Imaging with four spherical mirrors

Joseph M. Howard and Bryan D. Stone

We investigate unobstructed, plane-symmetric imaging systems of four spherical mirrors. Fifteen pa-
rameters are necessary to specify the configuration of such a system. Constraints are determined that
ensure that any resultant system possesses a given set of first-order properties. These constraints
remove four parameters as available degrees of freedom. To illustrate the efficacy of this design
approach, we present two example studies: one for a class of systems with the object at infinity and
another for finite-conjugate projection systems. For each study a global optimizer is used as the primary
search tool. Example systems from these studies are presented. © 2000 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: 080.2740, 220.2740, 080.3620, 220.3620, 230.4040.

1. Introduction This ray is taken to be approximately at the center of

Design methods are presented here that facilitate
studies of unobstructed imaging systems composed of
four spherical mirrors. As background, previously
published four-mirror studies have typically assumed
an axis of symmetry in their design methods and
often used Seidel aberration theory. Examples of
this approach can be found in a book by Korsch.1
Another published approach is to solve numerically
for the surface figures of the mirrors such that the
resulting system is aplanatic. This paradigm was
originally introduced by Schwarszchild2 and was
later generalized by Wasserman and Wolf.3 Such an
approach generally requires the use of at least two
aspheric surfaces. Yet another technique is to con-
catenate two well-corrected systems and then locally
optimize the resultant system of four 共or more兲 mir-
rors. Examples of systems that use only spherical
mirrors can be found in a paper by Shafer.4 In the
study presented here, we assume plane symmetry,
consider only spherical mirrors, and provide design
tools for investigating all feasible configurations of
such four-spherical-mirror imaging systems.
The configuration of the systems in this study is
specified with respect to a single ray, the base ray.
When this research was conducted, J. M. Howard was with The
Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
14627; he is now with the Optics Branch, Code 551, NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. B. D. Stone is
with Tropel Corporation, 60 O’Connor Road, Fairport, New York
14450.
Received 1 October 1999.
0003-6935兾00兾193232-11$15.00兾0
© 2000 Optical Society of America
the bundle of rays that pass through the system.
Fifteen construction parameters are associated with
the configuration of a plane-symmetric four-
spherical-mirror system. By considering a first-
order expansion of the imaging properties about the
base ray, one can constrain four construction param-
eters to ensure a given set of first-order properties.
When the object is at infinity, two parameters 共the
object location and the object tilt兲 are predetermined.
Thus eleven degrees of freedom remain for the finite-
conjugate case; only nine, for the case when the object
is at infinity. When the object and the image tilts
must be chosen for reasons other than image quality,
the available degrees of freedom are further reduced
by two 共to nine兲 for the finite-conjugate case or by one
共to eight兲 when the object is at infinity. The methods
for developing these imaging constraints are dis-
cussed in Section 2. It turns out that the constraint
equations can be put in a form that can be applied
more generally than just for the four-mirror systems
considered here. To avoid impeding the flow of Sec-
tion 2, we give these equations, and discuss their
application to more-general cases, in Appendix A.
With this reduction in dimensionality of the con-
figuration space, one can much more effectively
search the remaining degrees of freedom for viable
configurations. In Section 3, systems with the object
at infinity that operate at a speed of f兾10 are studied.
We use a global optimization routine to search for
unobstructed systems over eight degrees of freedom.
In Section 4 a similar search is performed for projec-
tion systems with a magnification of four. Example
systems are presented in both Sections 3 and 4.
Concluding remarks are offered in Section 5.

