Fast evaluation of surface sensitivity on ghost

Beate Boehme, Carl Zeiss AG, Corporate Research & Technology, Location Jena, Carl-Zeiss-
Promenade 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

ABSTRACT

Real optical systems are often suffering from false light caused by ghosts. In particular single reflections are critical in
applications like reflected light illumination microscopy or confocal systems. The degradations of performance can be
bright spots in the image or contrast, signal to noise or dynamic range reduction. Thus in these systems the suppression
of first order reflections is important.
State of the art optical design software supports ray trace based ghost image analysis. The automatic generation of reflex
light paths is provided, but for systems with a large number of surfaces the analysis of all ghost light paths is time-
consuming. Conventional Monte Carlo based non sequential ray trace sums up the reflections of all surfaces simul-
taneously. To achieve high accuracy a huge number of rays is necessary, what results in long computational time,
especially if the distinction of surface influences needs multiple calculations.
In this paper a fast method is proposed for the ranking of ghosts. It was developed for single reflections in centered
optical systems. For each surface the ghost light path is calculated with paraxial and real ray trace. The ghost diameter
and the corresponding illumination NA are calculated. Usually the distance of the reflex focus to the image is used as
criterion to access the importance of a ghost. Here we use the power of the ghost ray bundle. It is compared with the
signal strength and listed for all surfaces generating a ghost.
So in one step a surface contribution of reflex powers as well as an estimation of total flux of reflected light is obtained.
Due to the fact, that only a few rays have to be calculated, the method is rather fast. The accuracy can be estimated by
comparison of paraxial and marginal ray trace.
In the proposed method, some assumptions and approximations are made. They are assessed in respect to some practical
examples, and by comparison with full brute force non-sequential ray trace. The usefulness of the fast tool is evaluated.
Keywords: ghost, false light, single reflections, reflex analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
The notations stray light, glare, flare, false or ghost light are used in various meanings. All words cite unwanted light in
an optical system, what was not intended in the design. It may be from the intended source, but following paths other
than intended, or come from other secondary light sources. It will limit the performance of the system.
On the other hand in photography it is sometimes seen as a means of art, if multiple images of the aperture stop with
their fins become visible in the image plane, and emphasize the darkness of the scene. The so called Bouqet or aperture
ghosts are formed by lens flare, created by double reflections of light at refracting lens surfaces, if dark scenes contain
bright light sources or details. They are discussed to emerge from reflections in the rear part of the lens between the stop
and the image, and it’s well known in photography, that they may be minimized by antireflection coatings. Reflections in
the front part of the lens are known to cause veiling glare, what covers large areas of the image and reduces the contrast
[1,2]. They are minimized in photography by hoods.
In technical applications with low light levels like astronomy, spectroscopy, fiber sensors, or microscopy all types of
unwanted light disturb the image. Further systems with critical reflex paths are laser systems, where reflex light may
cause lens material damage, if it is focused inside the lenses, or disturb the source stability.
Figure 1 shows a systematic of reasons for unwanted light. It is limited here to the surfaces of the optical elements, for
mechanical parts it would be similar.
*beate.boehme@zeiss.com

Optical Systems Design 2015: Optical Design and Engineering VI, edited by Laurent Mazuray,
Rolf Wartmann, Andrew P. Wood, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626, 96260O · © 2015
SPIE · CCC code: 0277-786X/15/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.2191509

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-1

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 Figure (1a) illustrates stray light. It is caused by diffuse disturbance of incoming beams at imperfect surfaces, whereby
the direction of a single incoming ray is split into a plurality of beams with different directions, which are defined
statistically by the scattering angle characteristic [3]. It may occur at optical surfaces (refracting, reflecting, diffracting),
but also at mechanical parts. It is minimized by polishing or mechanical design. Figure (1b) also shows false light, what
emerges from a lens side face, and for which no clear wording is used in literature. Due to the well-defined light path it
may be analyzed by ray trace in principle, but needs a fixed lens drawing.
For simulation and evaluation of the situations (1a) and (1b) Monte Carlo statistical methods and non-sequential ray
trace (NSQ) is available in Zemax, Code V, ASAP, FRED or TracePro [4]. Due to the statistics huge number of rays and
large calculation times are necessary [5,6]

c0 1 ;1-9-,1
Figure 1. Systematic of unwanted light paths: (a) stray light, (b) reflections at lens edges, (c,e) double reflections in
light transmitting systems: (c) reflection at the sensor surface and single reflection at intended lens surface (e) double
reflections at intended lens surfaces (d) intended use of reflected light system and (f) reflex path of (d).

