1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3:
4: %\def\gtorder{\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}}
5: %\def\ltorder{\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}}
6: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu
7: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
8: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu
9: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
10:
11: \def\Msun{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}
12:
13:
14: \shorttitle{Notch Filter Mask Performance}
15: \shortauthors{Debes et al.}
16:
17: %\received{2003 September 3}
18: \begin{document}
19: \title{Using Notch Filter Masks For High Contrast Imaging of Extrasolar Planets}
20: \author{John H. Debes\altaffilmark{1},Jian Ge\altaffilmark{1},
21: Marc J. Kuchner\altaffilmark{2}}
22: \author{Michael Rogosky\altaffilmark{3}}
23:
24: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State
25: University, University Park, PA 16802}
26: \altaffiltext{2}{Hubble Fellow, Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544}
27: \altaffiltext{3}{Pennsylvania State University Nanofabrication Facility,
28: University Park, PA 16802}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We present the first laboratory experiments using a notch-filter mask, a coronagraphic
32: image mask that can produce infinite dynamic range in an ideal Lyot coronagraph according to scalar diffraction theory.
33: We fabricated the first notch-filter mask prototype with .25 $\micron$ precision
34: using an e-beam lithography machine. Our initial optical tests show that the prototype masks
35: generate contrast levels of 10$^{-5}$ at 3$\lambda/D$ and 10$^{-6}$ at $\sim 8 \lambda/D$, with
36: a throughput of 27\%. We speculate on the ``as-is'' performance of such a mask in the Hubble Space Telescope.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: \keywords{circumstellar matter---instrumentation: adaptive optics---methods:laboratory---planetary systems}
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42: \label{s1}
43: Directly imaging extrasolar terrestrial planets in reflected light requires
44: facing the extremely high predicted contrast ratios between planets and their host stars, e.g., $\sim 10^{-10}$
45: for an Earth analog orbiting a solar type star at quadrature.
46: A planet-finding coronagraph must realize this contrast within a few diffraction widths
47: ($\lambda/D$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of light, and $D$ is the long axis of the primary mirror) of the stellar image. Though several
48: coronagraph designs can achieve this contrast according to scalar
49: diffraction theory \citep{ks03}, substantial work
50: on mask design and laboratory investigation probably remains before this contrast can be achieved in practice.
51:
52: Some coronagraph designs use image-plane masks to absorb on-axis light
53: and diffract it away \citep{malbet96,makidon01,kuchner02}. Other designs use shaped or apodized pupils which benefit from
54: combining aperture shape and the pupil intensity distribution to remove
55: the wings of a circular aperture's PSF \citep{kasdin1,kasdin2,debes1,debes2,jian1}. Image masks offer the
56: advantages that they explicitly remove starlight from the beam, and that
57: they can provide high contrast at small angles from the optical axis, given
58: sufficient control over low-spatial frequency modes.
59:
60: Scattered light, wavefront errors, and mask
61: construction errors can all degrade the contrast of a coronagraph. For example, for any coronagraphic image mask, mid-spatial frequency
62: intensity errors near the center of the mask must be $\lesssim 10^{-9}$ \citep{kuchner02}. Some of these errors can be controlled using active optics,
63: but these corrections will necessarily apply only over a limited range
64: of wavelengths.
65:
66: Notch-filter masks offer a promising choice for planet-finding coronagraphs
67: \citep{kuchner02b}.
68: These image masks absorb most of the light from an on-axis
69: point source, and diffract all of the remainder onto a matched Lyot stop.
70: While Lyot coronagraphs with Gaussian image masks must
71: have a throughput of $\lesssim 1/2$ to reach 10$^{-10}$ contrast, linear
72: notch-filter masks have unlimited dynamic range according to scalar diffraction theory, and a throughput of $\sim(1-\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon$ is typically $\sim 0.3-0.5$.
73:
74: Other coronagraph designs besides notch filter masks can create
75: perfect subtraction of on-axis light. However, those designs
76: based on masks with odd symmetry \citep{rouan2,rouan1} or
77: interferometrically synthesized
78: masks with odd symmetry \citep{baudoz1, baudoz2} create nulls
79: that degrade as $\theta^2$, where $\theta$ is the angle from
80: the optical axis. This rapid degradation means
81: that the finite size of a real star causes the coronagraph to
82: leak light at levels unsuitable for terrestrial planet detection.
83: Other designs, like the dual phase
84: coronagraphic mask with an apodized entrance pupil
85: \citep{soummer03a,soummer03b}, produce the needed null depth,
86: but must use masks with special chromatic behavior and require
87: precise, achromatic aperture apodization.
88: Notch-filter masks are intrinsically achromatic and like
89: the dual phase coronagraph, they create
90: nulls of order $\theta^4$ or slower \citep{kuchner02}.
91:
92: Notch-filter masks can be designed such that they are binary--regions of the
93: mask are either opaque or transparent. This is a great advantage as
94: intensity errors are not an issue so long as the mask is sufficiently opaque,
95: leading to manufacturing constraints that are orders of magnitude smaller.
96: However, the shape of the mask must be precisely
97: reproduced, to the level of $\lambda f_\#$/3600 for a contrast of $10^{-10}$ within the search area. For an instrument with $f/100$ and working
98: $\lambda\sim.66\micron$,
99: this corresponds to a tolerance on the order of 20 nm. Nanofabrication
100: techniques are required to reach this precision.
101:
102: As part of a joint university-industry study partly funded by Ball Aeorospace and in collaboration with the Penn State Nanofabrication facility (Nanofab),
103: we have fabricated a prototype notch-filter mask and tested it in an
104: experimental setup. We discuss briefly the mask fabrication process in Section
105: \ref{s2}, describe methods for modeling performance in
106: Section \ref{s2a}, review the experiments and results
107: in Section \ref{s3}, and
108: discuss ways of improving performance in Section \ref{s4}.
109: \section{ Mask Design and Fabrication }
110: \label{s2}
111: Following the prescription laid out in \citet{kuchner02b}, we designed a notch-filter mask
112: based on a $1-\mbox{sinc}^2$ band limited function. The mask is comprised
113: of a vertically repeating pattern of opaque curves described by:
114: \begin{equation}
115: \label{eq:mbl}
116: \hat{M}_{BL}(x)=\pm .5\frac{\lambda_{min}}{D}\left(1-\mbox{sinc}^2\left(\frac{\pi \epsilon x D}{2 \lambda_{max}}\right)\right)
117: \end{equation}
118: where $\epsilon$ is used to determine the half power of the mask, the effective
119: distance where a companion could reasonably be detected; $\lambda_{min}$ and $\lambda_{max}$ are the minimum and maximum wavelengths of the spectral
120: band of interest. In reality the mask
121: is constructed and therefore sampled at some resolution, i.e. with a
122: nanofabrication tool, such that the band limited equation is modified slightly;
123: \begin{equation}
124: \label{eqn:msamp}
125: \hat{M}_{samp}=\Pi \left(\frac{x}{w}-n\right) \star \hat{M}_{BL}(n)
126: \end{equation}
127: where $n$ is over all integers, $w$ is the resolution of the
128: tool, and $\Pi$ is the tophat function. The final
129: step is to convolve $\hat{M}_{samp}$ with a series of $\delta$ functions
130: spaced by $\lambda/D$ to produce the mask function:
131: \begin{equation}
132: \label{eqn:mnotch}
133: \hat{M}_{notch}=\sum^{N}_{k=0}\delta\left(y-\frac{k\lambda}{D}\right)\star \hat{M}_{samp}
134: \end{equation}
135: Repeating
136: the band limited curve on scales $\ltorder \lambda/D$ ensures that the
137: notch-filter mask becomes a good approximation of a transmissive mask
138: for spatial frequencies in the pupil plane $< D/\lambda$
139:
140: We designed the mask for a f/158 system and a working wavelength of .633~$\micron$.
141: Our choice of $\epsilon$ was .46, to allow an inner working distance
142: of 2-3~$\lambda/D$.
143: For our working wavelength, the maximum size is $\sim$100~\micron. While the
144: theory prescribes that the width of the stripes be no wider than
145: $\lambda_{min} f_{\#}$, there is no prohibition from making the width smaller
146: and so we built the mask with stripes of width 25~$\micron$.
147: There are two advantages to undersizing, one is guarding against blue light
148: leakage in a broadband case and the other is allowing future tests to be
149: performed at smaller $f_{\#}$.
150:
151: The Leica EBPG5-HR
152: EBL tool available at Nanofab can produce resist
153: features down to a minimum size of $\sim$20~nm with
154: a precision of $\pm$5~nm for high resolution resists. The features are
155: placed to an accuracy of $<$ 35~nm over a 125~mm writing area.
156: The EBL resist was developed on a commercially supplied quartz substrate, covered
157: by a layer of chromium that served as the opaque parts of the mask.