3232 APPLIED OPTICS 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 1 July 2000

 simpler with the Hamiltonian approach, but the dif-
ference is slight 共and modern computer algebra pack-
ages mitigate this advantage兲. Therefore, to
emphasize further that the two approaches are equiv-
alent 共and to illustrate their use further兲, we use
matrix methods here to derive imaging constraints
for four spherical mirrors.
In the following discussion, quantities associated
with the object are shown without modification and a
quantity associated with the image is distinguished
by the addition of a prime. To begin, let y collec-
tively represent the y and z coordinates of the point of
intersection of a ray with the object and let yⴕ simi-
larly represent ray coordinates at the image. Let p
denote the y and z optical direction cosines, py and pz,
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a plane-symmetric system
of a ray in object space and pⴕ be defined analogously
composed of four spherical mirrors. The cross section in the plane
of symmetry is shown. The base ray and tilted object and image
for image space.
planes are also illustrated. The generalized derivative matrix for a system re-
lates the final configuration of a ray to the initial
configuration as follows:
2. Four Spherical Mirrors: Imaging Constraints

A. Fifteen Parameters To Specify a System

冉 冊 冋 册冉 冊
yⴕ
pⴕ
⫽
a b y
c d p
⫹ O共2兲. (1)

Before deriving the imaging constraints, we first in-
troduce the construction parameters used here to
specify a four-mirror system. The cross section in
the plane of symmetry is illustrated in Fig. 1, along
with the base ray. The general notation for the con-
struction parameters, sign conventions, and arrange-
ment of local coordinate systems are identical to
those presented in an accompanying paper on three
spherical mirrors5 and are not repeated here.
The displacement along the base ray from the basal
object point to the first mirror is denoted d0. The
separations between the mirrors are d1, d2, and d3,
respectively, and the final displacement along the
base ray to the image is d4. Only positive values of
d1, d2, and d3 are considered, because any system
with a negative separation between mirrors is un-
O共2兲 represents all terms of order two and higher in
y and p 共because we have broken symmetry, the
even-order terms do not necessarily vanish兲. The
elements a, b, c, and d in Eq. 共1兲 are each 2 ⫻ 2
diagonal submatrices, and these elements character-
ize the first-order properties of the system. That the
off-diagonals vanish is a consequence of plane sym-
metry 共as an aside, the diagonal elements are equal
for systems in which the base ray coincides with an
axis of symmetry兲. The elements a and b are of
particular significance in the following discussion,
and the two nonzero elements are labeled with sub-
scripts in the following manner:
a⫽ 冋 a11 0
0 a22册, b⫽ 冋 b11 0
0 b22册. (2)

physical. A negative value of d0 or d4 corresponds to
a virtual object or a virtual image, respectively. The
angles of incidence of the base ray with mirrors 1, 2,
3, and 4 are denoted ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, and ␪4, respectively.
␪obj and ␪im denote the tilts of the object surface and
One can determine the derivative matrix for any sys-
tem by multiplying together a series of transfer and
reflection matrices. For the four-mirror systems of
interest here, this process can be represented as fol-
lows:

冋 册
the image surface. Finally, the curvatures of the
mirrors are written as c1, c2, c3, and c4. The fifteen a b
quantities d0, d1, d2, d3, d4, ␪obj, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im, c1, ⫽ 共T4R4兲共T3R3兲共T2R2兲共T1R1兲T0, (3)
c d
c2, c3, and c4 completely specify the configuration of a
plane-symmetric system of four spherical mirrors. where the transfer matrices Ti 共i ⫽ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4兲 and
Note that, when the object is at infinity, two of these the reflection matrices Ri 共i ⫽ 1, 2, 3, 4兲 are of the
parameters are determined: d0 ⫽ ⬁ and ␪obj ⫽ 0. form6

冤 冥
B. First-Order Properties
cos ␪i sec ␪i⫹1 0 di sec ␪i sec ␪i⫹1 0
0 1 0 di
In the accompanying paper on three spherical mir- Ti ⫽ , (4a)
rors,5 constraints are derived to ensure that any re- 0 0 cos ␪i⫹1 sec ␪i 0
sultant system possesses a desired set of first-order 0 0 0 1
properties. The methods of Hamiltonian optics were

