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

net/publication/338520535

Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II: parametric diffraction

efficiency of sinusoidal reflection (holographic) gratings

Article in Optical Engineering · January 2020

DOI: 10.1117/1.OE.59.1.017103

CITATIONS READS

9 1,679

2 authors, including:

James Harvey
University of Central Florida
205 PUBLICATIONS 3,319 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Harvey on 17 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Understanding diffraction grating
behavior, part II: parametric
diffraction efficiency of sinusoidal
reflection (holographic) gratings

James E. Harvey
Richard N. Pfisterer

James E. Harvey, Richard N. Pfisterer, “Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II:
parametric diffraction efficiency of sinusoidal reflection (holographic) gratings,” Opt. Eng. 59(1),
017103 (2020), doi: 10.1117/1.OE.59.1.017103.

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Optical Engineering 59(1), 017103 (January 2020)

Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II:

parametric diffraction efficiency of sinusoidal
reflection (holographic) gratings
James E. Harvey* and Richard N. Pfisterer
Photon Engineering, LLC, Tucson, Arizona, United States

Abstract. With the widespread availability of electromagnetic (vector) analysis codes for describing the diffrac-
tion of electromagnetic waves by periodic grating structures, the insight and understanding of nonparaxial
parametric diffraction grating behavior afforded by approximate methods (i.e., scalar diffraction theory) is being
ignored in the education of most optical engineers today. We show that the linear systems formulation of non-
paraxial scalar diffraction theory enables the development of a scalar parametric diffraction grating model [for
transverse electric (TE) polarization] for sinusoidal reflection gratings with arbitrary groove depths and arbitrary
nonparaxial incident and diffracted angles. This scalar parametric analysis is remarkably accurate as it includes
the ability to redistribute the energy from evanescent orders into the propagating ones, thus allowing the cal-
culation of nonparaxial diffraction efficiencies to be predicted with an accuracy usually thought to require rigorous
electromagnetic theory. These scalar parametric predictions of diffraction efficiency are compared to paraxial
scalar and rigorous electromagnetic (vector) predictions for a variety of nonparaxial diffraction grating configu-
rations, thus providing quantitative limits of applicability of nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory to sinusoidal
reflection gratings as a function of the grating period-to-wavelength ratio (λ∕d ). © 2020 Society of Photo-Optical
Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) [DOI: 10.1117/1.OE.59.1.017103]
Keywords: sinusoidal phase gratings; scalar parametric nonparaxial diffraction grating efficiency model; generalization of the classical
paraxial expression for diffraction efficiency of sinusoidal reflection gratings.
Paper 191193 received Aug. 26, 2019; accepted for publication Dec. 6, 2019; published online Jan. 9, 2020.

1 Introduction for sinusoidal reflection (phase) gratings with arbitrary

This paper is intended to be an extension of Ref. 1 in which
(1) elementary diffraction grating behavior was reviewed,
(2) the importance of maintaining consistency in the sign
convention for the planar diffraction grating equation was
emphasized, (3) the advantages of discussing “conical” dif-
fraction grating behavior in terms of the direction cosines of
the incident and diffracted angles were demonstrated, and
(4) the general grating equation for obliquely incident
beams and arbitrarily oriented gratings was presented and
discussed. “Paraxial” grating behavior for coarse gratings
(d ≫ λ) was then derived and displayed graphically for
five elementary grating types: sinusoidal amplitude gra-
tings, square-wave amplitude gratings, sinusoidal phase
gratings, square-wave phase gratings, and classical blazed
gratings. Paraxial diffraction efficiencies were calculated,
tabulated, and compared for these five elementary grating
types. A linear systems formulation of “nonparaxial scalar
diffraction theory”2–4 was then briefly reviewed and used
to predict the nonparaxial behavior [for transverse electric
(TE) polarization] of both the sinusoidal and the square-
wave amplitude transmission gratings when the þ1 dif-
fracted order is maintained in the Littrow condition. This
nonparaxial behavior included the well-known Rayleigh
(Wood’s) anomaly effects.5 Scalar theory is widely thought
to be unable to predict these Rayleigh anomalies.6
In this paper, we show how this linear systems formu-
lation of nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory allows the
development of a scalar parametric diffraction grating model
groove depths and arbitrary nonparaxial incident and dif-
fracted angles.7 This scalar parametric analysis is remarkably
accurate as it includes the ability to redistribute the energy
from evanescent orders into the propagating ones, thus
allowing the calculation of nonparaxial diffraction efficien-
cies to be predicted with an accuracy usually thought to
require rigorous electromagnetic (vector) theory. These sca-
lar parametric predictions of diffraction efficiency compare
well with rigorous predictions for a variety of nonparaxial
diffraction grating configurations. Special attention is
devoted to quantitatively discussing the limits of applicabil-
ity of the presented results as a function of the grating period-
to-wavelength ratio (λ∕d).
Since the late 1960s, holographic gratings, fabricated by
the exposure of photoresist by a stationary sinusoidal inter-
ference fringe field, have become commonplace.8,9 The pho-
toresist substrate is chemically developed after exposure to
produce a master holographic grating with sinusoidal groove
profiles. These master holographic gratings are routinely
coated and replicated, as are master ruled gratings.
Prior to the widespread use of holographic gratings for a
variety of different applications, the diffraction characteris-
tics of sinusoidal phase gratings were of interest primarily
because other groove profiles (lamellar and blazed gratings)
can be Fourier analyzed into a superposition of sinusoidal
profiles.10 Likewise, arbitrary (random) scattering surfaces
are routinely modeled as a superposition of sinusoidal
surfaces of different amplitudes, periods, orientations, and
phases.11–14 Therein lies one of the motivations for writing

*Address all correspondence to James E. Harvey, E-mail: jimh@photonengr

.com 0091-3286/2020/$28.00 © 2020 SPIE

Optical Engineering 017103-1 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .

   
this paper: if one does not thoroughly understand the non- pffiffiffiffiffiffi r a
paraxial diffraction behavior of a single sinusoidal reflection tA ðx1 ; y1 Þ ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e001;326;752 E0 Gaus 1 exp i sinð2πx1 ∕dÞ ; (1)
b 2
grating, then there is little chance of understanding the wide-
angle scatter behavior of random rough surfaces. where
In Sec. 2 of this paper, we derive the well-known classical
expression of the (monochromatic) diffraction efficiency of     2  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r r
a coarse (d ≫ λ) sinusoidal reflection grating with arbitrary Gaus 1 ¼ exp −π 1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e002;326;705 and r1 ¼ x21 þ y21 ;
b b
groove depth as predicted by classical scalar diffraction
theory for paraxial incident and diffracted angles.15 This (2)
detailed derivation was not included in Refs. 1, 7, or even
15. We also look at the well-known approximation of that where E0 is the peak irradiance of the incident Gaussian
expression for “shallow” (smooth) sinusoidal reflection gra- beam. We have ignored a factor representing the average
tings and quantitatively evaluate how shallow is shallow phase delay through the grating. The parameter a represents
enough for that approximation to be valid. In addition we the “peak-to-peak excursion of the sinusoidal phase variation
illustrate the diffracted intensity profile as a function of of the wavefront emerging from the grating.”15
both groove depth and diffraction angle as predicted by the The irradiance distribution produced by a Gaussian beam
paraxial model for a sinusoidal reflection grating of period in an arbitrary plane perpendicular to the propagation direc-
d ¼ 20λ operating at normal incidence and discuss its tion is given by the squared modulus of the complex ampli-
limitations. tude distribution in that plane
In Sec. 3, we review the linear systems formulation of  
r
nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory,2–4 which suggests a Eðr; zÞ ¼ jtA ðx; yÞj2 ¼ E0 Gaus2
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e003;326;547: (3)
simple generalization of the classical paraxial parametric b
expression for the diffraction efficiency of sinusoidal reflec-
tion gratings. This nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory The total radiant power in the Gaussian beam is obtained by
enables the formulation of a parametric diffraction grating integrating the irradiance over that perpendicular plane
model for sinusoidal reflection (phase) gratings with arbi- Z Z  
trary groove depths and arbitrary nonparaxial incident and 2π ∞ r
PT ¼ E0 Gaus2
rdr dφ: (4)
diffracted angles.
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e004;326;478

φ¼0 r¼0 b
In Sec. 4, we generalize the classical paraxial parametric
expression for diffraction efficiency to include arbitrary As described in Ref. 18 (p. 421),
groove depth and nonparaxial incident and diffraction
  pffiffiffi 
angles. This exercise will provide insight into the nature r 2r
of the proper obliquity factor not only for nonparaxial dif- Gaus2 ¼ Gaus :
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e005;326;421 (5)
b b
fraction grating phenomena but also for a general wide-angle
surface scatter theory.13,14,16,17 Likewise, as shown in Ref. 18 (p. 74), the volume under
In Sec. 5, we compare the diffraction efficiencies pre- Gauss(r∕d) is equal to d2 .
dicted by the classical paraxial expression, the generalized The relationship between the total radiant power of the
scalar nonparaxial parametric expression, and rigorous laser beam and the peak irradiance in a given plane
electromagnetic (vector) diffraction theory for a variety of perpendicular to its propagation is thus given as
nonparaxial diffraction grating configurations. A summary,
statement of conclusions, and an extensive set of references b2
then completes the paper. PT ¼ E : (6)
2 0
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e006;326;320

2 Derivation of the Classical Expression for Making use of the Bessel function identity15 provided by
the Paraxial Efficiency of Sinusoidal Eq. (7)
Phase Gratings
  X∞  
We will first derive the well-known classical paraxial expres- a a
exp i sinð2πx1 ∕dÞ ¼ Jm expði2πmx1 ∕dÞ;
sion of the (monochromatic) diffraction efficiency of para-
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e007;326;255

2 m¼−∞
2
xial (d ≫ λ) sinusoidal reflection gratings with arbitrary
groove depth by using classical scalar diffraction theory. (7)
We will assume that the grating is illuminated by a small where Jm is a Bessel function of the first kind, order m, and
two-dimensional radially symmetric Gaussian laser beam the fact that the exponential function Fourier transforms into
of width b (radius at which the field drops to e−π of its peak a shifted delta function,18 we can apply the convolution theo-
value) that underfills the oversized physical grating. rem and write the Fourier transform of Eq. (1) as
X ∞   
2.1 For Arbitrary Groove Depth, Normal Incidence, a
and Paraxial Diffraction Angles F ftA ðx1 ; y1 Þg ¼ Jm δðξ − m∕d; ηÞ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e008;326;152

m¼−∞
2
Using the symbolic notation for special functions popular- pffiffiffiffiffiffi
ized by Goodman15 and Gaskill,18 the complex amplitude   E0 b2 GausðbρÞ; (8)
transmittance (reflectance) function of a perfectly reflecting pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sinusoidal phase grating illuminated as described above can where ρ ¼ ξ2 þ η2 , and the spatial frequencies ξ and η are
be expressed as the reciprocal variables to x and y, respectively.

Optical Engineering 017103-2 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .

Owing to the replicating property of the delta function and the diffracted orders are approximately rotationally
under convolution,18 this can be written as an infinite array symmetric and centered. Hence we can go back to radial
of scaled and shifted Gaussian functions: coordinates
     
pffiffiffiffiffiffi X ∞
Eo b4 X
∞
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e009;63;719

a 2 a 2 br2
F ftA ðx1 ; y1 Þg ¼ E0 b 2 Jm Gaus½bðξ − m∕d; ηÞ: E2 ðx2 ; y2 Þ ≈ 2 2 Jm Gaus : (14)
2 λ f m¼−∞ λf
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e014;326;719

m¼−∞ 2
(9)
Again from Eq. (5), this can be written as
If the grating is placed immediately behind an aberration-   pffiffiffi 
Eo b4 X
∞
2 a 2br2
free positive lens of focal length f with the beam waist E2 ðx2 ; y2 Þ ≈ 2 2 Jm Gaus : (15)
λ f m¼−∞ λf
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e015;326;661

located at the lens as shown in Fig. 1, the Fraunhofer diffrac- 2

tion pattern appearing in the focal plane is given as15
 2 The radiant power in the m’th diffracted order is obtained
  by integrating the irradiance distribution of the m’th order
1  
over all space in the x2 − y2 plane:
E2 ðx2 ; y2 Þ ¼ 2 2 F ftA ðx1 ; y1 Þgj ξ ¼ x ∕λf  : (10)
λ f 
η ¼ y2 ∕λf 
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e010;63;611

2
 Z Z ∞ pffiffiffi 
Eo b4 2 a 2π 2br2
Pm ¼ 2 2 J m Gaus rdr dϕ:
λ f λf
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e016;326;579

From Eq. (10) the irradiance distribution on the focal 2 ϕ¼0 r¼0
plane can be written as (16)

E2 ðx2 ; y2 Þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e011;63;529 But as shown in Ref. 18, this integral is just equal to
 2 λ2 f 2 ∕2b2 , and hence
 ∞   
Eo b 4  X a   
¼ 2 2 Jm Gaus½bðξ − m∕d; ηÞj  ; b2
λ f  m¼−∞ 2 ξ ¼ x2 ∕λf  Pm ¼ Eo Jm 2 a
: (17)
η ¼ y2 ∕λf
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e017;326;497

2 2
(11)
Dividing Eq. (17) by Eq. (6), the diffraction efficiency of
or, evaluating this function at spatial frequencies ξ ¼ x2 ∕λf the m’th diffracted order of a sinusoidal phase grating oper-
and η ¼ y2 ∕λf, we obtain ating with normal incidence and paraxial diffracted angles
(θi ¼ 0, d ≫ λ) is given as
 ∞     2
Eo b4  X a b mλf   
E2 ðx2 ;y2 Þ¼ 2 2  Jm Gaus x2 − ;y2  : Pm 2 a
λ f m¼−∞ λf ηm ¼ ¼ RJ m
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e012;63;415

2 d ;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e018;326;407 (18)
PT 2
(12)
where R is the reflectance of the reflection grating material
Since the size of the incident beam is large compared to the and a represents the peak-to-peak excursion of the sinusoidal
grating period (b ≫ d), there is a negligible overlap between phase variation of the wavefront emerging from the grating.
the individual Gaussian functions (diffracted orders). Thus, The phase variation induced upon the reflected wavefront
there are no cross terms in the squared modulus of the above by the surface variation of the grating is given by 2π∕λ times
summation, hence the optical path difference (OPD) of the reflected wavefront
     from one reflected by the mean surface shown in Fig. 2.7 The
E b4 X ∞
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e013;63;299

a b mλf
E2 ðx2 ;y2 Þ ¼ 2o 2 J2m Gaus2 x2 − ;y2 : total groove depth (peak to peak) of the sinusoidal surface is
λ f m¼−∞ 2 λf d equal to h. The surface height variation and the correspond-
ing reflected wavefront are illustrated as a function of x when
(13)
the grating grooves are aligned with the y axis:
For the current situation of normal incidence and paraxial  
2π nh 2π
diffracted orders (θi ¼ 0, d ≫ λ), the shift parameter in φðxÞ ¼ OPDðxÞ; OPDðxÞ ¼ sin x ; (19)
λ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e019;326;241

Eq. (13) can be neglected (i.e., diffraction angles are small) 2 d

Fig. 1 Geometry for producing a Fraunhofer diffraction pattern of an Fig. 2 Illustration of a normally incident plane wavefront reflected
aperture (or grating) in the back focal plane of a lens. from a sinusoidal reflection grating.

Optical Engineering 017103-3 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .
where n is the refractive index of the media adjacent to the
grating surface. If this media is air (n ¼ 1), the relative phase
variation is thus given as
 