158: Figure \ref{fig:mask} shows the final mask under 20x and 100x optical magnification.
159:
160: The resolution used for the EBL tool was .25~$\micron$.
161: Errors in the mask shape produce a leakage of
162: light with an intensity of .25~$h^2$ where $h$ is the size of the error,
163: measured in
164: diffraction widths \citep{kuchner02b}. Based on the EBL tool resolution, our mask should be capable of producing manufacturing-error-limited contrasts of 1.5$\times10^{-6}$ without the
165: use of an apodized Lyot stop; with our choice of experimental setup and wavelength, achieving a deeper contrast of 10$^{-8}$ at the peak would require 20 nm precision.
166:
167: \section{Modeling the Performance of the Mask}
168: \label{s2a}
169: One would like to know in advance how the mask responds to different sources of
170: error. It is also instructive to try and reproduce the actual performance of
171: the fabricated mask in an attempt to understand the major sources of error
172: in the experimental setup. However, modeling the resulting diffraction
173: pattern requires the use of numerical methods such as Fast Fourier Transforms
174: (FFTs) which are not adept at accurately handling
175: simultaneous high resolution in both the imaging and pupil planes\citep{brigham}.
176:
177: Modeling the resultant scalar diffraction pattern or point spread function (PSF) of
178: an optical system can be summed up in the following combination of the wave
179: amplitude PSF of the original aperture $\hat{A}$, the mask function $\hat{M}$, and
180: the Fourier Transform of the Lyot Stop aperture function $\hat{L}$:
181: \begin{equation}
182: \hat{A^{\prime}}=\hat{A} \hat{M} \star \hat{L}
183: \end{equation}
184: where the star denotes convolution. The numerical problem arises when
185: the arrays that represent $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{L}$ typically are Nyquist sampled,
186: corresponding to $\lambda/2D$, on order of the {\em maximum} scale of
187: the mask function. To avoid this, we rely on the
188: fact that the Fourier Transform of $\hat{M}$ is semi-analytically described so
189: that we can construct an accurate, coarsely sampled array that can then be
190: used in the model. The Fourier Transform of $\hat{M}, M(u,v_o)$ at a
191: particular value of $v_o$ is given by
192: \begin{equation}
193: M(u,v_o) = \int^{\frac{1}{2}}_{-\frac{1}{2}} \frac{\sin(\pi v_o \hat{M})}{\pi v_o} \exp(2\pi i u x) \mbox{d}x
194: \end{equation}
195: In this way $M$ can be built up using a 1D FFT that is faster and more accurate
196: than its two dimensional analogue. The final intensity at the image is
197: given by $|\hat{A^{\prime}}\hat{A^{\prime \star}}|$.
198: Figure \ref{fig:modp} shows the light distribution before the Lyot Stop for the
199: notch-filter mask we designed assuming no errors and a circular entrance pupil.
200: \section{Experiments and Results}
201: \label{s3}
202: The testbed used at Penn State was designed to test many different
203: coronagraph and shaped pupil designs. We used a HeNe
204: laser as the light source and approximated a point source by placing a microscope objective lens in front of the
205: laser and placing the focused image on the
206: entrance aperture of a single mode fiber. Light exiting
207: the fiber was collimated, followed by
208: a $\sim$3.16 mm entrance aperture. An image was formed at the focal
209: plane image masks, which were mounted on a precision x-y-z stage.
210: The light was then re-collimated and passed through
211: a Lyot stop at an image of the entrance pupil. Finally the light was
212: focused onto the CCD detector, where the final image was formed.
213: The largest possible Lyot stop permitted by the linear mask design
214: we chose would have been shaped like the overlap region of two circles \citep{kuchner02}. Instead, for convenience we used
215: an iris as a Lyot stop. The final diameter used for
216: the experiments was 1.8~mm. This diameter is 75\% of what would be
217: expected theoretically. We discuss the possible explanation for this in
218: Section \ref{s4}.
219:
220: In order to measure a contrast ratio for any point in the PSF of the unblocked
221: point source or of the point source behind the mask, the counts in a particular
222: pixel must be normalized to the peak pixel counts of the unblocked point source
223: for a given exposure time. Ideally one would measure the counts with the mask
224: out and in for the same exposure time. The deepest
225: contrast one can achieve with this method is limited by the
226: nonlinearity of the CCD, in our case $\sim$20,000 ADU. For a S/N $>$ 5 in a
227: particular pixel,
228: this level would correspond to a contrast of only $1.2\times10^{-3}$.