A reflected light system is depicted in figure (1c). Here the detection is done in reverse direction to illumination, called
epi-illumination. In reflected light microscopy, laser scanner, disk player or interferometer systems the light source and
the sensor are separated by a beam splitter, in fiber sensor systems the beam splitter is omitted. Sketch (1d) illustrates a
related reflex path. It is obvious, that the number of single reflex paths equals the number of surfaces. Figures (1e) and
(1f) show the most critical reflex paths for transmitting light systems: These are double reflections at glass-air surfaces
(1f) or paths containing the sensor itself (1e). For N surfaces there are 1 /2 double reflex paths possible [7].
Paraxial analysis of ghost paths was described by Smith [8] and extended by Maksoud [9,10]. They calculated the ghost
focus, caused by a single point source with paraxial ray trace. Due to the extension of the light cone with the square of
the distance to the focal plane the illuminance in the image plane [W/mm²] was calculated, and the ghost next to the
image was considered as most serious.
Zemax delivers a ghost focus generator [11], which assembles the light paths for sequential ray trace of single and
second order ghosts. But the assessment of all these data is time-consuming. For double reflections also a merit function
operand is available, which offers the distance between ghost foci and image plane as criterion. For single ghosts no tool
is available.
The goal in this paper was a fast tool, to rank and evaluate first order ghosts in centered optical systems. As an input for
lens design the identification and visualization of critical surfaces was needed, to get a quick idea for optimization. Here
paraxial and real ray trace with a simplified model was used. The calculation and graphical representation of the ghosts
as well as the assumptions are discussed in section 2. The implementation, which was realized with a Zemax-Makro, is
explained briefly in chapter 3. The method is applied to two versions of a laser beam expander in section 4, and
discussed in respect to ray trace. In chapter 5 the results are compared with non- sequential ray trace. In the next step the
method is applied to an epi-illumination microscopic lens.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-2

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 2. METHOD FOR RANKING OF GHOSTS

We consider a system, which is illuminated with a source with the numerical aperture NA = sin(u), and a detector with
the corresponding acceptance aperture NA’ = sin(u’) and diameter 2r’ in image space assuming circular symmetry. The
situation is depicted in figure 2 for a transmitted light system. Light from a reflex path number i forms an image point,
which illuminates the image plane with a light cone. For large defocus of the point source image it is reasonable, to
assume a uniform illuminated cone, which has the aperture NA’i = sin(u’i ) and the radius r’i in the nominal image
plane.

2r'

Figure 2: (A) Intended light path and (B) ghost path, causing a defocused light cone in the nominal image plane

With conservation of energy the detector with the acceptance aperture NA’ and the radius r’ would measure the power

2 2
A'  r'   NA' 
Pi  P    P    P , (1)
A'i  r 'i   NA'i 

of the i-th ghost. Here r’i describes the interception point and NA’i the incidence angle of the marginal ray in the image
plane, which is caused by illumination with the source or acceptance NA of the system. The data r’i and NA’i can be
calculated from paraxial raytrace by scaling up the paraxial results to the aperture rim. In this paraxial approximation no
light losses occur.
But the trace of a real marginal ray may be faded out at the rim of the pupil due to vignetting at the lens edges, and
conservation of energy is violated. Thus in a second step a ray aiming is needed to get the real interception points. A
marginal ray with a step by step increasing start angle ui is traced, as long as no vignetting occurs. So the real marginal
ray ends up with the start angle uiv and NAiv = sin(uiv) as depicted in figure 2, the interception r’i is reduced to r’iv.
Because the factor r’i to r’iv goes linear with the aperture NA to NAiv , the power ratio in equation (1) must be rescaled
by the vignetting factor
2
 NA 
Vi   iv  . (2)
 NA 
Taking into account the reflectivity Ri of the surfaces (for double reflections Ri=RmRn), which cause the ghost, and the
transmission Ti of the ghost system we get for the real ray trace the ratio
2
 r '   NA 
2
Pi
 Ri  Ti      iv  (3)
P  r 'iv   NA 
between the power of the ghost path and the intended path. The total power of all reflex paths is
2
 r '   NAiv 
N N 2

Pges   Pi  P   Ri  Ti       . (4)
i 1 i 1  r 'iv   NA 
In the logarithmic scale we get the surface-resolved attenuation

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-3

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 P  r' 
  20 log iv  .
NA
Di  10 log10  i   10 log Ri  10 log Ti  20  log (5)
P  r 'iv   NA 
For a fast ranking of critical surfaces the contribution due to Ri, Ti can be neglected or taken into account in a second fine
tuning step, especially if all surfaces are similar. The following estimation shows the effects for single bounce ghosts:
For instance an equal reflectivity of all surfaces R=Ri causes an even offset of all values in equation (5), with uncoated
BK7-air surfaces at 550nm we get R=4,2% and 14dB offset. AR-coatings with R=1% correspond to 20dB offset. The
transmission is T=(1-R) per surface. Without absorption we get Ti=(1-R)2(i-1) for forward and backward propagation to
the reflex surface i. For a system with 10 BK7-surfaces (5 lenses) and a ghost at the 11th surface the forward propagation
has T=(1-R)10=65% transmission, and backward arrive T11=(1-Ri)20 =42% in summary, what corresponds to 3,7dB. With
AR-coatings and R=1% we get T11=82% double path transmission and 0,9dB attenuation by transmission.
Thus in summary the attenuation (5) increases by an equal offset for all surfaces due to reflectivity and increases very
slightly with the ghost surface number i due to transmission losses.
The reference radius r’ and the acceptance aperture NA depend on application. The values will not change the ranking,
and act also as an offset in equation (5). This points out, that the attenuation will increase, if only a small solid angle is
detected, or otherwise is zero, if the complete half-space is detected.
If the detector radius is set to the image field size, and the full aperture is accepted, the calculated value (5) will have
negative sign, if reflex diameter is less than the field. So a concentration of reflex light can be identified. If the detector
radius is chosen nearly the Airy-unit on the other hand, and the reflex is at the nominal image, the results may oscillate
around zero due to spherical aberration. This is indicated by a large difference between the results of paraxial and real
raytrace. This illustrates, that the calculation is well suited for large defoci of the ghost images, what is true for pre-
optimized systems usually.
In the next chapters the application of the method is described for single bounce ghosts in a monomode fiber optic
system as an illustrative example. Here the fiber output acts as a point source in the wording of ray optic, because the
core diameter is usually 6µm and the numerical aperture is NA=0,1. The light is intentionally imaged from the source to
the sample plane, and back to the fiber. So the detector radius is set to r’=0,003mm and the NA=NA’=0,1.
In respect to the description of the propagation of Gaussian laser modes from and back to the fiber, the data describe the
radius and divergence of the laser waist. Here again the concentration of energy at the center of the Gaussian beam are
described by a constant offset of the attenuation values, and attenuation will only be disturbed for conjugated ghost
images by oscillations around zero. The intended forward and backward imaging has zero attenuation, and equation (5)
describes the attenuation of ghost signals directly. The calculation of the nominal imaging may be used as a control, but
here paraxial and real results may vary due to aberrations.

3. NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR SINGLE BOUNCE GHOSTS

The calculation was implemented in a Zemax ZPL-macro. At the first step the reflex system is generated, similar to the
procedure given in the Zemax “make double path” command. All data are given by pick up’s from the original system,
including surface apertures. So the reflex calculations are started with the whole double path system. After calculation of
this first reflex system, the next surface with a switch of material before the mirror is searched, and the next reflex
system is assembled and calculated by ray trace. This procedure is repeated, until all surfaces are taken into account.

For each system at first a quasi-paraxial marginal ray is traced. Quasi-Paraxial means, that a marginal ray with NA/100 is
traced. The ray interception point and incident angle is calculated and rescaled as result of paraxial ray trace.
The next step contains a ray aiming. The marginal ray angle is increased step by step, until vignetting occurs, or until the
intended NA is met. Thus from this step the real marginal ray at the object and at the image is given. Additionally the ray
trace returns the surface number mi of the ghost path, which causes the vignette at the backward propagation. The surface
number ki of the intended system is given from
ki = 2i – mi +1.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-4

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 The start and incidence angles at the object and image planes, and the ray intercept coordinates are stored. At the last
step the power ratios (1,3) are calculated for paraxial and real ray trace. As result of the algorithm the ghost attenuations
(5) are plotted in a bar graph for quick evaluation, and total flux is given.

