Abstract
The resolution of coherent and incoherent imaging systems is usually evaluated in terms of classical resolution criteria, such as Rayleigh's. Based on these criteria, incoherent imaging is generally concluded to be 'better' than coherent imaging. However, this paper reveals some misconceptions in the application of the classical criteria, which may lead to wrong conclusions. Furthermore, it is shown that classical resolution criteria are no longer appropriate if images are interpreted quantitatively instead of qualitatively. Then one needs an alternative criterion to compare coherent and incoherent imaging systems objectively. Such a criterion, which relates resolution to statistical measurement precision, is proposed in this paper. It is applied in the field of electron microscopy, where the question whether coherent high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) or incoherent annular dark field scanning transmission electron microscopy (ADF STEM) is preferable has been an issue of considerable debate.
Highlights
The question whether coherent or incoherent imaging is preferable in terms of resolution has given rise to many discussions
One needs an alternative criterion to compare coherent and incoherent imaging systems objectively. Such a criterion, which relates resolution to statistical measurement precision, is proposed in this paper. It is applied in the field of electron microscopy, where the question whether coherent high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) or incoherent annular dark field scanning transmission electron microscopy (ADF STEM) is preferable has been an issue of considerable debate
The alternative criterion used in this paper is related to statistical measurement precision and will be used to evaluate coherent and incoherent imaging systems
Summary
The question whether coherent or incoherent imaging is preferable in terms of resolution has given rise to many discussions This comparison is based on classical resolution criteria such as the well-known Rayleigh resolution criterion [1]. Due to the inherent presence of noise, detected images will never be exactly describable by the chosen two-component model If they were, fitting the model to the observations would result in an infinitely precise reconstruction of the locations of the components and there would be no limit to resolution. It will be shown that the attainable precision can be adequately quantified, making use of the physics behind the image formation process It can be used as a more meaningful criterion to fairly compare the resolution of coherent and incoherent imaging systems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