229: To measure deeper contrasts one must take
230: longer exposures of the blocked point source and normalize the results
231: to an extrapolated count rate for the unblocked source.
232:
233:
234: To obtain reliable estimates of the count rates and fluxes of the different
235: configurations we observed the PSF over a range of linearly increasing exposure
236: times, taking care to avoid saturating the image.
237: We measured the peak pixel and total flux in each exposure
238: using the IRAF task IMEXAM.
239: We averaged the results and fit a linear model to them
240: using a least squares fitting routine in IDL
241: called LINFIT. By extrapolating to a specific exposure time a normalization
242: for observations with the notch-filter mask could be obtained.
243:
244: We repeated this procedure for the point
245: source through the quartz substrate of the notch-filter mask, with no substrate present, and with the Lyot stop completely open in order to determine the transmission of the
246: substrates and the throughput of the Lyot stop.
247: Our reported results for the notch-filter mask are scaled to the
248: peak pixel count rate of the unblocked point source through the substrate. We used the other measurements to gauge the throughput of the quartz substrate
249: and the Lyot stop.
250:
251: In the setup we also took observations of the pupil image both with and without the mask,
252: to gauge how well qualitatively the mask worked, compared to what is predicted by scalar
253: diffraction theory. Figure \ref{fig:pup} shows that with the mask in place, the pupil
254: qualitatively resembles what is predicted by our model in Figure \ref{fig:modp}. Note that both pupils in Figure \ref{fig:pup}
255: are at the same scale, and the bulk of the light falls outside the original pupil.
256:
257: Once the peak pixel count rates and fluxes were measured, deep observations of the
258: notch-filter mask were taken.
259: Figure \ref{fig:im} shows two images set to the same contrast level and normalized
260: to the same exposure time. The top image is one of the point source
261: without the notch-filter mask in place, and the bottom image is an
262: exposure with the mask centered.
263:
264: The bar at the bottom
265: shows the number of counts on the detector associated with each level of the greyscale. As can easily
266: be seen, the diffraction pattern of the light source is diminished greatly.
267:
268: Figure \ref{fig:comp} demonstrates a more quantitative comparison with the mask
269: present and absent and the undersized Lyot Stop in place for both
270: configurations. The
271: figure shows the images taken during our experiments
272: azimuthally averaged over all angles except for 20$^\circ$ on either side of
273: the notch-filter's mask axis to avoid the region completely blocked by
274: the mask. The curves are normalized to the peak pixel
275: count rate of the unblocked image. We have converted the spatial scale
276: in pixels to units of $\lambda/D$ by multiplying by a factor of
277: $l_{pix}/(\lambda f_\#)$, where $l_{pix}$ is the width of a pixel
278: in \micron. By doing this one can scale our results for
279: existing or future telescopes. It is important to note that this
280: scale reflects
281: the degradation of spatial resolution due to a Lyot Stop that
282: is undersized. The diffraction pattern is
283: clearly suppressed by at least 2 orders of magnitude within
284: 10$\lambda/D$, with a contrast of 9.5$\times10^{-6}$ reached at 3$\lambda/D$.
285: In the course of our experiments we found that the mask was not completely
286: opaque, allowing a small fraction of light transmission. We measured
287: the magnitude of this mask transmisivity (MT) as well with
288: the Lyot Stop in place and show it in
289: Figure \ref{fig:comp} for comparison. It appears that most of
290: the residual light corresponds to the wings of this transmission.
291:
292: Table \ref{tab1} allows us to compare the relative throughput of the
293: notch-filter mask to a setup without a Lyot stop.
294: We define throughput as the ratio of flux for a certain design to the flux of
295: the system with a completely open Lyot stop and no mask in place.
296: We also measured the point source through the
297: quartz substrate of the mask. As can be seen, the throughput of the notch-filter mask+Lyot stop combination is $\sim$27\%.
298:
299: \section{Discussion}
300: \label{s4}
301: Our experiments did not attain the mask performance levels
302: expected from scalar diffraction theory. In this section we will quantify the effect of some errors that degraded the contrast, and speculate on the
303: potential uses of this mask for space-based planet searches.
304:
305: MT, the
306: finite size of the point source, mask alignment errors, and mask fabrication
307: errors all combine to explain the degraded performance of the notch
308: filter mask. These effects can be estimated and collected
309: into an error budget to guide further testing of the mask and drive
310: improvements in our setup.
311:
312: The MT for dark parts of the mask should be less than
313: the contrast requirements. Degradation from light transmission
314: can be estimated by
315: assuming a $\lambda/D$ by $\lambda/D$ hole in the mask with fractional
316: transmission
317: $f$. The central intensity of the leakage would be $\sim .25f$ as found in \citet{kuchner02}.
318:
319: The transmission
320: flux measured in Table \ref{tab1} is $3\times10^{-3}$ times the unblocked
321: point source,
322: giving a transmission peak intensity of 7.5 $\times10^{-4}$. This is larger
323: than what is observed at the center, but one can estimate what would be
324: expected further away--the PSF is $\sim$10$^{-2}$ the peak at the first
325: Airy ring, which for the transmission gives an intensity of $\sim10^{-5}$, which is more consistent with what is seen further from the center. The mask may not be uniformly transmissive and slightly thicker toward the center, which
326: could account for the suppression of the peak core.
327: The opaque parts of the mask are covered by a 105 nm thick layer of chromium;
328: if this layer is doubled or tripled it will push the MT to $\sim10^{-8}$
329:
330: If the error in alignment with respect to the mask is larger than the physical size of the
331: point source, then the leakage is $\sim (\Delta\theta/\theta_{1/2})^{4}$ where $\Delta\theta$
332: is the error in alignment and $\theta_{1/2}$ is the half power position
333: of the mask \citep{kuchner02}. The size of our single mode fiber core, 5 $\micron$,
334: ensures that the leakage due to it is $\ll$ the leakage due to misalignment of the
335: mask.
336: We have measured the half power of the mask to be $\sim$8 pixels or 192 $\micron$ in the
337: focal plane. Our precision stage had an estimated accuracy of $\sim$16 $\micron$, based
338: on half the value of the smallest movement possible in the focal plane. The
339: leakage would be $\sim4.8\times10^{-5}$ that of the unblocked point source.
340:
341: The surface roughness of our lenses will dictate the levels of scattered light we
342: should observe and allow us to estimate the contribution of scattered light
343: to the degradation in contrast. We measured the surface roughness
344: of one of our lenses with a profilometer at Nanofab and obtained an estimate of the
345: RMS roughness (See \citet{elson1}). Scattered
346: light levels are $\propto$ $\delta_{rms}^2$,
347: assuming a collection of plane gratings that diffract (scatter) light
348: into angles of interest.
349: This formalism is for an opaque surface that reflects light. However,
350: the results for a series of uncorrelated surfaces (i.e. an optical setup of many
351: lenses) give similar results provided that the roughness is separated on scales
352: $>$ $2\lambda$ \citep{elson2}. We find that
353: the RMS roughness of the lens is .4 nm, which can be compared to the measured roughness of HST,
354: $\sim$5.5 nm. Therefore we estimate that the scattered light levels should
355: be $\sim(\delta/\delta_{HST})^2$ less than that of HST, corresponding to a contrast
356: level of $3\times10^{-7} (x/14.5)^{-2.19}$, where $x$ is in multiples of
357: $\lambda/D$
358: \citep{bb1,malbet95}. This corresponds to a scattered light level of $\sim$9$\times 10^{-6}$
359: at 3 $\lambda/D$ and $1\times 10^{-6}$ at $8\lambda/D$.
360: More accurate measurements and
361: analysis are needed to better quantify the limitations of scattered light in the
362: lab, as the above comparison is not necessarily accurate with such small scattering
363: angles \citep{bb1}.
364:
365: MT and scattered light dominate the source of errors at $\sim$3$\lambda/D$,
366: which is consistent with what is seen in Figure \ref{fig:comp}. The resulting PSF
367: with the notch-filter mask resembles the MT PSF, close to the PSF core,
368: where the residual Airy Pattern of the MT dominates. Further from the core
369: the Airy pattern is less distinct, most likely due to speckles from light
370: scattered from the microroughness of our lenses.
371:
372: A Lyot stop of diameter $\sim$2.4 mm should have sufficed for
373: a contrast of 10$^{-6}$. Experimentally we found
374: that an undersized Lyot stop with 75\% the diameter of the theoretical
375: design appeared more efficacious. This was based on an initial belief that the
376: degradation was caused by excess scattered light or slight misalignments
377: of the Lyot stop and the optical beam. In those cases, undersizing the
378: Lyot Stop would compensate for low levels of leakage. However, since
379: it is apparent that the main cause of the degradation in contrast
380: is due to the MT, undersizing the stop simply reduces throughput.