4. EXAMPLE FOR SINGLE BOUNCE GHOSTS

As an example the ghosts for two versions of a 4x laser beam expander [12] were calculated. The layouts are shown in
Figure 3. For both versions the same fiber collimator was added (surface 2-3) to generate the NA 0.1 with diameter
5mm. The radii of curvature and distances are listed in the table, all lenses have refractive index n = 1,52. The direction
of bending is depicted with the symbols, where “(“ indicates, that the center of curvature is after the surface, and “)”
indicates the center before the surface. The marginal ray incidence angles are plotted in the bar diagram below the
layouts. Version I (left) contains two more concentric curved menisci, all incidence angles are less than 10°. Version II
(right) has intentionally reduced ghosts due to the higher incidence angles of the marginal ray at the large group, at
surface 8 these are 38°.

Version I Version II

10 40
incidence angle [°]
8
30
6
20
4
10
2

Surf 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9
[mm] ) ( ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ( )
Rad -18.86 25.29 -80.72 -39.56 -276.55 -69.75 -47.60 15.83 -211.04 28.89 31.33 -36.90
Thic 2 51.88 4 7.11 4 2 58.95 2 1 5
100 100
real paraxial Version I Attenuation [dB] real paraxial  Ver II
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 3: 4x Telescope for test of reflex algorithms. At Version I (left) two menisci, at Version II (right) splitted
doublet: First row: 2-D layout, 2nd row: marginal ray incidence angles at the surfaces 4 to 9 in degree [°], surface
radii and thickness in mm, 4rd row: attenuation of ghost signals Di [dB], calculated with paraxial ray trace and with
real marginal ray trace and consideration of vignetting.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-5

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 At the button the logarithmic attenuation per surface is plotted as calculated with the algorithm described in chapter 3.
The factors for transmission and reflectivity are not accounted, eg. numerically was Ri=Ti=1. The deviation between
paraxial and real ray trace was less than 0,3dB for all surfaces.
The attenuation in the rear part is higher for version II, what fits to the opposite bending. On the other hand the surface 4
in version II is worse than Version I. But this fits to the collimated beam input in both cases and the lower curvature in
version I. Also the attenuations of the last surfaces fit to the radii difference.
Both designs have a surface (6 or 4), where the attenuation is 57dB or 59dB. They limit the total attenuation, which is
calculated to 55dB (I) and 57dB (II) without collimator. This illustrates, that the most intensive ghost path limits the
performance of the whole system. The reflectivity Ri = 5% increases the attenuation to 68 and 70dB excluding the
transmission losses.
In figure 4 the results for version II are shown in more detail. The layout is repeated in figure 4B. The ghost at surface 4
(figure 4A) is rejected with completely. The light from surface 5 (figure 4C) is most vignetted by surface 3, what causes
the reduction of illumination NA’i depicted in figure (4E). For surfaces 7 to 9 the table in figure (4F) illustrates, how
paraxial ray trace over-scales the interception coordinates r’i and the image aperture NAi’ - these are pure numeric
values resulting from scaling. With the ray aiming the real reflex diameters can be revealed, and the ghost light
distribution in the image plane can be calculated additionally.

B
 

2 4
6789
D
J From vignette 100
from Vignette 120
from real
from real Raytrace
marginal ray 80
4
2 45
E
60

40

20
Rays vignetted at surface 4 20
4- Rays vignetted at surface 3 0
- Transmitted unvignetted rays
Surf no 44 55 66 77 88 99

new algorithm:
Paraxial ray trace Real ray trace Vignetting NSQ
Surf Attenuation Di [dB]
surface
r'i NAi’ r'iv NAiv NA’iv from ray from Vi Di
9 -54,0 1,06 -1,69 0,003 0,036 3 55 30 85 (82) 85
8 114,7 2,53 1,68 0,001 0,041 3 55 36 91 94
7 113,9 2,50 1,67 0,001 0,040 3 55 36 91 94
6 12,2 0,36 1,44 0,012 0,045 3 54 18 72 71
5 13,7 0,03 2,33 0,017 0,009 3 58 15 73 72
4 -2,6 0,12 -2,22 0,089 0,105 0 (fiber) 58 (1) 59 58

