalar diffraction theory
α=−∞ β=−∞
K= √ ≡ Normalization Factor. indeed predicts the Rayleigh anomalies [30,31] that occur
R1 1−α 2
L(α, β − βo )dαdβ
R
α=−1
√ when a propagating order goes evanescent. Note the abrupt
β=− 1−α 2
(29) increase in diffraction efficiency at λ/d = 0.67. This is precisely
the value of λ/d at which the −1 and +2 diffracted orders go
Hence, it is diffracted radiance (not intensity or irradiance) evanescent.
that is shift-invariant in direction cosine space. Figure 16 The development of this non-paraxial scalar diffraction the-
illustrates an application with an on-axis diffracted Gaussian ory greatly expands the range of parameters over which accurate
 G194 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 17. Diffraction grating efficiency of the first order of a perfectly conducting sinusoidal phase grating in the Littrow condition (for two differ-
ent values of h/d ). Courtesy of OSA, first appeared in Ref. [29].
predictions can be made with simple Fourier techniques, and
is a crucial step in the development of the GHS surface scatter
theory.
Case#7, Tolerance on Defocus Precisely Locates the Far
Field (2002): [32] The Fresnel and Fraunhofer diffraction
integrals are obtained by making explicit approximations to
the more general Rayleigh–Sommerfeld diffraction integral.
These approximations restrict the region of space over which the
respective integrals are valid, as shown in Fig. 18 [3,4]
Note that the Fraunhofer region is contained in the Fresnel
region, and both the Fraunhofer and Fresnel regions are con-
tained in the Rayleigh–Sommerfeld region. The far field is
widely understood to be synonymous with the Fraunhofer
region; however, there is less agreement in the literature upon
the definition of the near field. We define the near field to be that
region of space that does not satisfy even the Fresnel criterion.
Hence, the near field and far field are mutually exclusive, but not
all-inclusive.
Ŵ = Ŵ000 (Piston Error)
+ Ŵ200 ρ + Ŵ020 â + Ŵ111 ρ â cos(φ − φ)
2 2
Piston Defocus Lateral Magnification Error
+Ŵ400 ρ 4 +
Ŵ040 â 4
Piston Spherical Aberration
+Ŵ222 ρ 2 â 2 cos2 (φ 0 − φ) + Ŵ220 ρ 2 â 2 + Ŵ311 ρ 3 â cos(φ 0 − φ) 
Astigmatism
+ Higher-order Terms,
The Fraunhofer criterion specifies the minimum distance of
the observation plane from a diffracting aperture to assure the
validity of the Fraunhofer diffraction integral [3]
z  (k/2)(x 12 + y 12 )max .
Review
That the Fraunhofer criterion is usually given as an axial dis-
tance much greater than some amount relative to the maximum
dimension of the aperture is rather vague and unsatisfying to
the optical engineer wanting to know exactly how far he must
be from a given diffracting aperture in order to safely utilize the
Fraunhofer diffraction integral.
It was mentioned in Case#1 that the Rayleigh–Sommerfeld
diffraction integral can be written (without making any explicit
approximations) as a Fourier transform integral of a generalized
pupil function containing phase variations which are identi-
fied with conventional wavefront aberrations [7,8]. Near-field
diffraction patterns are thus aberrated Fraunhofer diffraction
patterns. Fraunhofer diffraction is therefore aberration-free, as it
is precisely the reference from which our aberrations are defined,
and Fresnel diffraction can be described as merely a defocused
Fraunhofer diffraction pattern [8,32].
Recall that the wavefront aberration function is expressed
as a power series expansion of the appropriate field and pupil
parameters [8,32–34]:
o
Zero-order
)
0
2nd-order
+ Ŵ131 ρ â 3 cos(φ 0 − φ)



Coma
4th-order

Field Curvature Distortion
(31)
where ρ is the normalized field position of the observa-
tion point, and a is the normalized pupil height. The
“hats” in these equations merely indicate that those quan-
tities are also normalized by the wavelength of light,
i.e., ẑ = z/λ, â = a /λ, andŴ020 = W020 /λ.
(30) That a Fresnel diffraction pattern is merely a defocused
Fraunhofer diffraction pattern is evidenced by the fact that
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G195

Fig. 18. Illustration of the axial regions of validity for the Rayleigh–Sommerfeld, Fresnel and Fraunhofer diffraction integrals. Courtesy of OSA;
this figure previously published as Fig. 1 in Ref. [32].