hπ 2π
φðxÞ ¼ sin x : (20)
λ phase grating is equal to η1 ≡ 0.3386.
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e020;63;719
The parameter a in Eq. (18) that determines the diffraction
efficiency of the various diffracted orders is the peak-to-peak
excursion of the sinusoidal phase variation of the wavefront
emerging from the grating and, for paraxial incident and dif-
fracting angles, is thus equal to twice the peak amplitude of
the relative phase variation:
a ¼ 4πh∕λ:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e021;63;609
With Eqs. (18) and (21) we have derived the parametric
description for diffraction efficiency of paraxial (d ≫ λ)
sinusoidal reflection (phase) gratings operating at normal
incidence.
The conservation of energy is easily shown for a perfectly
conducting paraxial (d ≫ λ) reflection grating at normal
incidence because the sum over m from −∞ to ∞ of the
squared Bessel function in Eq. (18) is equal to unity.
Thus, we get the same expression for the diffracted effi-
ciency of the m’th diffracted order from a sinusoidal phase
grating as Goodman reported for normal incidence and para-
xial diffracted angles in the case of a perfectly conducting
(R ¼ 1) finite square grating illuminated by a unit amplitude
normally incident plane wave.15
2.2 Approximation for Diffraction Efficiency of
Shallow Sinusoidal Phase Gratings
In addition to being a paraxial (d ≫ λ) grating, if the sinus-
oidal reflection grating is also shallow (i.e., the groove depth
is much less than a wavelength of the incident light), then the
diffraction efficiency of the first orders of the sinusoidal
reflection grating can be approximated as
η1 ≡ J21 ða∕2Þ ≈ a2 ∕16:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e022;63;331
In Sec. 5.3 of Part I of this two-part paper,1 we provided
the expression in Eq. (18) without a detailed derivation and
graphically compared the diffraction efficiency of the first
diffracted orders as predicted by Eqs. (18) and (22). That
curve is duplicated here as Fig. 3, and it establishes that the
Fig. 3 Comparison of diffracted efficiency of a sinusoidal phase
grating as predicted by Eq. (18) and the common approximation for
shallow (smooth) gratings expressed in Eq. (22).
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
shallow grating approximation expressed in Eq. (22) is accu-
rate to within 1% for groove depths h < 0.03λ, or accurate to
within 5% for h < 0.07λ but has an error >10% for h > 0.1λ.
It also illustrates that the maximum diffraction efficiency that
can be achieved in the first order with a paraxial sinusoidal
2.3 Illustration and Discussion of the Paraxial
Diffracted Intensity Distribution and Its Limitations
Since the Fraunhofer diffraction integral implicitly contains
the paraxial approximation, by recalling our definitions of
radiometric quantities, we can write the diffracted intensity
distribution (radiant power per unit solid angle) emanating
(21)
from a sinusoidal phase grating of period d ≫ λ when illu-
minated by a narrow Gaussian beam as
X
∞  
b
Iðθx ; θy Þ ¼ I o J m ða∕2ÞGaus
2 2 ðθ − mλ∕d; θy Þ ;
λ x
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e023;326;582
m¼−∞
(23)
where a is the peak-to-peak phase excursion and b is the
radius of the Gaussian beam (radius at which the field drops
to e−π of its peak value).7
Figure 4 illustrates this diffracted intensity profile plotted
as a function of groove depth along the x axis and diffraction
angle along the y axis. The maximum value of J21 ða∕2Þ is
0.3386 and occurs for a ¼ 3.68, corresponding to a groove
depth of h ¼ 0.293λ. The diffraction efficiency of the first
few orders for this value of a are tabulated in Table 1.
Note that the energy falls off rapidly, with 99.88% of the
diffracted radiant power contained in diffracted orders
jmj ≤ 3. This paraxial model is accurate only for very coarse
gratings (d ≫ λ). This paraxial model, thus, leads to the
common misconception that it is impossible to get more than
33.86% of the incident energy into the first diffracted order
of a sinusoidal phase grating.
A simple thought experiment can prove this misconcep-
tion to be false. Suppose that we have a perfectly conducting
(22) grating with a normally incident beam. If you decrease the
grating period, the diffracted angles increase and the higher
orders eventually go evanescent. When only the 0 and 1
orders remain, changing the incident angle will cause the
−1 order to go evanescent. Then one can vary the groove
depth to squelch the energy in the zero order. For a perfectly
conducting sinusoidal reflectance grating, we can thus get
100% of the incident energy in the þ1 diffracted order.
Since there are now only two propagating orders, and there
is no energy in the 0’th order, “all” of the energy has to be
contained in the þ1 order. The maximum diffraction effi-
ciency of the first order for a perfectly conducting sinusoidal
reflection grating is therefore equal to unity, not 0.3386 as
predicted by the paraxial model.
If we use this paraxial model to describe the behavior of
fine (small spatial period) gratings whose diffracted orders
do not fall within the paraxial region, we will obtain incorrect
results that lead to a variety of other misconceptions. For
example: (1) the small angle approximation to the grating
equation inherent in Eq. (23) leads to the erroneous prediction
of equally spaced diffracted orders (in diffraction angle);1
(2) when a diffracted order of finite width is located near
90 deg, the predicted diffracted intensity (or irradiance)
017103-4 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .

Fig. 4 Diffracted intensity profile as a function of groove depth and diffraction angle as predicted for
a sinusoidal reflection grating of period d ¼ 20λ operating at normal incidence.

Table 1 Diffraction efficiencies. spatial variables are normalized by the wavelength of

light:2

Order # Efficiencies EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e024;326;463 x^ ¼ x∕λ; y^ ¼ y∕λ; z^ ¼ z∕λ; etc: (24)

0 1.003 × 10−1
The reciprocal variables in Fourier transform space are
1 3.386 × 10−1 then precisely the direction cosines α and β of the propaga-
tion vectors of the plane wave components:
2 9.970 × 10−2
α ¼ x^ ∕^r; β ¼ y^ ∕^r; and γ ¼ z^ ∕^r (25)
3 1.093 × 10−2
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e025;326;399

4 6.320 × 10−4 in the angular spectrum of plane waves discussed by

Ratcliff,20 Goodman,15 and Gaskill.18
It is then shown that wide-angle scalar diffraction phe-
nomena are shift-invariant with respect to the changes in
exhibits a discontinuity that is an unacceptable nonphysical incident angle “only in direction cosine space.” Furthermore,
phenomenon;2 (3) the predicted angular width of the dif- it is the diffracted “radiance” (not intensity or irradiance) that
fracted orders does not indicate the broadening that occurs is shift-invariant in direction cosine space. This realization
with increasing diffraction angle;19 and finally (4) the diffrac- greatly extends the range of parameters over which simple
tion efficiencies of the propagating orders are not adjusted to Fourier techniques can be used to make accurate calculations
account for the Wood’s anomaly effect of redistributing the concerning wide-angle diffraction phenomena. Nonparaxial
energy associated with evanescent orders among the remain- diffraction grating behavior and surface scattering effects are
ing propagating orders.5 These inaccurate predictions were two diffraction phenomena that are not limited to the paraxial
discussed in Refs. 2 and 4 and are illustrated graphically region and benefit greatly from this new development.
in Ref. 2. By formulating scalar diffraction theory in terms of the
direction cosines of the propagation vectors of the angular
3 Review of the Linear Systems Formulation of spectrum of plane waves represented by the kernel of the
Nonparaxial Scalar Diffraction Theory Fourier transform integral, and incorporating sound radio-
A nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory has been developed metric principles, we obtained the following expression for
by using a scaled coordinate system in which all of the diffracted radiance2

L 0 ðα; β − βo Þ ¼ Kγ o Aλ s jF fU o ð^x; y^ ; 0Þ expði2πβo y^ Þgj2

2
for α2 þ β2 ≤ 1;
(26)
L 0 ðα; β − βo Þ ¼ 0 for α2 þ β2 > 1;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e026;63;145

where K is a renormalization factor to be defined in Eq. (28) For large incident and diffraction angles, a portion of the
below, γ o is the cosine of the incident angle, and As is the differ- diffracted radiance distribution function will fall outside of
ential source area. the unit circle in direction cosine space. Those evanescent

Optical Engineering 017103-5 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .
Fig. 5 The profile of a broad Gaussian radiance distribution in direction cosine space, shifted due to a
64-deg incident angle is illustrated. The renormalized propagating portion of the radiance distribution is
also illustrated.
orders are imaginary and do not diffract any radiant energy
away from the grating surface. Parseval’s theorem from
Fourier transform theory then requires that a renormalization
factor, K, be applied to the diffracted radiance distribution
remaining inside the unit circle in direction cosine space,
as illustrated in Fig. 5.2
The normalization factor, K, is given by the ratio of the
integral of the radiance distribution function over infinite
limits to the integral of the radiance-distribution function
over the unit circle in direction cosine space2
R∞ R∞
α¼−∞ β¼−∞ Lðα; β − βo Þdα dβ
Kðγ i Þ ¼ R R pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Lðα; β − β o Þdα dβ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e027;63;492
1−α 2
1
α¼−1 2 β¼− 1−α
≡ Renormalization factor:
This renormalization factor K differs from unity only if
the diffracted radiance distribution function extends beyond
the unit circle in direction cosine space (i.e., only if evanes-
cent waves are produced). The well-known Wood’s anoma-
lies that occur in diffraction-grating efficiency measurements
are entirely consistent with this predicted renormalization in
the presence of evanescent waves.2,4
4 Generalizing the Classical Scalar Parametric
Expression for Diffraction Efficiency
We will now show that the classical paraxial parametric
expression for diffraction efficiency given in Eq. (18) can
be generalized to accurately model nonparaxial situations.
We will do this by modifying the parameter a (the peak-
to-peak phase excursion of the diffracted wavefront) to be
Fig. 6 Illustration of the wavefront diffracted at an arbitrary angle for an arbitrary incident angle.
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
a function of the incident and/or the diffracted angles in addi-
tion to the wavelength and the groove depth as expressed in
Eq. (21). This general situation is depicted in Fig. 6.
The relative phase variation clearly depends upon both
the incident and the diffracted angles and is now given as
2π
ϕð^x; y^ Þ ¼ OPD; OPD ≈ ðγ i þ γ m Þhð^x; y^ Þ∕2; (28)
λ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e028;326;547
or
ϕð^x; y^ Þ ¼ πðγ i þ γ m Þhð^x; y^ Þ∕λ: (29)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e029;326;492
The peak-to-peak excursion of the sinusoidal phase varia-
tion is again equal to twice the peak amplitude of the relative
(27)
phase variation
a ¼ 2πðγ i þ γ m Þh∕λ: (30)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e030;326;428
Recall that Eq. (18) was an expression for diffraction effi-
ciency for a paraxial application where radiant intensity and
radiance are essentially equivalent. However, the primary
premise of the linear systems formulation of nonparaxial sca-
lar diffraction theory described in Ref. 2 is that diffracted
radiance (not irradiance or intensity) is the fundamental
radiometric quantity that exhibits shift invariance with
respect to changes in the incident and diffracted angles only
when formulated in direction cosine space. Hence, for non-
paraxial diffraction angles, we must use the following pro-
cedure for calculating diffraction grating efficiencies with
our scalar-based nonparaxial parametric expression for dif-
fraction efficiencies of sinusoidal phase gratings:
017103-6 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .

• Start with the paraxial Eq. (18). λ ¼ 0.6328 μm;

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e033;326;752 d ¼ 9.492 μm; and h ¼ 0.293λ:
• Divide by γ m ¼ cos θm to convert diffracted intensity (33)
to diffracted radiance.
• Multiply by the renormalization factor K. The values for the actual diffraction angles and the cosine
• Substitute R with the polarization reflectance Q if other
of the diffracted angles are tabulated in Table 2, along
with the paraxial predictions of diffraction efficiency from
than TE polarization effects are expected. Eq. (18) with a given by Eq. (21), the scalar parametric pre-
The generalized parametric expression for diffraction effi- dictions from Eq. (31) with a given by Eq. (30), and rigorous
ciency of the m’th diffracted order for a sinusoidal reflection electromagnetic (vector) predictions by the Waterman inte-
grating with arbitrary groove depth and arbitrary incident and gral method for diffracted orders through the fifth order.
diffracted angles is thus now given as Percent errors of the paraxial and the scalar parametric meth-
ods from the rigorous calculations are also tabulated. The
   
P a diffraction efficiency calculations were made to four significant
ηm ¼ m ¼ K QJ 2m ∕γ m ;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e031;63;625 (31) figures and tabulated in conventional scientific notation, as
PT 2
shown in Table 2. Percent errors are expressed to 100th of
where the peak-to-peak phase excursion a is given by a percent.
Eq. (30) and γ i ¼ cos θi and γ m ¼ cos θm . For this diffrac- The agreement among the three different predictions is
tion grating application, the renormalization factor previ- excellent (<1% error) for θm < 8 deg. The paraxial model
ously given by Eq. (27) is now obviously given as exhibits errors >11% for θm > 15 deg and >25% as the dif-
fraction angle approaches 20 deg. These diffraction efficien-
P∞
ηm 1 cies are compared graphically in Fig. 7 for normal incidence
K ¼ m¼−∞P ¼P : (32) and near-paraxial diffracted angles. The scalar parametric
ηm Prop:Orders ηm
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e032;63;536

Prop:Orders predictions exhibit <1% error until θm ≈19 deg.

For this situation of small diffraction angles and diminish-
ing diffraction efficiencies, the renormalization factor is
only slightly different than unity (K ¼ 0.999998568). Note
5 Comparison of Predicted Diffraction Efficiencies: that this value is actually less than unity as dividing the
Paraxial, Scalar Parametric, and Rigorous Bessel function expression in Eq. (18) by γ m increased the
We will now present detailed comparisons of predicted dif- diffraction efficiency of each order, thus making the sum of
fracted efficiencies by the classical paraxial expression from
Eq. (18), the parametric expression obtained from the appli-
cation of nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory from Eq. (31),
and by rigorous vector predictions using the Waterman inte-
gral method.

5.1 For Normal Incidence and Near-Paraxial

Diffraction Angles
For our first example demonstrating the scalar parametric
expression in Eq. (31), for the diffraction efficiency of a
perfectly conducting sinusoidal reflection grating, we will
operate at normal incidence and have chosen a wavelength
and period such that the fifth diffracted order approaches
20 deg (somewhat larger than what is usually considered Fig. 7 Comparison of the predicted diffracted efficiencies for normal
paraxial). incidence and near-paraxial diffracted angles.

Table 2 Comparison of predicted diffracted efficiencies.

Diffraction efficiencies Paraxial Parametric

m θm γm Paraxial Parametric Rigorous % Error % Error

0 0 1.000 9.995E-02 9.995E-02 1.007E-01 0.74 0.74

1 3.823 0.998 3.386E-01 3.393E-01 3.393E-01 0.21 0.00

2 7.662 0.991 9.984E-02 9.949E-02 9.918E-02 −0.67 −0.31

3 11.537 0.980 1.096E-02 1.062E-02 1.056E-02 −3.79 −0.57

4 15.446 0.964 6.344E-04 5.759E-04 5.711E-04 −11.08 −0.84

5 19.471 0.943 2.280E-05 1.839E-05 1.819E-05 −25.34 −1.10

Optical Engineering 017103-7 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .
Fig. 8 Comparison of the predicted paraxial, scalar-based paramet-
ric, and rigorous diffracted efficiencies for normal incidence and
moderate diffracted angles.
the efficiencies of all propagating orders slightly larger than
unity. By applying the renormalization factor in Eq. (32), the
sum of the efficiencies of all propagating orders is precisely
unity as required.
5.2 For Normal Incidence and Moderate
(Nonparaxial) Diffraction Angles
In Fig. 8, we have left the wavelength and the groove depth
fixed and reduced the grating period to 5.942 μm. The dif-
fracted angle of the fifth order is now greater than 32 deg and
the %error of the paraxial prediction exceeds 86%, whereas
the %error of the scalar parametric prediction remains <4%.7
Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate that the classical paraxial
expression of Eq. (18) is indeed very restrictive with regard
to diffraction angle, and the generalized scalar parametric
expression greatly relaxes those restrictions, at least up to
moderate diffraction angles exceeding 30 deg.7
5.3 Diffraction Efficiency of the +1 Order Satisfying
the Littrow Condition for a Reflection Grating
Many practical diffraction grating applications are not per-
formed at normal incidence but instead involve maintaining
a given diffracted order in the Littrow condition (θm ¼ θi for
reflection gratings). Also, substantially more insight into dif-
fraction grating behavior, and our scalar parametric model,
can be demonstrated by calculating and displaying diffrac-
tion grating efficiencies as a function of the dimensionless
parameter λ∕d.
Figure 9, therefore, illustrates the diffraction efficiency of
a perfectly conducting (R ¼ Q ¼ 1) sinusoidal reflection
grating with groove depth-to-period ratio (h∕d) equal to
0.20 when the þ1 order is maintained in the Littrow condi-
tion. The above nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory pro-
vides remarkably good agreement with rigorous integral
electromagnetic theory, not merely in the paraxial regime and
the smooth surface (shallow grating) regime, but over the
entire range of λ∕d, including at λ∕d ¼ 0.667 where there
is a major Rayleigh anomaly when the −1 and þ2 diffracted
orders go evanescent simultaneously (see discussion of
Fig. 34 in Ref. 1).
Figure 9 was previously published in Ref. 4, and it should
be noted that to maintain the þ1 order in the Littrow con-
dition, each data point on these curves requires a different
incident angle. It is readily shown by substituting the
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
Fig. 9 Diffraction grating efficiency of the first order of a perfectly con-
ducting sinusoidal reflection grating (h∕d ¼ 0.20) in Littrow condition
as predicted by the Beckmann theory, the paraxial scalar theory,
the nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory presented in this paper, and
a rigorous integral vector theory.
Littrow condition, θm ¼ θi , into the grating equation for
reflection gratings that we obtain
θi ¼ sin−1 ð0.5λ∕dÞ: (34)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e034;326;467
Thus, as λ∕d varies from 0.1 to 1.9, as shown in Fig. 9, the
incident angle (and θ1 ) varies from ∼3 deg to 65 deg.
It is quite remarkable that our nonparaxial scalar parametric
diffraction grating efficiency model is so accurate over this
wide a range of diffraction angles.
It is of practical interest to continue to test the angular
range of validity of this generalized scalar parametric model
of diffraction grating efficiencies for various diffracted
orders at increasingly larger diffracted angles.
5.4 For Normal Incidence and Large Nonparaxial
Diffraction Angles
Recall from Sec. 3 of Ref. 1 that λ∕d is the separation of the
equally spaced diffracted orders when displayed in a direc-
tion cosine diagram. Figure 10 illustrates the direction cosine
diagrams for three different values of Δα ¼ 0.2, 0.25, and
0.333 where the fifth, fourth, and third diffracted orders are
just going evanescent, i.e., reaching a diffraction angle of
90 deg.
Figure 11 graphically illustrates the predicted diffracted
efficiency (paraxial, scalar intensity parametric, and rigorous
vector calculations) versus the quantity λ∕d for diffracted
orders 3, 4 and 5 at normal incidence.
We have again set the wavelength at 0.6328 μm and the
groove depth at 0.293λ. Clearly, from the simple planar gra-
ting equation, the fifth, fourth, and third orders will reach
90 deg and go evanescent at λ∕d equals 0.2, 0.25, and
0.33, respectively. The dashed black lines in Fig. 11 are the
paraxial predictions from Eq. (18) for a perfectly conducting
sinusoidal reflection grating with the parameter a given by
Eq. (21). The black dotted lines are the rigorous predictions
from the Waterman integral method. The lower solid curve
for each case is the intensity parametric prediction from
017103-8 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .

Fig. 10 Direction cosine diagrams for normal incidence and (a) Δα ¼ 0.2, (b) Δα ¼ 0.25, and
(c) Δα ¼ 0.333. For these three cases, the fifth, fourth, and third diffracted orders are just going
evanescent.

Fig. 11 Comparison of predicted paraxial, rigorous, and intensity Fig. 12 Predicted paraxial, rigorous, parametric intensities and para-
parametric diffracted efficiencies as a function of λ∕d for the third, metric radiance diffracted efficiencies as a function of λ∕d for the third,
fourth, and fifth diffracted orders for normal incidence. fourth, and fifth orders for normal incidence.

Eq. (18) with R ¼ 1 and the parameter a given by Eq. (30).

Note that this prediction is a big improvement over the para-
xial prediction; however, it becomes increasingly in error at
the larger diffracted angles as it is substantially lower than
the rigorous curve at large diffraction angles for all three
cases.
Figure 12 shows that the parametric radiance predictions
given by Eq. (31) with the peak-to-peak phase excursion
given by Eq. (30) are a significant improvement over para-
metric intensity predictions but are slightly higher than the
rigorous curve for the large diffraction angles.
Recall that the main lesson from the nonparaxial scalar
diffraction theory from Ref. 2 was that radiance (not intensity
or irradiance) is the fundamental quantity predicted by scalar
diffraction theory when proper radiometric principles are
applied.
At this point, we felt compelled to apply an empirical Fig. 13 Comparison of the paraxial prediction, rigorous electromag-
modification to our scalar radiance parametric model of dif- netic (EM) prediction, parametric intensity prediction, and empirically
fraction efficiency in an attempt to obtain an even better fit to modified parametric radiance prediction of diffracted efficiencies as
the rigorous calculations.7 Figure 13 shows that raising the a function of λ∕d for the third, fourth, and fifth diffracted orders for
normal incidence.
γ m in Eq. (31) to a power of 0.7 causes the parametric pre-
dictions for the fifth order to be a near-perfect fit to the rig-
orous predictions almost all the way out to a diffraction angle modified radiance parametric predictions are also an excel-
of 90 deg. The fitting procedure used was just a primitive lent fit out to slightly smaller angles. This empirically modi-
manual adjusting of this exponent and a visual observation fied radiance parametric expression for the diffraction
of the fit obtained in Fig. 13. The fourth and third order efficiency is thus given as

Optical Engineering 017103-9 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .
Fig. 14 Illustration of the angular range of validity (given an allowable
5% error from the rigorous prediction) of the diffraction efficiency pre-
dictions by the empirically modified scalar radiance parametric model
of the third, fourth, and fifth diffracted orders for normal incidence.
    convert intensity to radiance and multiplied by the renormal-
Pm a ization factor, K, from nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory to
ηm ¼ ¼ K QJ 2m ∕ðγ m Þ0.7 :
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e035;63;534
PT 2
Finally, Fig. 14 shows the angular range of validity (given
an allowable 5% error from the rigorous prediction) of the
empirically modified scalar radiance parametric model for
diffraction efficiency of sinusoidal reflection gratings. Note
that these empirically modified scalar radiance parametric
predictions of diffraction efficiency are accurate (to within
5%) out to diffraction angles of 56 deg, 65 deg, and 77 deg
for the third, fourth, and fifth diffracted orders (at normal
incidence), respectfully.
Table 3 shows the comparisons of the %errors of the vari-
ous scalar diffraction models from the rigorous EM predic-
tions. The second column of Table 3 tabulates the angular
range over which the %error of the empirically modified sca-
lar radiance parametric model remains less than 5% for the
third, fourth and fifth diffracted orders. The third and fourth
columns of Table 3 tabulates the corresponding %errors of
the classical scalar paraxial model and the scalar intensity
parametric model respectively. These comparisons demon-
strate a dramatic improvement in the angular range of
validity of simple intuitive nonparaxial scalar parametric
diffraction grating efficiency predictions.
6 Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions
We have developed a scalar nonparaxial parametric model of
diffraction efficiency for sinusoidal phase gratings that is
useful for making accurate engineering calculations and vali-
dated it by rigorous vector calculations. This intuitive para-
metric model provides insight and understanding concerning
Table 3 Angular range of validity of various parametric models.
Diffracted order Angular range (deg)
Third order 56
Fourth order 65
Fifth order 77
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
nonparaxial diffraction grating behavior of sinusoidal phase
gratings that is not readily obtained from rigorous vector
diffraction grating codes.
The key to obtaining this scalar nonparaxial parametric
expression for accurately modeling the diffraction efficiency
of sinusoidal reflection gratings for arbitrary groove depth
and arbitrary nonparaxial diffracting angles is to modify the
quantity a in Eq. (18) that represents the peak-to-peak excur-
sion of the sinusoidal phase variation in the classical paraxial
expression given in Eq. (18). With the use of Fig. 6, we cal-
culated the peak-to-peak excursion of the sinusoidal phase
variation of each diffracted order for arbitrary groove depth
and arbitrary incident and diffracted angles. This expression
was given by Eq. (30) as a ¼ 2πðγ i þ γ m Þh∕λ, where
γ i ¼ cos θi and γ m ¼ cos θm .
It was crucial to recognize that the classical paraxial
expression of Eq. (18) was for diffracted intensity, and the
fundamental quantity of nonparaxial scalar diffraction theory
is diffracted radiance.2 We, thus, divided Eq. (18) by γ m to
(35)
redistribute the radiant energy from the evanescent diffracted
orders to the propagating ones. Finally, we substituted the
polarization reflectance, Q,13 for the scalar reflectance, R,
in Eq. (18) to obtain the generalized parametric expression
for diffraction efficiency of the m’th diffracted order for a
sinusoidal reflection grating with arbitrary groove depth and
arbitrary incident and diffracted angles given by Eq. (31).
This generalized scalar nonparaxial parametric model for
predicting diffraction grating efficiencies is thus capable of
predicting (1) Rayleigh (Wood’s) anomalies and (2) polariza-
tion effects when other than TE polarized light is present.
These two effects are usually thought to require rigorous
electromagnetic theory.
In Sec. 5, we graphically compared the predictions of this
generalized scalar nonparaxial parametric model of diffrac-
tion efficiency for sinusoidal reflection gratings to rigorous
calculations using the well-known vector Waterman method10
and determined the angular range of validity (for a 5% error
tolerance) for a variety of grating configurations.
An empirical modification was made by raising the γ m in
Eq. (31) to an arbitrary power in order to achieve a better fit
to the rigorous predictions for the third, fourth, and fifth dif-
fracted orders over the entire range of diffracted angles illus-
trated in Figs. 12 and 13. Table 3 summarizes the results of
raising γ m to the 0.7 power, as shown bypEq. 7
ffiffiffi (35). Note that
0.7 is very close in value to both 2/3 and 2∕2. This suggests
that there might be a theoretical basis for this empirical
modification.
Finally, it was mentioned in Sec. 1 of this paper that ran-
dom scattering surfaces are routinely modeled as a superpo-
sition of sinusoidal surfaces of different amplitudes, periods,
Paraxial I-parametric Modified L-parametric
164% error 31% error <5% error
626% error 45% error <5% error
4185% error 65% error <5% error
017103-10 January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)
 Harvey and Pfisterer: Understanding diffraction grating behavior, part II. . .
orientations, and phases.11–14 The results of this paper may
thus be of substantial interest to the surface scattering com-
munity. In particular, due to an ongoing debate concerning
the difference in the obliquity factor of the classical
Rayleigh–Rice and the GHSSmooth surface scatter theories,14
the generalized expression for the parameter a (peak-to-peak
excursion of the sinusoidal phase variation) of Eq. (30)
clearly shows that the obliquity factor in the GHSSmooth sur-
face scatter theory is rooted in the fundamental diffraction
behavior of sinusoidal phase gratings, and this gives cre-
dence to the GHSSmooth obliquity factor.
References
1. J. E. Harvey and R. N. Pfisterer, “Understanding diffraction grating
behavior: including conical diffraction and Rayleigh anomalies from
transmission gratings,” Opt. Eng. 58(8), 087105 (2019).
2. J. E. Harvey et al., “Diffracted radiance: a fundamental quantity in
a non-paraxial scalar diffraction theory,” Appl. Opt. 38, 6469–6481
(1999).
3. J. E. Harvey et al., “Diffracted radiance: a fundamental quantity in non-
paraxial scalar diffraction theory: errata,” Appl. Opt. 39(34), 6374–6375
(2000).
4. 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).
5. R. W. Wood, “On a remarkable case of uneven distribution of light in
a diffraction grating spectrum,” Philos. Mag. 4, 396–402 (1902).
6. E. G. Loewen and E. Popov, Diffraction Gratings and Applications,
p. 376, Marcel Dekker, New York (1997).
7. J. E. Harvey and R. N. Pfisterer, “Parametric diffraction efficiency of
non-paraxial sinusoidal reflection gratings,” Proc. SPIE 10375,
103750B (2017).
8. D. Rudolph and G. Schmahl, “Verfaren zur Herstellung von
Rongtenlinsen und Beugungsgittern (Method for producing x-ray lenses
and diffraction gratings),” Umsch. Wiss. Tech. 67, 225 (1967).
9. A. Labeyrie and J. Flamand, “Spectrographic performance of holo-
graphically made diffraction gratings,” Opt. Commun. 1, 5–8 (1969).
10. R. Petit, Electromagnetic Theory of Gratings, p. 98, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1980).
Optical Engineering 017103-11
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 16 Jan 2020
Terms of Use:View
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
publication stats
11. P. Beckman and A. Spizzichino, The Scattering of Electromagnetic
Waves from Rough Surfaces, Pergamon Press, New York (1963).
12. J. M. Bennett and L. Mattsson, Introduction to Surface Roughness and
Scattering, Optical Society of America, Washington, DC (1989).
13. J. C. Stover, Optical Scattering, Measurement and Analysis, McGraw-
Hill, New York (1990).
14. J. E. Harvey, Understanding Surface Scatter Phenomena: A Linear
Systems Formulation, SPIE Press, Bellingham, Washington (2019).
15. J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, p. 69, McGraw-Hill,
New York (1968).
16. S. O. Rice, “Reflection of electromagnetic waves from slightly rough
surfaces,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 4, 351–378 (1951).
17. J. E. Harvey and R. N. Pfisterer, “Comparison of the GHSSmooth and the
Rayleigh-rice surface scatter theories,” Proc. SPIE 9961, 996103
(2016).
18. J. D. Gaskill, Linear Systems, Fourier Transforms, and Optics, Wiley,
New York (1978).
19. J. E. Harvey and E. A. Nevis, “Angular grating anomalies: effects of
finite beam size upon wide-angle diffraction phenomena,” Appl. Opt.
31, 6783–6788 (1992).
20. J. A. Ratcliff, “Some aspects of diffraction theory and their application
to the ionosphere,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 19, 188–267 (1956).
James E. Harvey is a retired associate professor from CREOL, the
College of Optics and Photonics at the University of Central Florida,
and currently is a senior optical engineer with Photon Engineering,
LLC in Tucson, Arizona. He has a PhD in optical sciences from the
University of Arizona and is credited with over 220 publications and
conference presentations in diverse areas of applied optics. He is
a member of OSA and a fellow and past board member of SPIE.
Richard N. Pfisterer is a cofounder and president of Photon
Engineering, LLC. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees
in optical engineering from the Institute of Optics at the University of
Rochester in 1979 and 1980, respectively. Previously, he was the
head of optical design at TRW (now Northrop-Grumman) and senior
optical engineer at Breault Research Organization. He is credited with
over 20 articles and conference presentations in the areas of optical
design, stray light analysis, and phenomenology. He is a member of
OSA and SPIE.
January 2020 • Vol. 59(1)