Figure 4: (B) Telescope Version II (as figure 3B) and (A) ghost light paths caused by surface 4 without vignetting
at lens surfaces. (C) Ghost from surface 5, illuminated with the nominal aperture and vignette at backward
propagation and (E) with reduced illumination aperture. (D) Attenuation of all ghost paths Di [dB] with separated
amounts from real marginal ray trace and vignetting-rescale. (F) Comparison of paraxial and real trace of marginal
ray with not plausible paraxial results and non-sequential results from chapter 5 in the last column.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-6

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 5. RESULTS WITH NON SEQUENTIAL RAYTRACE

The non-sequential analysis was also performed with Zemax for both versions of the telescope. The layout of the NSQ-
File is shown in Figure 5A. The fiber with NA 0.1 was modeled as a source point with cone angle 5.74°, an absorbing
aperture before the collimator was used as aperture stop for ghost light. A 20x20mm detector rectangle was added at the
object plane for comparison with the ray trace results. The total power at the fiber was collected with a detector surface
with 6µm diameter. The front and back lens surfaces were assumed with 5% reflectivity, side faces are absorbing. Source
power was 1W. The trace of 100Mio rays took 8 minutes.
The results are summarized in figure 5 for both whole telescopes. The total attenuation, calculated with the new
sequential ray trace model is given in the first two rows of the table. It was calculated according to equations (4) and (5),
taking the reflectivity R=5% and transmission losses Ti=(1-Ri)2(i-1) into account as described in chapter 2.
The non-sequential results are calculated with two methods from the data of the two detectors, indicating their accuracy.
It can be seen, that the difference between the results of sequential and non-sequential ray trace is about 1dB, what is in
the order of the accuracy of the non-sequential results itself.
To get surface resolved results also in the NSQ ray trace, the NSQ calculation was repeated with modified data. Step by
step the lens faces were switched to act as mirrors, with all other surfaces with ideal coatings. The numeric results are
added in the table in figure 4 at the last column. To assess the accuracy, for the first row an over-nigh-calculation was
done. Here the NSQ result match to the ray trace. All other calculations were done in some minutes. The comparison
shows, that especially for strong attenuations high computational effort is necessary, and can be avoided by the
sequential approach.

A 
Annulu s

Fiber -Source
Fiber -Detector

Detector 1

Collimator
Aperture stop

B      Version I   Version II 
  new model:  paraxial        71,8  72,2 
  sequential ray trace    real               72,1  72,8 
  Power at fiber [W]  5,357e‐8  4,99e‐8 
NSQ   total attenuation D [dB]   72,7  73,0 
Peak irradiance at Detector 1  0,274  0,2918 
[W/cm²] 
 total attenuation D [dB]  71,1  70,8 
 
Figure 5: (A) NSQ-Model of Version II Telescope. (B) Comparison of total attenuation, calculated with non-
sequential ray trace (NSQ) and new sequential ray trace. All results with 5% reflectivity.

6. EPI-ILLUMINATION MICROSCOPE
As a more complex system a microscopic lens in a reflected light microscope with a Koehler illumination is evaluated.
The example illustrates the extension of the algorithm to systems, where illumination and detection are separated by a
beam splitter. The principle of a reflected light microscope is depicted in figure 6. For an ideal Koehler illumination
collimated beams propagate from the illumination aperture to the objective pupil. It is obvious, that reflections at
surfaces with low curvatures here cause hot spots in the image, especially if low light levels are rejected from the object
plane. Because image plane and field stop are conjugated planes, the ghost calculation can start here and use unit
magnification.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-7

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 Image

Tube Illumination  
Field Aperture
Relay
stop  stop 

Objective
Aperture Microscope
objective
Sample

Figure 6: Principle layout of a reflected light microscope with Koehler illumination

8‐9
A 

14‐15‐16   
10 ‐11‐12‐13 17‐18 
5‐6‐7 
B  30
Incidence
20 angle [°]
10

0
C  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
25

20
real paraxial US
15

10

0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
‐5

‐10

‐15
Figure 7: (A) layout of the low-magnification apochromatic microscope objective,
(B) marginal incidence angles per surface, (C) calculated attenuation

As example a low magnification objective lens [13] with apochromatic correction was analyzed, what was designed to be
parfocal with objectives with high magnification. The layout is shown in figure 7A, it has 2x magnification and NA 0.1.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-8