π 2
Table 1. Fraunhofer Criterion for Different Tolerances φ= d (radians). (34)
upon Defocus 4λz
W020 z This measure of quality is used in many areas of physical
optics and antenna measurement. Finally, we would comment
λ/2 0.80 km
that the preceding analysis approach is applicable to far-field
λ/4 1.60 km
measurements made using Fourier transform lenses to bring the
λ/8 3.20 km
λ/10 4.00 km
measurement plane to the focal plane of the transform lens. In
λ/20 8.00 km this case, lens aberrations and positioning errors relative to the
focal plane also affect the far-field quality.
The new expression for the Fraunhofer criterion given by
the two diffraction integrals differ only by a quadratic phase Eq. (33) should be particularly useful to optical designers and
factor [3,4]. For a plane wave incident upon a circular aperture engineers that routinely deal with such tolerances.
of diameter d , the aberration coefficient for defocus is given Case#8, The Modified Beckman–Kirchhoff Surface
by [32] Scatter Model (2007): [35] A detailed experimental inves-
tigation of light scattering from well-characterized random
!2 surfaces was reported by O’Donnell and Mendez in 1987
ẑ d̂
Ŵ020 = . (32) [21]. Several puzzling effects were observed when comparing
2 2ẑ experimental scattered intensity measurements with classical
Beckmann–Kirchhoff scattering theory. The surfaces were
Solving for z, we obtain made by exposing photoresist to a laser speckle pattern and
then processing and coating with gold. The surface autoco-
d2 variance (ACV) function was almost a perfect Gaussian. The
z= . (33)
8W020 measured rms surface roughness was σs = 2.27 µm, and the
measured ACV length (e −1 half width of the ACV function) was
Equation (33) serves as a new expression for the Fraunhofer
`C = 20.9 µm. For the small slopes represented by these param-
criterion, based upon a specified tolerance for the amount of
eters, multiple-scattering effects are negligible and conventional
defocus allowed for a given application. For a circular aperture high-angular-resolution scattering data were measured for
4.0 cm in diameter and for a wavelength of 0.5 µm, we obtain two wavelengths, λ = 0.6328 µm and λ = 10.6 µm, and two
from Eq. (30) that an observation distance much greater than angles of incidence, θi = 20◦ and θi = 70◦ . At these wavelengths
2.5 km is required for the Fraunhofer diffraction integral to be and incident angles, this surface is far too rough to satisfy the
valid. We now see from Table 1 that, if we are willing to toler- Rayleigh–Rice smooth-surface criterion.
ate one-half wave of defocus, an observation distance of only For a wavelength of 10.6 µm and modest angles of incidence,
800 m is required. On the other hand, if we tighten the allowable the Beckmann–Kirchhoff solution agreed quite well with the
tolerance upon defocus to λ/20, 8 km is required! experimental data; however, a persistent tendency for the data to
The Fraunhofer criterion, as usually stated, says that the be narrower than the theory was observed as shown in Fig. 19(a).
amount of defocus allowed must be much less than λ/2π . This was non-intuitive, as the presence of experimental error
Clearly there are many practical applications where this toler- sources (jitter, turbulence effects, etc.) would tend to make the
ance can be relaxed. Also, by multiplying Eq. (32) by 2π , we experimental curve broader than the theoretical curve. There is
obtain the following equation for the maximum phase error no discernable specular beam for an incident angle of 20◦ , as the
across the aperture: total integrated scatter (TIS) is almost unity.
 G196 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 19. Non-intuitive surface scatter effects. Solid lines represent classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff scatter theory, circles indicate experimental mea-
surements (reprinted with permission from Ref. [21]).
For a wavelength of λ = 10.6 µm and an incident angle of
θi = 70◦ , there is a specular beam containing more than 40% of
the reflected radiant power; however, the data points influenced
by it have been omitted from the experimental data shown in
Fig. 19(b). Note that the peak of the scattering function does not
lie in the specular direction; instead, it lies approximately 10◦
inside the specular beam. Likewise, the Beckmann–Kirchhoff
theory no longer exhibits symmetry about the specular direction
and shows a similar shift of the peak of the diffuse component of
the scattered light distribution. Furthermore, the Beckmann–
Kirchhoff profile exhibits a discontinuity at −90◦ , which is
a nonphysical effect if the profile represents radiant intensity
(proper definitions, units, and terminology of radiometric
quantities presented in Case#5). The authors of Ref. [21] offer
no explanation for these nonintuitive effects.
Finally, Fig. 19(c) illustrates the data for a wavelength of
λ = 0.6328 µm and an angle of incidence of θi = 70◦ . The
experimental data are highly asymmetrical about the specular
direction (note that there is no specular beam at this wavelength)
and drop smoothly to zero at −90◦ . The Beckmann theory
predicts a symmetrical intensity distribution about the specular
direction, though it is unphysical in that it exhibits a large dis-
continuity at −90◦ . The authors of Ref. [21] suggest that the
reason the Beckmann theory fails at this angle of incidence may
be primarily shadowing and multiple scattering effects, and state
that they are unaware of any available theory that compares to
their measured data.
When applied to the O’Donnell and Mendez scattering
surface, the MHS surface scatter theory discussed in Case#4
predicts a shift-invariant ASF (scattered radiance distribution)
in direction cosine space, as illustrated in Fig. 20(a) for nor-
mal incidence and λ = 0.6328 µm. At an incident angle of
70o and λ = 10.6 µm, a significant fraction of the scattered
radiance distribution function falls outside the unit circle in
direction cosine space. When truncated and renormalized in
accordance with Eq. (28), the ASF is as illustrated in Fig. 20(b).
And after applying Lambert’s cosine law to convert the scattered
radiance to scattered intensity, we have the scattered intensity
distribution illustrated in Fig. 20(c). These results qualitatively
and intuitively explain all three of the non-intuitive surface
scatter effects illustrated in Fig. 19, and lead us to believe that
O’Donnell and Mendez might be inappropriately comparing
different radiometric quantities.
Review
For example, Fig. 21(a) shows a comparison between scat-
tered radiance and scattered intensity as predicted by the MHS
surface scatter theory for a beam normally incident upon the
O’Donnell and Mendez scattering surfaces. This is strikingly
similar to Fig. 19(a).
Likewise Fig. 21(b), is very similar to Fig. 19(b). Note that
O’Donnell and Mendez have labeled both of the curves in
Fig. 19 as scattered intensity versus scattering angle. Since the
solid angle subtended by the collecting aperture of their scat-
terometer is constant as they scan the observation hemisphere,
the voltage signal received from their instrument is indeed
proportional to scattered intensity (W/sr). The discontinu-
ity in the solid curve (representing the Beckmann–Kirchhoff
theory) at −90◦ in Figs. 19(b) and 19(c) is unphysical if the
quantity being plotted is radiant intensity (W/sr); however, such
a discontinuity would be allowed if plotting scattered radiance.
Their problem is in misinterpreting the radiometric quantity
predicted by the Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory.
It should be pointed out that Beckmann and Spizzichino [5]
do not use conventional radiometric terminology. O’Donnell
and Mendez used Eq. (35) on p. 86 of Ref. [5], a closed-
form solution valid only for Gaussian surface autocovariance
functions, which is written as
∞
π `2c F 2 exp(−g ) X g m
D {ρ} = exp[−(vxy `c /4m)],
2 2
As m!m
m=1
(35)
where A s is the illuminated surface area, `c is the surface ACV
length, and F is a geometrical factor defined as the follow-
ing function of incident and scattered angles (θ and φ are the
scattered angles in standard spherical coordinates):
1 + (cos θi cos θ − sin θi sin θ cos φ)
F= . (36)
cos θi (cos θi + cos θ )
g is a measure of the phase variation introduced by an rms sur-
face roughness of σs :
g = [(2π σs /λ)(cos θi + cos θ )]2 , (37)
and
q
vxy = k sin2 θi − 2 sin θi sin θ cos φ + sin2 θ . (38)
The quantity D{ρ} in Eq. (35) is the time average of the
squared modulus of the electric field vector, and is called the
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G197

Fig. 20. (a) Predicted ASF (radiance) for normal incidence and λ = 0.6328 µm; (b) truncated and renormalized ASF for θi = 70◦ and
λ = 10.6 µm; (c) scattered intensity for θi = 70◦ and 10.6 µm (adapted from Ref. [27]).

3.5
λ = 10.6 μm
1
3 θo = 70 deg

Scattered Intensity λ = 10.6 μm

θo = 70 deg
0.8 2.5

2
0.6 Radiance Scattered Radiance
Intensity
1.5
0.4
1

Specular
0.2
0.5 Direction

0 0
-1 -0. 8 -0.6 -0.4 -0. 2 0 0.2 0. 4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5
Direction Cosine of Scattering Angle (β) Direction Cosine of Scattering Angle ( β )

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 21. (a) Comparison of MHS prediction of scattered radiance and intensity for the O’Donnell–Mendez surface with θi = 0 and λ = 10.6 µm;
(b) predicted radiance and intensity for θi = 70◦ and λ = 10.6 µm; (c) O’Donnell–Mendez measurements compared to MHS prediction of scattered
intensity (adapted from Ref. [27]).

Z
mean scattered power by Beckmann and Spizzichino [5]. Most I (θ, φ) = L(θ, φ) cos θ ∂A s = L(θ, φ)A s cos θ (40)
physicists would interpret this quantity to be proportional to As
radiant power density on the collecting surface (and perhaps
or
inappropriately call it intensity). The geometrical factor, F ,
is perhaps an attempt to model the asymmetries that occur in ∞
X gm
measured scattered intensity profiles. I (θ, φ) = K π `2c cos θ exp(−g ) exp[−(vxy `c /4m)].
2 2
m!m
However, the new insight provided by Eqs. (28) and (29), in m=1
which diffracted radiance is presented as the fundamental quan- (41)
tity predicted by scalar diffraction theory, and the success of the Recall that for a wavelength of 10.6 µm and an incident
non-paraxial scalar diffraction theory (Case#5) in explaining the angle of 20◦ , almost all of the reflected light is scattered
non-intuitive behavior just described [27–29] leads us to try an (TIS = 0.998), and there is virtually no specular beam. In
empirical modification of the Beckmann–Kirchhoff scattering Fig. 22, scattered intensity predictions from this new modified
theory. Beckmann–Kirchhoff model expressed by Eq. (41) are superim-
Three explicit empirical modifications include: (i) eliminat- posed upon the previous curves of Fig. 19. Since we only have
ing the geometrical factor, F 2 , from Eq. (35); (ii) introducing one-dimensional experimental scattering profile data, we merely
the re-normalization factor, K , from Eq. (29) (this accounts for normalize the peak of the scattering function to unity, and label
the re-distribution of radiant energy from the evanescent waves the curve relative intensity. For the modest 20◦ incident angle of
into the propagating waves); and (iii) equating the right side Fig. 22(a), the departure of the predictions from the classical and
of Eq. (35) to scattered radiance. We thus obtain the following modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff surface scatter models are not
modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff scatter model: severe; however, the modified model does more closely match
∞ the experimental data.
π `2c exp(−g ) X g m In Fig. 22(b) we have a 70◦ incident angle and a wave-
L(θ, φ) = K exp[−(vxy `c /4m)].
2 2
As m=1
m!m length of 10.6 µm. The modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff
(39) model once again more closely matches the experimental
To obtain the scattered intensity distribution, we merely multi- measurements, and it does not exhibit the non-physical discon-
ply the radiance by cos θ and integrate over the illuminated area tinuity at a scattering angle of −90◦ exhibited by the classical
of the scattering surface [27–29] Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory.
 G198 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 22. Predictions from the empirically Modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff model are compared to the previously non-intuitive surface scatter
effects illustrated in Fig. 17 (adapted from Ref. [35]).
For the much shorter wavelength of λ = 0.6328 µm, the
O’Donnell/Mendez surface must be categorized as very
rough (σs /λ = 3.59), and clearly, for such a rough sur-
face, all the incident light is scattered (no specular beam).
Equations (39) and (41) do not converge; hence, we use the
classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff Eq. (48) on page 87 of Ref. [5]:
vxy `c
" 2 2 #
π`2c F 2
D {ρ} = exp , where vz = −k(cos θi + cos θ ).
A s vz2 σs2 4vz2 σs2
(42)
As before, we make an empirical modification by eliminating
the geometrical factor, F 2 , adding the renormalization factor,
K , and equating the right side of Eq. (42) to scattered radiance,
thus obtaining the following modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff
scatter model for very rough surfaces:
vxy `c
" 2 2
#
π `2c
L(θ, ϕ) = K exp − 2 2 . (43)
A s vz2 σs2 4vz σs
Again converting radiance to intensity by multiplying by cos θ ,
we obtain
vxy `c
" 2 2
#
π `2c cos θ
I (θ, φ) = K exp − 2 2 . (44)
vz2 σs2 4vz σs
In Fig. 22(c), scattered intensity predictions from the modi-
fied Beckmann–Kirchhoff model expressed by Eq. (44) are
superimposed upon the previous curves in Fig. 19(c). Again,
we normalize the peak of the modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff
scattering profile to unity. For this short wavelength and a 70◦
incident angle, the departure between the predictions of the
classical and the modified theory is quite dramatic. The clas-
sical Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory indicates a very significant
(non-physical) discontinuity at a scattering angle of −90◦ ,
and is clearly not capable of making accurate surface scatter
predictions for very rough surfaces at these large incident angles;
however, the empirically modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff model
agrees extremely well with the experimental data.
We now compare the predictions of the modified
Beckmann–Kirchhoff surface scatter model with the classi-
cal Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory and the classical Rayleigh–Rice
theory for optically smooth surfaces that exhibit increasingly
large incident and scattering angles. As expected, for small
incident and scattering angles, all three of the scattering the-
ories yield virtually identical results as shown in Fig. 23(a).
Review
Furthermore, as either the incident and/or scattered angles
become large, the modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff model con-
tinues to agree with the Rayleigh–Rice theory, and the classical
Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory begins to break down and starts to
exhibit markedly different behavior, including the non-physical
discontinuities at ±90◦ as shown in Figs. 23(b) and 23(c).
In summary, the linear systems formulation of nonparaxial
scalar diffraction phenomena discussed in Case#5, indicating
that diffracted radiance is a fundamental quantity predicted by
scalar diffraction theory, led to a re-examination and empirical
modification of the classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff scattering
theory. This modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff surface scat-
ter model agrees extremely well with experimental data for
rough surfaces, even for large incident and scattered angles.
It also exhibits excellent agreement with the well-established
Rayleigh–Rice vector perturbation surface scatter theory (for
TE polarization) within its domain of applicability for smooth
surfaces (comparisons performed for surfaces with Gaussian
autocovariance functions).
Case#9, The Generalized Harvey–Shack (GHS) Surface
Scatter Theory (2011): [19,36,37] The classical Rayleigh–Rice
(1951) vector perturbation theory agrees well with moderately
wide-angle (<50◦ ) experimental scatter measurements from
“smooth” surfaces. However, not all applications of interest
satisfy the smooth surface approximation. The Beckmann–
Kirchoff (1963) scattering theory is valid for rougher surfaces,
but contains a moderate-angle assumption that limits its ability
to accurately handle wide-angle scattering and large angles of
incidence. In addition, an analytical solution only exists for
surfaces with Gaussian statistics. These two theories are thus
complementary, but not all-inclusive. Neither of them, nor
the combination of them, can be used to predict surface scatter
effects for moderately rough surfaces with large incident and/or
scattering angles.
It was the contractual requirement to perform the image
degradation analysis due to surface scatter effects on NOAA’s
Solar UltraViolet Imager (SUVI), a normal-incidence EUV
imaging instrument developed for NOAA’s Geostationary
Orbiting Environmental Satellite (GOES) that provided the
impetus to further generalize the MHS surface scatter theory.
Even state-of-the-art EUV mirrors did not satisfy the Rayleigh–
Rice smooth-surface requirement at the SUVI wavelengths, and
the Beckmann–Kirchhoff surface scatter theory only provided
 Review Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G199

Fig. 23. Predictions from the empirically Modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff model are compared to the Classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory and
the Rayleigh–Rice theory (adapted from Ref. [35]).

Because of the well-known π phase change experienced by an

Ac

R
θi
tua
Re

A C electromagnetic wave upon external reflection (n 2 ≥ n 1 ) from

l

Scattered by
θ i θ st
fer

Reflectance
θ sr the boundary between two dielectric media, [38] the minus sign
en

B
c e

is used when n 2 ≤ n 1 and the plus sign is used when n 2 ≥ n 1 .

Surface Height

O
n1 Following the derivation approach of the OHS and MHS
h theories, we find that a two-parameter family of surface transfer
ŷy
functions is required to characterize the scattering process for
θ st n2 arbitrary incident and scattering angles [19,35–37]
Scattered by
Transmittance
Hs x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs


(θ st = − θ sr )

Fig. 24. Illustration of both forward (transmitted) and backward n  2  o

= exp − 2π σ̂rel (n 1 γi ∓ n 2 γs ) 1 − C s x̂ , ŷ /σs2 ,


(reflected) scattering from a moderately rough interface between two
media with arbitrary refractive indices. Courtesy of SPIE, this figure
previously published as Fig. 7 in Ref. [36]. (47)

where γi = cos θi , γs = cos θs , and C s (x̂ , ŷ ) is the surface ACV

closed-form solutions for surfaces exhibiting Gaussian surface
PSDs.
It was thus necessary to develop a surface scatter theory that
would be valid for arbitrarily rough surfaces at arbitrary incident
and scattered angles that would allow us to calculate image
degradation due to surface scatter from surfaces with arbitrary
surface PSDs.
It was shown in Fig. 14 that the MHS surface scatter theory is
a significant improvement over the OHS theory, especially for
large incident angles. However, the restriction of small scattering
angles was still very limiting. Furthermore, the OHS and MHS
surface scatter theories were restricted to mirror surfaces, and
did not include the more general situation of scattering from
a random rough interface between two media with arbitrary
refractive indices as shown in Fig. 24 [36].
The optical path difference (OPD) introduced when an
incident ray at an arbitrary angle, θi , is scattered at an arbitrary
angle, θs , by a moderately rough interface between two media
with arbitrary refractive indices can be written as
OPD(x̂ , ŷ ) = −(n 1 cos θi − n 2 cos θs )h(x̂ , ŷ ),
where n 1 and n 2 are the refractive indices of the media before
and after the interface, respectively. The phase variation intro-
duced for light scattered at an arbitrary angle is thus given by the
expression
φ(x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs ) = 2π/λOPD
= −2π(n 1 cos θi ∓ n 2 cos θs ) · ĥ(x̂ , ŷ ). (46)
function.
This general expression for the surface transfer function may
be used to model either reflective or transmissive scatter, the
latter being of interest, for example, in calculating the increased
efficiency of thin-film photovoltaic silicon solar cells by uti-
lizing enhanced roughness on the TCO–Si interface [39–41].
However, the discussion in this paper will be restricted to appli-
cations of scattering from mirror surfaces, i.e., n 2 = − n 1 . If the
mirror is immersed in air (or vacuum), n 1 = 1, and Eq. (47) can
be written as [37]
Hs x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs


n  2  o
= exp − 2π σ̂rel (γi + γs ) 1 − C s x̂ , ŷ /σs2 .


(48)
A separate surface transfer function is thus required for each
incident angle and each scattered angle. Note that we are again
representing the effective rms surface roughness with the band-
limited relevant rms roughness, σrel , used previously in Eq. (18).
(45) The σs2 at the end of Eqs. (47) and (48) remains as the square
of the total, or intrinsic, surface roughness, as its purpose is to
merely normalize the surface ACV function to unit height.
It was recognized as early as 1976 that a two-parameter fam-
ily of surface transfer functions would be required to accurately
model the scattered light behavior for an arbitrary incident and
an arbitrary scattered angle [7], but such a two-parameter fam-
ily of surface transfer functions was considered too unwieldy and
computationally intensive to attempt to solve in 1976.
 G200 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
However, with the computer technology available today, it
is viable to numerically predict a two-dimensional scattering
function by setting γi and γs to some specific value then per-
forming a two-dimensional numerical Fourier transform of
the right side of Eq. (48) to produce the corresponding angle
spread function (ASF). However, only the one data point in the
resulting two-dimensional numerical array that corresponds to
the fixed γi and γs is valid. New values of γi and γs can be chosen
and the process repeated until a two-dimensional scattering
function has been synthesized [37]
Since the Fourier transform of the above surface transfer func-
tion yields the ASF for normal incidence, we can again invoke
the shift theorem of Fourier transform theory and express the
scattered radiance distribution for an arbitrary incident angle
(recall that θo = −θi ) by
S(αs , βs ; γi , γs )
Review
is not a function of the variables of integration, x̂ and ŷ . When a
numerical solution is required, multiple transforms will indeed
have to be performed in order to calculate the entire ASF. This is
accomplished by specifying the parameters γs and γi before per-
forming the two-dimensional Fourier transform, then repeating
this procedure for each desired incident and scattered angle.
Direction cosine space is a very convenient space in which
to perform the necessary calculations, as the entire observation
hemisphere can be reduced to a circle with unit radius in the α,
β plane. This unit circle corresponds to θs = 90◦ for all values
of φs in the spherical coordinate system. It is straightforward
to create a numerical grid as a two-dimensional array, and then
perform the calculation of the scattering function, S, given by
Eq. (56), for each point in the array. For points that lie outside
of the unit circle, we can simply assign a value of zero to S, since
γs is not a real number at those locations. The calculation of the
entire scattering function can thus be written as [37]
= F Hs (x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs ) exp(−i2π βo ŷ ) α=αs ,β=βs . (49)
  XX
Sjk (α, β; γi ) = K (γi ) S(α j , βk ; γi , γjk ), (57)
Equation (49) corresponds to the scattered radiance in the αs , βs j k
direction. The direction cosines αs and βs are related to γs by
where
q
√
γs = 1 − αs2 − βs2 .
!−1
(50) Z 1 Z 1−α 2
K (γi ) = B(γi ) √
S(α, β − βo ; γi )dαdβ ,
α=−1 β=− 1−α 2
Once again, the surface transfer function can be written in the
form (58)
and
Hs x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs = A(γi , γs ) + B(γi , γs ) G x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs ,



S(α j , βk ; γi , γjk )
(51)
where = B(γi , γs )F {G(x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γjk ) exp(i2π βo ŷ )}|αs =α j ,βs =βk ,
n  2 o
A(γi , γs ) = exp − 2π (γi + γs ) σ̂rel , (52) (59)

n  2 o and
B(γi , γs ) = 1 − exp − 2π (γi + γs ) σ̂rel , (53) q
γjk = 1 − α 2j − βk2 . (60)
and

2
 The process just described is very computationally intensive
2 σrel
exp [2π (γi + γs )] σ 2 C s x̂ , ŷ − 1


since, for each scattering angle, we have to perform a two-
s
G(x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs ) = . dimensional discrete Fourier transform of the surface transfer
exp 2π (γi + γs ) σ̂rel 2 − 1
 
function, extract the one data point corresponding to that scat-
(54) tering angle, and then repeat the process for all other desired
The ASF can then be written as the sum of a shifted delta scattering angles. If the surface roughness is isotropic, the sur-
function (specularly reflected beam) and an associated scattering face transfer function will be rotationally symmetric, and the
function, S(α, β; γi , γs ) [36]: two–dimensional Fourier transform in Eq. (59) reduces to
a Hankel transform. Since the Hankel transform operation
S(αs , βs ; γi , γs ) = [A(γi , γs )δ(α, β − βo )
is one-dimensional, this can help to reduce the computation
+ S(α, β − βo ; γi , γs )]|α=αs ,β=βs , time significantly. The process is still the same, except that
(55) at each step, a numerical Hankel transform is performed,
yielding the radial profile of the circularly symmetric interme-
where diate ASF. Using this profile, it is a simple matter to perform a
S(α, β − βo ; γi , γs ) one-dimensional interpolation to obtain the one point corre-
sponding to α j , βk . For the rough surface scattering predictions
= B(γi , γs )F G(x̂ , ŷ ; γi , γs ) exp(−i2π βo ŷ ) .

