Numerical simulation of partially coherent broadband optical imaging using the finite-difference time-domain method

Optics Letters

Volumn 36, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1596-1598

  Çapoglu, Ilker R ^a   White, Craig A ^a   Rogers, Jeremy D ^a   Subramanian, Hariharan ^a   Taflove, Allen ^a   Backman, Vadim ^a  

^a Northwestern University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIO PHOTONICS; FDTD CALCULATIONS; FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME-DOMAIN; IMAGE PLANE; INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION; MULTI-LAYERED; NUMERICAL MODELING; NUMERICAL SIMULATION; OBJECT SPACE; OPTICAL IMAGING; OPTICAL IMAGING SYSTEM; PARTIALLY COHERENT; RESEARCH AREAS; SCATTERED LIGHT;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN METHOD; LIGHT; NUMERICAL METHODS; OPTICAL IMAGE STORAGE; PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY;

TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS;

GLASS;

ARTICLE; LIGHT; LIGHT RELATED PHENOMENA; RADIATION SCATTERING; THEORETICAL MODEL; TIME;

GLASS; LIGHT; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OPTICAL PROCESSES; SCATTERING, RADIATION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 79956305449     PISSN: 01469592     EISSN: 15394794     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/OL.36.001596     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. D. C. Cole, E. Barouch, E. W. Conrad, and M. Yeung, Proc. IEEE 89, 1194 (2001).
2. A. R. Neureuther, Microelectron. Eng. 17, 377 (1992).
3. J. L. Hollmann, A. K. Dunn, and C. A. DiMarzio, Opt. Lett. 29, 2267 (2004).
4. A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed. (Artech House, 2005).
5. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
6. J. Tervo, T. Setälä, and A. T. Friberg, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 21, 2205 (2004).
7. I. R. Capoglu, "Techniques for handling multilayered media in the FDTD method," Ph.D. thesis (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007).
8. P. Török, P. R. T. Munro, and E. E. Kriezis, Opt. Express 16, 507 (2008).
9. Y. Liu, X. Li, Y. L. Kim, and V. Backman, Opt. Lett. 30, 2445 (2005).
10. Because of the finite illumination NA, the bottom interface is far out of focus. The reflection from that interface is spread over a large area, with much reduced intensity at the top interface. We therefore neglect the presence of the bottom interface and assume a two-layered geometry.