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

 It is infinity-corrected, e.g. the incident beams at surface 5 are collimated, and telecentric at surface 19. The aperture stop
is at surface 7. A tube lens with focal length f=200mm and diameter 40mm was added to get the 2x magnification
(surfaces 1-3, not shown), although also a paraxial lens can be used in the algorithm.
The marginal ray incidence angles are shown in figure 7B. The surfaces with low incidence angels are critical
candidates. As a reference for the reflex ranking the whole etendue with field diameter 25mm and NA 0,05 was used.
The calculated attenuation per surface is shown in figure 7C. As discussed in chapter 2 the reference is shifted, and
attenuating and amplifying surfaces occur. For surface 19, the image plane as reflecting surface, 64dB and 53dB
amplification was calculated, what illustrates the diffraction-limited performance as well conjugation of planes. Surface
17 is the most critical surface, because the reflected light is focused, and nearly re-collimated at the backward
propagation through the back part of the objective. Surface 18 acts similar, but with their stronger bending toward the
image the light cone diameter is larger, what corresponds to the calculated less critical value. For surface 7 and 9 paraxial
and real ray trace results differ more, what indicates a higher uncertainty of calculation. It is recommended to estimate
this path in more detail. Here the difference is caused by spherical aberration of the ghost and nearly no vignetting.
As a summary the example points out, that in this microscopic lens the front group is the most critical part. Further the
example demonstrates, that for lens designs with strong bendings real ray trace and more detailed analysis is necessary,
whereas the algorithm presented here delivers a fast ranking of critical surfaces.

7. CONCLUSION

The paper presents a fast algorithm for evaluation of surface contribution of ghosts for centered optical systems. It is
realized here for first order ghosts, and tested at some example designs. The data handling is automated, so no
assembling of ghost paths is necessary. It takes 10seconds, to calculate the surface contribution of 20 ghosts.
Because only a ray aiming is necessary per surface, it needs less than 100 ray traces for 1% accuracy. In comparison a
brute force non-sequential ray trace needs at least 100.000 rays, if 1/1000 attenuation is to be calculated with 1%
accuracy. The assembling of files and surface resolved calculations need additional effort. In addition the influences of
lens bending, vignetting and coatings is separable as an input for optimization.
Thus this sequential tool is very fast and well suited for lens design in an intermediate engineering step.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Matsuda, T. Nitoh, “Flare as Applied to Photographic Lenses”, Appl. Opt 11 (8), 1850-1856, (1972)
[2] G. Kuwabara „On the flare of lenses“, JOSA 43 (1), 53-57
[3] R. Breault, „Control of stray light“, in Handbook of Optics Vol. 2, M. Baas, ed, McGRaw-Hill, (2010)
[4] E. Fest, “Stray light Analysis and Control”, SPIE press, Bellingham, Washington (2013), ISBN 978-0-8194-
9325-5, doi:10.1117/3.1000980
[5] G. L. Peterson, “Stray light calculation methods with optical raytrace software”, Proc. SPIE 3780, Optical Design
and Analysis Software, 132 (1999), doi:10.1117/12.363770
[6] J.-C. Perrin, “Analysis of stray light in most complex situations”, Proc. SPIE 6667, Current Developments in
Lens Design and Optical Engineering VIII, 66670J, (2007), doi:10.1117/12.734595
[7] A. E. Murray, “Reflected Light Ghosts in Optical Systems”, JOSA 39(1), 30-35 (1949)
[8] G. Smith, “Veiling glare due to reflections from component surfaces: The paraxial approximation”, Opt. Act. 18
(11), 815-827 (1971)
[9] R. Maksoud, J. Sasian, “Paraxial ghost image analysis” Proc. SPIE 7428, 742807 (2009), doi:10.1117/12.828564
[10] R. Maksoud, J. Sasian, “Modeling and analyzing ghost images for incoherent optical systems” Appl. Opt. 50 (15)
2305-2315, doi 136706
[11] Zemax User’s Manual, “Ghost focus generator”, Radiant Zemax manual (2013) 299
[12] M.-J. Kidger, “Intermediate optical design”, 122-123, SPIE press, Bellingham, Washington (2004), ISBN 0-8194-
5217-3
[13] K. Watanabe (inventor), Nikon Corporation (assignee), US patent document US5774272A, June 30, 1999

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9626 96260O-9

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx