Wavefront reconstruction photography

AUG 01, 1965

New interest has arisen in the wavefront reconstruction process of Gabor. With the aid of the laser, photographic imagery has been produced in which the image is, to all appearances, a three‐dimensional reconstruction of the original, complete with parallax and other visual effects.

DOI: 10.1063/1.3047589

Emmett Leith

Juris Upatnieks

Wavefront reconstruction, or holography, is a fascinating photographic process which is a major departure from conventional photography. In this process, discovered in 1947 by D. Gabor of Imperial College, London, the photosensitive device does not directly record an image of the subject; instead, the electromagnetic waves reflected or scattered from the subject are recorded as a standing wave pattern. The resulting photographic record is called a hologram (from the Greek word holos, meaning whole), a name given by Professor Gabor to indicate that the whole, or entirety, of the wave pattern is recorded.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. D. Gabor, Nature 161, 777 (1948); https://doi.org/NATUAS
D. Gabor, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 197, 454 (1949); https://doi.org/PRLAAZ
D. Gabor, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) B 64, 449 (1951).https://doi.org/PPSOAU
2. G. L. Rogers, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Edinburgh) A 63, 193 and (1952);
G. L. Rogers, A 64, 209 (1956).
3. P. Kirkpatrick and H. M. A. El‐Sum, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 46, 825 (1956).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
4. A. Lohmann, Opt. Acta (Paris) 3, 19 (1956).
5. P. M. Duffieux, l’Intégrale de Fourier et ses Application à l’Optique, chez l’Auteur, (Université de Besançon, Besançon, Franch, 1946).
6. M. E. Haine and J. Dyson, Nature 166, 315 (1950).https://doi.org/NATUAS
7. M. E. Haine and T. Mulvey, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 42, 763 (1952).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
8. A. V. Baez, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 42, 756 (1952).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
9. H. M. A. El‐Sum, “Reconstructed Wavefront Microscopy”, PhD Thesis, Stanford University, November 1952 (Available from University Microfilm, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan).
10. H. M. A. El‐Sum and A. V. Baez, Phys. Rev. 99, 624 (1955).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
11. W. L. Bragg and G. L. Rogers, Nature 167, 190 (1951).https://doi.org/NATUAS
12. Papers presented at Washington conference on electron microscopy, National Bureau of Standards, Nov. 1951.
13. E. Leith and J. Upatnieks, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 53, 1377 (1963); https://doi.org/JOSAAH
E. Leith and J. Upatnieks, 54, 1295 (1964).https://doi.org/JOSAAH , J. Opt. Soc. Am.
14. R. Powell and K. Stetson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 5, 612 (1965).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
15. M. H. Horman, J. Appl. Opt. 4, 333 (1965).
16. L. Mertz and N. O. Young, Proceedings of the International Commission on Optics Conference on Optical Instruments (London 1961) p. 305.
17. G. Cochran, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 5, 615 (1965).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
18. P. Van Heerden, J. Appl. Opt. 2, 393 (1963).

More about the authors

Emmett Leith, Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan.

Juris Upatnieks, Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan.