If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
im trying to figure out how to caluclate a laser/lens configuration. And i need help.
I want to shoot a laser line 1.9mm wide at a wall 2.9m away. then have the light bounce about 180 degrees back but now through a lens, and behind the lens a pixels sensor, with pixels only 4um wide.
how can i calculate this?
Pic to follow:
Look at the yellow arrow and circle... (oops! it should say: "How wide will the beam be here?" )
Is it just a matter of similar triangle theorem? And proportionality of the viewable area?
Registered Member #56
Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:02AM
Location: Southern Califorina, USA
Posts: 2445
In short, not its not that simple and to solve it exactly you need to do some more or less impossibly hard math (ex, convolve with the fresnel kernel see
The good news is that since your pixels are quite a bit larger than your wavelength (assuming .8um illumination) you can do pretty well using ray tracing methods, and there are a lot of those out there. If you really want to go nuts, OSLO is free for educational use, albeit it takes a while to get used to it.
What I don't understand is why do you have your sensor way far away from the focal point? If you want to make use of your 4um pixels you are going to want the optical system more or less diffraction limited, as drawn the lens is just going to scramble the image (it is not in an imaging configuration). Keep in mind that as you go from having a lens with the object at infinity and the image (detector) at 1 focal length behind the lens (imaging configuration) to having the object at 1 focal length in front of the lens and leaving the detector at the same spot (1 focal length behind the lens, fourier transform condition) you will go from having an imaging system to having a system which gives you the fourier transform of the image!
Registered Member #2901
Joined: Thu Jun 03 2010, 01:25PM
Location:
Posts: 837
You don't have a beam at the sensor, you have a defocused image.
In the end the thin lens equation is all you need ... but that doesn't really solve your problem, which is that you have conflicting goals between magnification and depth of field. Your depth of field has to be large (so a focal length << minimum working distance, with the sensor at the focal plane) but this might decrease magnification too much to fill the sensor for the arc you want to measure (as well as decreasing the lens size you can use for a single lens). You're probably going to need a lens system (also a lenticular or rod lens in front of the sensor to reduce the line to a spot).
PS. don't you have someone studying physics who can help you? They usually have optics in the curriculum I think.
PPS. this method might help at the cost of losing some light ... so you use one lens (system) to project onto a diffuser (with the rod/lenticular lens to make a dot) and then you use a separate lens to magnify the image on the diffuser for the sensor.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Pinky's Brain wrote ...
You don't have a beam at the sensor, you have a defocused image.
Ah crap... i was afraid someone was going to say this...
if im all wrong on this matter, then i need someone to draw a simple pic, showing a conventional 0.25" wide CCD chip and a single lens and Focal point, becuase im not understanding any of your points, though im sure your all right...
i need an example relationship, like how a 640x480 pin hole camera works...
I know the XV-11 neato vacuum bot's lidar works with a single lens, ir filter, and panavision sensor, i just want to duplicate their optical train...
Registered Member #2901
Joined: Thu Jun 03 2010, 01:25PM
Location:
Posts: 837
Just going to run through the numbers because I know how to do them, but I don't have an intuitive grasp of what will come out.
Given the size you want to make the assembly the centre of the lens will probably be around 50 mm off side of the laser beam and we can use primary lens with a focal length of 25 mm. We are interested in the image at the focal plane, because that's what we need for an infinity focused system. With an object at 0.25 meter this gives a magnification of 0.025/0.25 = 1/10th, so the image will be a whole lot fatter than 4 um ... but you can determine the centre with some image processing.
The distance of the image for objects at 0.25m and 10m (by the way Patrick, stop using imperial already) from the origin of the laser can be determined by tracing a line from the object through the centre of the lens to the focal plane. X is distance from the lens, Y is distance on the focal plane.
tan(a)=0.05/X, Y=tan(a)*(X+0.025), Y=0.05*(X+0.025)/X X = 0.25 => Y = 0.055 X = 10 => Y = 0.05
So a difference of 5mm ... huh, what do you know ... ballpark correct, I think if you increase focal length 2x you're there (do the numbers yourself).
In short : one setup which would work is 50 mm FL lens with it's centre 50 mm off the origin of the laser, with the sensor at the focal plane with one edge lined up with the centre of the lens and the other edge away from the laser (a lenticular or rod lens in front of the sensor with the sensor again at the focal point will get more light to it, but when I said that before I did not consider alignment ... which is rather critical, so you might want to skip it). Also try to get a laser with a thinner line, image processing can only do so much and it will improve SNR.
PS. of course there a whole lot more which would also work, but it's a vast multidimensional problem I'm not going to try to work out ...
Registered Member #2939
Joined: Fri Jun 25 2010, 04:25AM
Location:
Posts: 615
I think you need to take a step back and work out what optical resolution you need at what distance, so that your ranging calculations give you the accuracy you require. Once you work out what your field of view needs to be you can work out the lens focal length from similar triangles. Don't worry about trying to match the laser line width to the pixel size - at infrared wavelengths there will be noticeable crosstalk between pixels, so the digital image will always be slightly fuzzy. THIS IS A GOOD THING - it allows you to interpolate across several pixels to get sub-pixel resolution of the laser line position.
I have used Panavision linear sensors at work, building infrared touchscreens, so I'm reasonably familiar with the issues you are encountering.
Registered Member #2901
Joined: Thu Jun 03 2010, 01:25PM
Location:
Posts: 837
Meh, it's not like he has a lot of room to make choices with a single lens ...
He gets to pick either focal length OR distance of the centre of the lens from the origin of the laser, that's it ... the moment you pick one everything else rolls out automatically, because an object (or rather the part of it illuminated by the laser) at ~0.25 meters has to be projected to one end of the sensor (at the focal plane, because of infinity focusing) and at infinity the other (well 45 feet, but that's essentially infinity here). The greater the distance from the origin the more linear the depth resolution is distributed across the sensor. So all he needs is to understand the thin lens equation and a decision how wide he wants to make the device.
BTW, Anchor Optics has a cylinder lens for 8.5$ which fits the sensor well, if you glue some glass under it with a total thickness of 11 mm you only have to position it in 2D, the alignment is still critical but in 2D probably doable ... should give quite a bit increase in received light.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
i have parts on the way, and am willing to use cylinder optics too. my decisions are mainly meant to make the sensor optic easy to build/align/calibrate...
not sure what your guys' points are, still trying to learn/understand without pics. ill keep reading...im going to my physics professor tomarrow for this reason...
im hoping for the laser to be about 10-16um wide ( though im flexible on this requirement). Oops! there i go with that dam metric system agian.
PS, only communists and cowards use the metric system.
Registered Member #3215
Joined: Sun Sept 19 2010, 08:42PM
Location:
Posts: 780
you need to use separate optics
a small, neatly focused line for laser output (eventually with a beam pickoff of say 5% with a small piece of glass at 10° incidence), and a BIG objective lens with a high numerical aperture for grabbing most of the incoming light, and keep image focal at the average center of your sensor
if you use a pulse train, why bother the pixel size? wouldn't a reverse biased PIN photodiode suffice for an easily reproducible design?
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.