381:
382: The design ``as-is'' already could have significant science benefits
383: in space. Observations at the scattered
384: light limit of HST coupled with PSF subtraction
385: (shown to give an improvement of
386: contrast of around a factor of 50-100) could yield contrast levels of
387: $\sim10^{-7}$ \citep{schneider,grady}. For HST, the Lyot stop
388: would need to be designed such that the central obscuration and
389: support pads would be adequately blocked at a cost in throughput. The
390: Lyot stop would be the overlap of three HST pupils, just as in the
391: ideal case.
392: If we assume that
393: with sufficient integration time we can reliably detect planets at this
394: contrast level we can speculate how useful HST would be for
395: a planet search.
396: An instrument on HST optimized for coronagraphy
397: could become a test bed for future
398: TPF coronagraph technology. This setup would allow a limited extrasolar
399: planet direct imaging survey around nearby stars and white dwarfs. As an
400: example we consider our reported contrast at 3$\lambda/D$ in the J~band
401: on HST with PSF subtraction.
402: Given the best results one could expect $\Delta$J=17.5 and observe
403: 1~Gyr old 3~M$_{Jup}$ planets 10~AU from their host stars out to 30~pc and a
404: 10-100~Myr old 2 $M_{Jup}$ at 6.3 AU around
405: $\beta$ Pictoris \citep{burrows}.
406:
407: \acknowledgements
408: This work is supported by the National Science
409: Foundation with grant AST-0138235, NASA grants NAG5-12115 and
410: NAG5-11427 and Ball Aerospace. J.D. acknowledges funding by a NASA GSRP fellowship
411: under grant NGT5-119. M.J.K. acknowledges the support of the Hubble Fellowship Program of the Space Telescope Science Institute. Thanks also to Curtis DeWitt for his invaluable help in the
412: lab, Deqing Ren for help with the experimental setup, and Dan McDavitt and Shane
413: Miller for obtaining surface roughness scans.
414:
415: \bibliography{apjbib}
416: \bibliographystyle{apj}
417:
418: \clearpage
419:
420: \begin{figure}
421: \plotone{f1.eps}
422: \caption{\label{fig:mask} Optical microscope images of the final mask design. }
423: \end{figure}
424:
425: \clearpage
426:
427: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
428: \tablecolumns{3}
429: \tablewidth{0pc}
430: \tablecaption{\label{tab1}Table of the flux and peak pixel count rate. In each case
431: the flux is without a blocking filter present.}
432: \tablehead{
433: \colhead{Configuration} & \colhead{Flux} & \colhead{
434: Peak Pixel Count Rate } \\
435: & \colhead{(ADU s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{(ADU s$^{-1})$}
436: }
437: \startdata
438: Notch-filter glass & 7$\times 10^{8}$ & 2.2$\times10^{6}$ \\
439: No Mask & 8.0$\times10^{8}$ & 2.4$\times10^{6}$ \\
440: No Mask, No stop & 2.6$\times 10^{9}$ & 1.9$\times10^7$\\
441: Mask Transmissivity & 2.3$\times 10^{6}$ & 7.2$\times 10^{3}$ \\
442: \enddata
443: \end{deluxetable}
444:
445: \clearpage
446: \begin{figure}
447: \plotone{f2.eps}
448: \caption{\label{fig:modp} A model of the light distribution
449: in the pupil plane prior to a Lyot stop of a notch-filter mask design
450: with an $\epsilon$=.46, at the working wavelength of .633~\micron. }
451: \end{figure}
452:
453: \begin{figure}
454: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
455: \caption{\label{fig:pup} A comparison between pupil images
456: of the testbed with no mask (left) and with
457: a mask centered (right).}
458: \end{figure}
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \epsscale{.5}
462: \plotone{f4.eps}
463: \epsscale{1}
464: \caption{\label{fig:im} (top) 10 second image of the laser point source
465: without the mask in place. (bottom) Image
466: with same intensity stretch with the mask in place. The peak pixel value right
467: image is 2.8$\times 10^{5}$ ADU.}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: \begin{figure}
471: \plotone{f5.eps}
472: \caption{\label{fig:comp} Comparison between the unblocked point source, the
473: notch-filter mask, and mask transmissivity.
474: Each image was azimuthally averaged to within 20$^{\circ}$ of the notch
475: filter mask axis.
476: }
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: \end{document}
480:
481:
482:
483:
484: