Where we go from here

this is my objective.

the image is projected enlarged onto 35mm sensor, i have all the other specs on 1 of my other computers i will have to find it and post it. its the paper that speces you need 5um to 10 um for projection to 35mm sensor. now your trying to project onto a sensor 2x the size as what i am ?
if your experiment works you will get amazing image quality by the looks of things 😁

It’s 1.3 um on the object side. So 13 um on the image side, whatever the metric is

The lens I have is 1500 lp/mm on the object side, for a line width of around 400 nm.

i dont know the maths , i can only gauge my lens performance on bug bits 🤨

so is that why they say 5 um to 11um for best results ?

what does this mean to a layman 🤔

but isnt that for a projection of 100x100mm image arnt you going to squash the projection for your MF sensor

[deleted]

At the recommended 436 nm spectral line and magnification ratio, the lens is supposed to be diffraction limited. But note I’m talking about using the lens reversed, so the sensor side sees only 150 lp/mm.

The lens was designed for stepping semiconductor lithography.

My sensor is well under 100x100 mm.

yes thats right but your lens was designed to project a transparency of 100x100mm onto a micro chip !
but arnt you only projecting the image onto mf sensor in reverse

if this is the case from back in the 80s 40 years ago then how are we making circuits so small today ?

did some googling. very interesting. much more advanced to when i used to make my own PCBs when i was into electronics 45 years ago.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBKhN4n-EGI&t=325s

That, given you have 10x/0.25 objective, for green 550 μm wavelength you need at least a 5.5 μm pixel, and depending on other factors, smaller pixels may be better. Look up the Rayleigh criterion.

The lens was designed for 1:10. In that usage the wafer side image circle diameter was 14mm and the mask side image circle was 140mm. So as a 10x lens on a 33x44 mm sensor, the object side field of view will be 3.3x4.4mm.

Shorter wavelengths, some tricky optical schemes.

www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems

truly amazing

For sure. To get a bit of an idea of scale, if you enlarged the diameter of a human hair of 0.1mm up to the height of the Empire state building, one nm would be less than 6mm high on that scale. And we take for granted our computer chips running 3-5nm circuitry. For want of a better word. Truly mind boggling.

did you read where the computers that control the lasers have deep learning AI built in and adjust the control accuracy at 50,000 times per sec , we think the sony a1 is amazing at 1/400 sec 🤔 i suppose you would expect that with 6 billion dollars spent on development 🤨