(56) that follow, we utilized a quasi-discrete Hankel transform
algorithm based on a Fourier–Bessel series expansion [42].
Equations (48) and (56) indicate that, for a given incident In 2011, the generalized Harvey–Shack (GHS) surface scat-
angle, a different Fourier transform needs to be performed for ter theory, characterized by a two-parameter family of STFs, had
each scattering angle in order to calculate the ASF. This process evolved into a practical modeling tool to calculate BRDFs from
can be avoided if the Fourier transform can be solved analyti- optical surface metrology data for situations that violate the
cally. When this is the case, γs is just treated as a constant since it smooth-surface approximation inherent in the Rayleigh–Rice
 Review
Fig. 25. Comparison of scattered intensity predictions from the OHS, MHS, and GHS theories for different incident angles. Experimental data is
displayed for incident angles of 20◦ and 70◦ . The difference between the MHS and GHS theories is modest but significant, and the experimental data
provides excellent agreement with the GHS predictions. This figure previously published as Fig. 6 in Ref. [37].
theory and/or the moderate-angle limitation of the Beckmann–
Kirchhoff theory [37]. And finally, the STF can be multiplied by
the classical OTF to provide a complete linear systems formu-
lation of image quality as degraded by diffraction, geometrical
aberrations, and surface scatter effects from residual optical
fabrication errors [43].
Using the procedure just described, we have performed a
comparison of the relative scattered intensity (in the plane of
incidence) predicted by the OHS, MHS, and GHS surface
scatter theories. The same surface as that used previously for
Fig. 13 (Gaussian autocovariance function with σs = 2.27 µm
and `c = 20.9 µm) is used here. These comparisons are pre-
sented in Fig. 25 for incident angles of 20◦ , 40◦ , 60◦ , and 70◦ .
We will initially assume that λ = 10.6 µm. At this wavelength,
σs /λ = 0.214, which is considered a moderately rough surface.
Fairly wide-angle scatter will be produced since the surface ACV
width, normalized by the wavelength, is given by `c /λ = 1.97.
Experimental data from Ref. [21] will also be plotted for com-
parison to the theoretical predictions for incident angles of 20◦
and 70◦ .
For the incident angle of 20◦ , Fig. 25(a) indicates that the
GHS theory predicts a peak intensity that is approximately
27% higher than the OHS theory, and slightly higher than
the MHS theory. Although there is no significant specular
reflection (TIS ≈ 1), the peak of the scattered intensity dis-
tribution lies essentially in the specular direction for all three
Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G201
theories. Since we do not know the absolute radiometric value
of the experimental data, we have normalized the peak value of
the experimental data to be equal to that of the GHS theory. The
shape of the experimental curve is in excellent agreement with
that of the GHS theory.
For the 40◦ angle of incidence illustrated in Fig. 25(b), the
three theories still all predict that there is no significant specu-
lar reflection (TIS ≥ 0.986). The MHS and GHS theories
predict almost identical peak intensities (about 100% higher
than the OHS theory), and the peak of the GHS intensity is
centered upon the specular direction. The intensity distribu-
tion predicted by the MHS theory is shifted to slightly smaller
angles. The OHS scattered intensity distribution is considerably
broader than that predicted by the other two theories.
For an incident angle of 60◦ , Fig. 25(c) shows that the peak
intensity predicted by the MHS and GHS theories has increased
another 25% to 30%, with the MHS peak being somewhat
higher than that of the GHS theory. The GHS and MHS theo-
ries now predict a TIS equal to 0.792, which implies that ∼21%
of the reflected radiation is now contained in the specular beam.
The OHS intensity distribution has a peak intensity about 30%
as high as the other two theories, and it is substantially broader.
Finally, for an angle of incidence of 70◦ , Fig. 25(d) shows
that the peak intensities of the scattering function predicted by
the GHS and MHS theories are now substantially lower, as the
predicted value of the TIS has dropped to 0.438. There is a more
 G202 Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics
Fig. 26. Comparison of the MHS and GHS surface scatter the-
ories with the classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff scatter theory and the
O’Donnell–Mendez experimental data for a wavelength of 0.6328 µm
and an incident angle of 70◦ . Courtesy of OSA, this figure previously
published as Fig 7 in Ref. [37].
pronounced asymmetry in the scattered intensity distribution
predicted by the MHS and GHS theories. The GHS theory
is an excellent fit to the experimental data, and a substantial
improvement over the MHS theory. It should also be noted that
experimental data is absent for those angles that represent the
location of the specular beam (presumably to protect the detec-
tor), and the peak of both the measured and predicted scattered
intensity distributions are shifted substantially (∼10◦ ) from
the specular direction. This was one of the non-intuitive effects
that the authors of Ref. [21] were unable to explain. We now
understand that this shift occurs when the predicted truncated
scattered radiance distribution is multiplied by the Lambert
cosine function to convert it to a scattered intensity distribution.
In Fig. 26, we compare our predictions from the MHS and
GHS theories with the experimental measurements and the clas-
sical Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory as presented by O’Donnell
and Mendez, for the same surface as above, with an incident
angle of 70◦ and a wavelength of λ = 0.6328 µm.
For this wavelength, the surface can be considered very rough
since σs /λ = 3.59. Clearly all of the light is diffusely scattered.
The peak of the MHS theory is shifted substantially from the
peak of the GHS theory, and is also about 40% higher. The
classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff theory has its peak at approxi-
mately the same angle as that of the GHS theory, but it exhibits a
nonphysical discontinuity at −90◦ . The shapes of all three theo-
retical profiles are thus quite different. The agreement between
the GHS theory and the experimental data is again excellent,
especially considering that this is a very rough surface with a
large incident angle. Figures 25 and 26 provide a convincing
experimental validation of the GHS surface scatter theory for
rough surfaces at large incident and scatter angles.
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have presented and reviewed a compilation
of nine separate advances in the understanding of applied
optics and optical engineering that were a direct result of
Roland Shack’s 1974 colloquium talk entitled A Global View
Review
of Diffraction. In this single colloquium talk, Professor Shack
removed the inherent paraxial limitation in the conventional
linear systems formulation of scalar diffraction theory. This
led to new insight and understanding, and enabled many new
applications that included:
1) Showing that near-field diffraction patterns are merely
aberrated Fraunhofer diffraction patterns, and those aber-
rations are our old friends: spherical aberration, coma,
astigmatism, etc.
2) Demonstrating that wide-angle diffraction phenomena is
shift-invariant relative to incident angle when formulated
in direction cosine space.
3) Surface scatter phenomena is merely a diffraction process
and therefore, from 2), it can be characterized by a surface
transfer function; i.e., the original Harvey–Shack (OHS)
surface scatter theory was born.
4) The OHS surface scatter was generalized to be valid for
large incident angles (grazing incidence x-ray telescopes).
This modified Harvey–Shack (MHS) surface scatter theory
was characterized by a one-parameter family of surface
transfer functions (as are all imaging systems exhibiting
off-axis aberrations).
5) A linear systems formulation of non-paraxial scalar diffrac-
tion theory was developed in which diffracted radiance
(not irradiance or intensity) was shown to be the funda-
mental quantity that exhibits shift-invariant behavior when
displayed in direction cosine space.
6) The non-paraxial scalar diffraction theory in 5) was demon-
strated to predict diffraction grating efficiencies with
an accuracy usually thought to require rigorous electro-
magnetic theory, including Rayleigh anomalies even for
amplitude transmission gratings.
7) The vaguely defined near boundary of the Fraunhofer
region (or the far field) was given a precise definition
involving a tolerance upon the amount of allowable
defocus.
8) The radiometric units in the most popular western refer-
ence on scattering of electromagnetic waves from rough
surfaces, Ref. [5], was clarified and validated by the (empir-
ically) modified Beckmann–Kirchhoff surface scatter
model.
9) A generalized Harvey–Shack (GHS) surface scatter theory
was developed that is characterized by a two-parameter
family of surface transfer functions. This GHS surface
scatter theory produces accurate results for rougher surfaces
than the classical Rayleigh–Rice theory and (due to a more
general obliquity factor) for larger incident and scattered
angles than either the classical Beckmann–Kirchhoff or
Rayleigh–Rice theories [22]. The transfer function charac-
terization of scattering surfaces can be readily incorporated
into the traditional linear systems formulation of image
formation, thus allowing a systems engineering analysis of
image quality as degraded by diffraction effects, geometri-
cal aberrations, and surface scatter effects [43–45]. This, in
turn, allows us to derive the optical fabrication tolerances
necessary to satisfy a specific image quality requirement,
which further enables the integration of optical fabrication
and metrology into the optical design process [46].
 Review
Disclosures. The author declares no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. R. N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform and its Applications (McGraw-
Hill, 1965).
2. J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill,
1996).
3. J. D. Gaskill, Linear Systems, Fourier Transforms, and Optics (Wiley,
1978).
4. S. O. Rice, “Reflection of electromagnetic waves from slightly rough
surfaces,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 4, 351–378 (1951).
5. P. Beckmann and A. Spizzichino, The Scattering of Electromagnetic
Waves from Rough Surfaces (Pergamon, 1963).
6. R. V. Shack, Colloquium talk at the Optical Sciences Center at the
University of Arizona in 1974.
7. J. E. Harvey, “Light-scattering characteristics of optical surfaces,”
Ph.D. dissertation (University of Arizona, 1976).
8. J. E. Harvey and R. V. Shack, “Aberrations of diffracted wave fields,”
Appl. Opt. 17, 3003–3009 (1978).
9. J. E. Harvey, “A Fourier treatment of near-field scalar diffraction the-
ory,” Am. J. Phys. 47, 974–980 (1979).
10. J. A. Ratcliff, “Some aspects of diffraction theory and their appli-
cation to the ionosphere,” in Reports of Progress in Physics, A. C.
Strickland, ed. (The Physical Society, 1956), Vol. XIX.
11. J. E. Harvey and C. L. Vernold, “Description of diffraction grating
behavior in direction cosine space,” Appl. Opt. 37, 8158–8160
(1998).
12. J. E. Harvey, “Surface scatter phenomena: a linear, shift-invariant
process,” Proc. SPIE 1165, 87–99 (1989).
13. F. E. Nicodemus, “Reflectance nomenclature and directional
reflectance and emissivity,” Appl. Opt. 9, 1474–1475 (1970).
14. R. Hufnagel, “Random wavefront effects,” Photo. Sci. Eng. 9,
244–247 (1965).
15. P. J. Chandley and W. T. Welford, “A re-formulation of some results
of P. Beckmann for scattering from rough surfaces,” Opt. Quantum
Electron. 7, 393–397 (1975).
16. J. E. Harvey, E. C. Moran, and W. P. Zmek, “Transfer function charac-
terization of grazing incidence optical systems,” Appl. Opt. 27, 1527–
1533 (1988).
17. P. Glenn, P. Reid, A. Slomba, and L. P. Van Speybroeck, “Performance
prediction of AXAF technology mirror assembly using measured mir-
ror surface errors,” Appl. Opt. 27, 1539–1543 (1988).
18. J. E. Harvey and P. L. Thompson, “Generalized Wolter type I design
for the solar x-ray imager (SXI),” Proc. SPIE 3766, 173–183 (1999).
19. A. Krywonos, “Predicting surface scatter using a linear systems
formulation of non–paraxial scalar diffraction,” Ph.D. dissertation
(University of Central Florida, 2006).
20. J. E. Harvey, S. Schroder, N. Choi, and A. Duparre, “Total integrated
scatter from surfaces with arbitrary roughness, correlation widths,
and incident angles,” Opt. Eng. 51, 013402 (2012).
21. K. A. O’Donnell and E. R. Mendez, “Experimental study of scat-
tering from characterized random surfaces,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4,
1194–1205 (1987).
22. J. E. Harvey, Understanding Surface Scatter Phenomena (SPIE,
2019).
23. J. J. Muray, F. E. Nicodemus, and I. Wunderman, “Proposed supple-
ment to the SI nomenclature for radiometry and photometry,” Appl.
Opt. 10, 1465–1468 (1971).
View publication stats
Vol. 59, No. 22 / 1 August 2020 / Applied Optics G203
24. J. M. Palmer, “Getting intense about intensity,” Opt. Photon. News
30, 4 (1995).
25. E. L. Dereniak and G. D. Boreman, Infrared Detectors and Systems
(Wiley, 1996).
26. R. W. Boyd, Radiometry and the Detection of Optical Radiation
(Wiley, 1983).
27. J. E. Harvey, C. L. Vernold, A. Krywonos, and P. L. Thompson,
“Diffracted radiance: a fundamental quantity in non-paraxial scalar
diffraction theory,” Appl. Opt. 38, 6469–6481 (1999).
28. J. E. Harvey, C. L. Vernold, A. Krywonos, and P. L. Thompson,
“Diffracted radiance: a fundamental quantity in non-paraxial scalar
diffraction theory: eratta,” Appl. Opt. 39, 6374–6375 (2000).
29. J. E. Harvey, A. Krywonos, and D. Bogunovic, “Non-paraxial scalar
treatment of sinusoidal phase gratings,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 23,
858–865 (2006).
30. R. Petit, Electromagnetic Theory of Gratings (Springer-Verlag, 1980),
p. 98.
31. E. G. Loewen and E. Popov, Diffraction Gratings and Applications
(Marcel Dekker, 1997).
32. J. E. Harvey, A. Krywonos, and D. Bogunovic, “A tolerance on defo-
cus precisely locates the far field (exactly where is that far field any-
way?),” Appl. Opt. 41, 2586–2588 (2002).
33. V. N. Mahajan, Optical Imaging and Aberrations: Part I (SPIE, 1998).
34. H. H. Hopkins, Wave Theory of Aberrations (Clarendon, 1950).
35. J. E. Harvey, A. Krywonos, and C. L. Vernold, “A modified Beckmann-
Kirchhoff surface scatter model for rough surfaces with large incident
and scattering angles,” Opt. Eng. 46, 078002 (2007).
36. J. E. Harvey, N. Choi, A. Krywonos, S. Schroder, and D. H. Penalver,
“Scattering from moderately rough interfaces between two arbitrary
media,” Proc. SPIE 7794, 77940V (2010).
37. A. Krywonos, J. E. Harvey, and N. Choi, “Linear systems formulation
of surface scatter theory for rough surfaces with arbitrary incident
and scattering angles,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 28, 1121–1138 (2011).
38. B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics (Wiley,
1991).
39. S. Fay, S. Dubail, U. Kroll, J. Meier, Y. Ziegler, and A. Shah, “Light
trapping enhancement for thin-film silicon solar cells by rough-
ness improvement of the ZnC front TCO,” in Proc. 16th EU-PVSEC,
Glasgow, Scotland (2000), pp. 361–364.
40. D. Domine, F. J. Haug, C. Battaglia, and C. Ballif, “Modeling of light
scattering from micro- and nanotextured surfaces,” J. Appl. Phys.
107, 044504 (2010).
41. S. Schröder, A. Duparré, K. Füchsel, N. Kaiser, A. Tünnermann, and
J. E. Harvey, “Scattering of roughened TCO films—modeling and
measurement,” in Presented at OSA Topical Meeting on Optical
Interference Coatings, Arizona, USA, June 7–9, 2010.
42. M. Guzar-Sicairos and J. C. Gutierrez-Vega, “Computation of quasi-
discrete Hankel transforms of integer order for propagating optical
wave fields,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 21, 53–58 (2004).
43. J. E. Harvey, “Parametric analysis of the effect of scattered light upon
the modulation transfer function,” Opt. Eng. 52, 073110 (2013).
44. N. Choi and J. E. Harvey, “Numerical validation of the Generalized
Harvey-Shack surface scatter theory,” Opt. Eng. 52, 115103 (2013).
45. N. Choi and J. E. Harvey, “Image degradation due to surface scatter
in the presence of aberrations,” Appl. Opt. 51, 535–546 (2012).
46. J. E. Harvey, “Integrating optical fabrication and metrology into the
optical design process,” Appl. Opt. 54, 2224–2233 (2015).