冤 冥
used in the body of that work, but an alternative 1 0 0 0
approach using first-order matrix methods was dis- 0 1 0 0
Ri ⫽ . (4b)
cussed in an appendix. In comparing the two meth- 2ci cos ␪i 0 1 0
ods, we believe that the intermediate steps are 0 2ci cos ␪i 0 1

1 July 2000 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 APPLIED OPTICS 3233

Note that, when one is evaluating T0, ␪0 represents
␪obj; similarly for T4, ␪5 represents ␪im. For the case
when the object is at infinity, ␪0 is taken to be zero
and d0 represents the separation from an arbitrarily
placed reference surface in object space to the first
mirror; it can be taken without loss of generality to be
zero.
C. Determination of Constraints
The first-order imaging properties are completely
characterized by the 4 ⫻ 4 derivative matrix. The
first-order blur and system magnifications 共or focal
lengths when the object is at infinity兲 are of partic-
ular interest here. For a system operating at finite
conjugates, first-order blur is absent only when the
diagonal elements of b vanish. This fact can be
seen from Eq. 共1兲, where for yⴕ to be solely a function
of y 共and not of p as well兲 the elements of b must
equal zero. It follows that, when the elements of b
vanish, the diagonal elements of a represent the
principal magnifications 共in and out of the plane of
symmetry兲. These four conditions are represented
as follows:
b11 ⫽ 0, b22 ⫽ 0,
a11 ⫽ m1, a22 ⫽ m2,
where m1 and m2 in Eqs. 共6兲 represent the principal
magnifications in the plane of symmetry and trans-
verse to the plane of symmetry, respectively.
If a similar argument is used when the object is at
infinity, there will be no first-order blur when the
diagonal elements of a vanish. When this condition
is met, the diagonal elements of b represent the ef-
fective focal lengths for the system; this is equivalent
to the following equations:
a11 ⫽ 0, a22 ⫽ 0,
b11 ⫽ f1, b22 ⫽ f2,
where f1 and f2 in Eqs. 共8兲 are the principal focal
lengths in and out of the plane of symmetry, respec-
tively.
Expressions for a11, a22, b11, and b22 for a plane-
symmetric system of four spherical mirrors follow
from Eq. 共3兲:
a11 ⫽ cos ␪obj sec ␪imG共sec ␪1, sec ␪2, sec ␪3, sec ␪4兲,
a22 ⫽ G共cos ␪1, cos ␪2, cos ␪3, cos␪4兲,
b11 ⫽ sec ␪obj sec ␪imH共sec ␪1, sec ␪2, sec ␪3, sec ␪4兲,
b22 ⫽ H共cos ␪1, cos ␪2, cos ␪3, cos ␪4兲,
3234 APPLIED OPTICS 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 1 July 2000
where G and H are defined as
G共t1, t2, t3, t4兲 ⫽ 2兵c2 q2 t2 ⫹ c3共d3 ⫹ d4兲t3 ⫹ c4 d4
⫻ 共2c3 d3 t3 ⫹ 1兲t4 ⫹ c1 t1关2c2 q2 t2 d1
⫹ d1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ q1 ⫹ 2c3共d1 ⫹ d2兲q1 t3
⫹ 2c4共d1 ⫹ d2兲t4 d4兴其 ⫹ 1, (10a)
H共t1, t2, t3, t4兲 ⫽ d0 ⫹ d1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ d3 ⫹ d4 ⫹ 2兵c2共d0
⫹ d1兲q2 t2 ⫹ c3共d0 ⫹ d1 ⫹ d2兲
⫻ 共d3 ⫹ d4兲t3 ⫹ c4 d4关d0 ⫹ d1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ d3
⫹ 2c3共d0 ⫹ d1 ⫹ d2兲d3 t3兴t4
⫹ c1 d0 t1关q2 ⫹ d1共2c2 q2 t2
⫹ 2c3 q1 t3 ⫹ 2c4 d4 t4 ⫹ 1兲兴其 (10b)
and q1 and q2 in Eqs. 共10兲 are given by
q1 ⫽ d3 ⫹ d4 ⫹ 2c4 d3 d4 t4, (11a)
q2 ⫽ q1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ 2c3 d2 q1 t3 ⫹ 2c4 d2 d4 t4. (11b)
To obtain the first-order constraints for a finite-
(5) conjugate system we substitute the expressions for
the matrix elements in Eqs. 共9兲 into Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲
(6) and solve those equations for individual system pa-
rameters 共as a function of the remaining system pa-
rameters and m1 and m2兲. The following set was
determined for a four-mirror system operating at fi-
nite conjugates:
c3 ⫽ K1共c1, c2, d0, d1, d2, m1, m2, ␪obj, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲,
(12a)
d3 ⫽ K2共c1, c2, d0, d1, d2, m1, m2, ␪obj, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲,
(12b)
(7) c4 ⫽ K3共c1, c2, d0, d1, d2, m1, m2, ␪obj, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲,
(12c)
(8)
d4 ⫽ K4共c1, c2, d0, d1, d2, m1, m2, ␪obj, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲.
(12d)
The actual forms of K1, K2, K3, and K4 appear in Eqs.
共A1兲 of Appendix A. Note that, although these ex-
pressions seem rather complicated, they are readily
determined by use of modern computer algebra soft-
ware.
When one is solving for the constraints, the choice
of which construction parameters to constrain is
(9a) somewhat arbitrary. Although we found that this
set was relatively straightforward to solve for, other
(9b) sets exist 共e.g., one can also solve for 兵c1, d0, d4, cos
␪1其兲. Note that when a separation between mirrors
is constrained 关such as d3 in Eq. 共12b兲兴, it is possible
that values for the independent parameters can be
(9c) found that yield a negative value for this separation.
The resultant system is then unphysical, and new
(9d) values for 共at least some of 兲 the independent param-
eters must be found if a physically realizable system
is desired.
When the constraints presented in Eqs. 共12兲 are
applied, all the resultant systems contain no first-
order blur and possess magnifications of m1 and m2 in
and out of the plane of symmetry, respectively. Ap-
plying these constraints effectively removes those pa-
rameters as available degrees of freedom to the
optical designer, which in turn reduces the dimen-
sionality of the design space and significantly simpli-
fies the process of determining viable design forms.
For the case when the object is at infinity, the
process is repeated but with Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲. The
following set of constraints was determined:
c3 ⫽ L1共c1, c2, d1, d2, f1, f2, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲,
d3 ⫽ L2共c1, c2, d1, d2, f1, f2, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲,
c4 ⫽ L3共c1, c2, d1, d2, f1, f2, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲,
d4 ⫽ L4共c1, c2, d1, d2, f1, f2, ␪1, ␪2, ␪3, ␪4, ␪im兲.
The forms of Li 共i ⫽ 1, 2, 3, 4兲 appear in Eqs. 共A4兲 of
Appendix A. When these constraints are applied,
all resultant systems are free of first-order blur and
possess effective focal lengths of f1 and f2 共in and out
of the plane of symmetry兲, respectively.
For the following two example studies, we consider
only nonanamorphic systems. Such systems result
when the magnitudes 共but not necessarily the signs兲
of the two magnifications 共or focal lengths when the
object is at infinity兲 are equal, that is, when 兩m1兩 ⫽
兩m2兩 共or 兩 f1兩 ⫽ 兩 f2兩兲. The sign of the magnification or
focal length dictates whether there are an even or an
odd number of internal images. In general, the sys-
tem can have a different number of internal images
for tangential rays than it does for sagittal rays.
共Tangential rays are defined as those rays from the
basal object point that lie within the plane of sym-
metry. Sagittal rays are those from the basal object
point that initially lie in a plane that contains the
base ray segment in object space and is perpendicular
to the plane of symmetry.兲 For tangential rays, a
four mirror system has an even number 共i.e., zero or
two兲 of internal images when m1 ⬍ 0 共or f1 ⬎ 0兲 and
an odd number 共i.e., one or three兲 when m1 ⬎ 0 共or
f1 ⬍ 0兲. For systems with an even number of mirrors
the sign convention is the same for sagittal rays: An
even number of internal images occur when m2 ⬍ 0
共or f2 ⬎ 0兲 and an odd number when m2 ⬎ 0 共or f2 ⬍
0兲. In summary, there are four possible sign combi-
nations for m1 and m2 共or f1 and f2兲. In the following
examples, each of these choices is considered.
3. Example 1: Object at Infinity
In this section the case when the object is at infinity
is considered, and in Section 4 projection systems are
investigated. In both examples, a search over the
constrained four-mirror configuration space is per-
formed with the global optimization routine, Adap-
tive Simulated Annealing 共ASA兲.7 Eight systems
are illustrated for each study.
For this first study we considered f兾10 systems
with focal lengths f1 ⫽ ⫾100.0 and f2 ⫽ ⫾100.0 共there
are four possible combinations of signs of the two
focal lengths兲. A square field that subtended 2.0° on
a side was used. The stop was fixed at the first
mirror, and the image tilt was set to zero to allow for
conventional rotationally symmetric optics, such as
an eyepiece, to be added to the basic telescope design.
The figure of merit for each system was the maximum
root-mean-square 共RMS兲 spot radius at fifteen field
points arranged in a rectangular grid of five rows and
three columns covering half of the object. The first
column bisected the object along the plane of symme-
(13a) try 共i.e., along the Y axis兲, the middle was approxi-
mately two thirds of the distance 共65.5%兲 to the outer
(13b) edge, and the last was along the edge of the object.
The rows were spaced such that the first and the last
were at opposite edges of the object, the third bisected
(13c) the object 共along the Z axis兲, and the second and the
fourth were approximately two thirds of the distance
(13d) to the edges. As one would expect, the field point
with the most blur tended to be located at one of the
two corners of the image. Distortion was not penal-
ized: The spot radii were calculated from the geo-
metric center of the blur.
The boundaries assigned to the degrees of freedom
were chosen as c1 ⫽ 关⫺0.1, 0.1兴, c2 ⫽ 关⫺0.1, 0.1兴, d1 ⫽
关1.0, 100.0兴, d2 ⫽ 关1.0, 100.0兴, ␪1 ⫽ 关0.2°, 80.0°兴, ␪2 ⫽
关⫺80.0°, 80.0°兴, ␪3 ⫽ 关⫺80.0°, 80.0°兴, and ␪4 ⫽
关⫺80.0°, 80.0°兴. Inasmuch as changing the signs of
all the tilt angles does not change the overall system,
one of the tilt angles can be taken, without loss of
generality, to be positive 共and we chose ␪1兲. ASA
was run for 100 iterations for each of the four com-
binations of signs of the focal lengths and took ⬃50 h
on a 266-MHz Pentium II machine. The maximum
permitted obstruction during the search was 2% of
rays traced. Eight of the resultant systems are il-
lustrated in Fig. 2, and their parameters are listed in
Table 1. Note that these eight are not the only via-
ble systems found, but they were chosen to illustrate
the wide range of systems that can be uncovered with
this approach. In Fig. 2 the value for the figure of
merit is also listed next to each system to provide for
a quick comparison among the systems. As a point
of reference, the radius of the first zero in the Airy
pattern for f兾10 systems with 0.55-␮m light is 6.71 ⫻
10⫺4.
As occurs with asymmetric systems, the internal
images for the tangential and the sagittal rays are
not generally coincident. In fact, for four spherical-
mirror systems that are free from first-order blur,
these images can coincide only when they fall be-
tween the second and third mirrors. This is so be-
cause a single spherical mirror cannot image a point
without first-order blur,8 thus excluding the spaces
between the first and the second mirrors and between
the third and fourth mirrors because the overall sys-
tems are corrected to first order. Inasmuch as only
tangential rays are illustrated in Fig. 2, we can see
1 July 2000 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 APPLIED OPTICS 3235
Fig. 2. Systems A–H were found as part of the search of the constrained configuration space. The number next to the images represent
the maximum RMS spot radii of the 15 field points evaluated. A scale is given next to each system. Systems A–C have the same scale,
as do D–H. The sequence of ⫹ and ⫺ after each system label corresponds to the sign of the tilt angle for each of the four mirrors.

the locations of the tangential images by examining system A, the internal image associated with the tan-
that figure. Systems A and B both have negative gential rays is located between the third and fourth
values for f1 and f2, which results in a single internal mirrors, and in system B it is between the second and
image for both tangential rays and sagittal rays. In third. In systems A and B, the internal images as-

3236 APPLIED OPTICS 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 1 July 2000

 Table 1. Parameters for the Systems Illustrated in Fig. 2

Parameter System A System B System C System D System E System F System G System H

␪1 共°兲 2.690 40.512 23.237 26.711 8.166 13.107 26.411 11.880

␪2 共°兲 15.427 ⫺12.151 51.389 9.176 ⫺18.360 ⫺35.143 ⫺24.102 ⫺6.402
␪3 共°兲 ⫺10.808 ⫺21.051 55.559 ⫺35.294 ⫺10.393 ⫺34.221 9.244 ⫺10.501
␪4 共°兲 ⫺4.853 ⫺14.423 31.040 43.244 ⫺5.973 ⫺13.498 8.433 22.955
d1 95.112 36.318 199.251 60.639 60.100 69.308 23.313 53.580
d2 37.889 179.167 39.163 30.437 49.679 27.187 29.541 83.589
d3 199.826 116.825 51.699 17.424 28.644 19.639 26.666 33.393
d4 76.105 50.330 24.562 41.920 30.874 30.457 84.783 33.210
c1 ⫺3.626 ⫻ 10⫺3 9.493 ⫻ 10⫺4 ⫺2.712 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺5.062 ⫻ 10⫺4 ⫺2.976 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺3.534 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.026 ⫻ 10⫺3 2.531 ⫻ 10⫺3
c2 1.540 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺4.425 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.790 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺6.203 ⫻ 10⫺3 2.021 ⫻ 10⫺3 3.131 ⫻ 10⫺3 2.267 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺4.585 ⫻ 10⫺3
c3 ⫺1.010 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.020 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺1.886 ⫻ 10⫺2 4.433 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺2.604 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.617 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺4.260 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺3.484 ⫻ 10⫺3
c4 ⫺1.038 ⫻ 10⫺4 ⫺1.187 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺2.611 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺2.639 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺6.752 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺7.938 ⫻ 10⫺3 2.114 ⫻ 10⫺3 2.421 ⫻ 10⫺3
f1 ⫺100.0 ⫺100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
f2 ⫺100.0 ⫺100.0 ⫺100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Rms spot 4.735 ⫻ 10⫺4 1.014 ⫻ 10⫺3 4.535 ⫻ 10⫺4 9.179 ⫻ 10⫺4 4.143 ⫻ 10⫺4 1.058 ⫻ 10⫺3 1.068 ⫻ 10⫺3 8.325 ⫻ 10⫺4
size

sociated with the sagittal rays are located between
the same mirrors as the tangential ones but are
slightly displaced. In system B, an image of the stop
is located between mirrors three and four, and, as
with the internal images, the tangential and the sag-
ittal rays from the basal point on the stop are imaged
to points that are slightly displaced from each other.
System C also has a positive value for f1, but it has a
negative value for f2, giving an even number of inter-
nal images for tangential rays and an odd number for
sagittal rays. In this case, two tangential internal
images can be seen in the figure: one between the
first and the second mirrors and the other approxi-
mately at the third mirror. A single sagittal image
is located approximately at the second mirror. This
system is unique among those in Fig. 2 because it is
composed strictly of concave mirrors. The existence
of internal images in systems A, B, and C makes
those systems much longer than the remaining sys-
tems that have no internal images. For our search
we found no particularly interesting systems in
which f1 was negative and f2 was positive, and we
therefore chose not to illustrate any such systems.
The remaining systems in Fig. 2 all have negative
values for f1 and f2. We believed that systems with
no internal images were the most interesting and
thus included five from this category. As one would
expect, these systems were the most compact and
typically were among the top performers. Their per-
formance can be compared with those found in the
accompanying paper on three spherical mirrors,5 but
one should note the difference between their respec-
tive figures of merit. In the three-mirror paper, only
the basal image point was evaluated, whereas for the
four-mirror systems here the figure of merit is the
maximum spot radius for fifteen field points arranged
over a 2.0° field of view.
System D has a concave first mirror, as do all the
systems except B and H discussed in this section, and
it has its final beam nearly perpendicular to the in-
coming beam. Systems E and F are similar to each
other in mirror arrangement, as they both have
concave– convex– concave– concave mirrors 共in that
order兲 and are arranged with positive–negative–
negative–negative tilt angles. System E has the
smallest maximum spot size of those in Fig. 2. Al-
though system F has a figure of merit more than
twice as large as system E has, system F has room to
grow. That is, the system can be made faster, ac-
commodate a wider field of view, or both without
causing any ray obstruction 共system C also shares
this quality兲. System G was is one of the most com-
pact mirror arrangements found during the search.
Although some rays, such as the rays passing
through the edges of the second and the third mir-
rors, are visibly obstructed in this system, recall that
a maximum of 2.0% of the rays traced were allowed to
be blocked. System H has an interesting arrange-
ment in that it allows the first and the fourth mirrors
to be placed on either side of a single substrate. If
the back-to-back arrangement of the first and fourth
mirrors is deemed undesirable, d2 共an independent
degree of freedom兲 can be slightly increased while the
constrained parameters are continuously updated.
This process is equivalent to taking a local walk in
the constrained configuration space and results in a
system that has more working space for the two mir-
rors with only a slight degradation in image quality.
This is an example of how one can modify a system
slightly to achieve more-desirable packaging proper-
ties.
4. Example 2: Finite Conjugates
In the example presented in this section, we consider
finite-conjugate projection systems that are nonana-
morphic with a magnification of 4.0 and have a nu-
merical aperture in object space of 0.1. The object
chosen for this study is a 2 cm ⫻ 2 cm square, and the
entrance pupil for these systems is set at infinity 共i.e.,
the systems are telecentric in the object space兲. Un-
like in the case when the object is at infinity, the
object and image planes were allowed to tilt to help to

1 July 2000 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 APPLIED OPTICS 3237

Fig. 3. Systems I–P were found in the constrained configuration space by use of ASA. The numbers next to the images represent the
maximum RMS spot radii of 15 field points evaluated across one half of a 2-cm-square object. Note that systems I, M, N, and P are drawn
with the same scale, as are J, K, and O. The sequence of ⫹ and ⫺ after each system label corresponds to the sign of the tilt angle for each
of the four mirrors.

correct for higher-order aberrations. The magnifi-
cations used were m1 ⫽ ⫾4.0 and m2 ⫽ ⫾4.0, and the
figure of merit for each system was the maximum
RMS spot radius of 15 field points, arranged similarly
as described in Section 3. Distortion was not penal-
ized: The spot radii were calculated from the geo-
metric center of the blur 共as opposed to the first-order
image location兲. The boundaries assigned to the 11
degrees of freedom for the optimization were c1 ⫽
关⫺0.1, 0.1兴, c2 ⫽ 关⫺0.1, 0.1兴, d0 ⫽ 关1.0, 200.0兴, d1 ⫽
关1.0, 200.0兴, d2 ⫽ 关1.0, 200.0兴, ␪1 ⫽ 关0.2°, 80.0°兴, ␪2 ⫽
关⫺80.0°, 80.0°兴 ␪3 ⫽ 关⫺80.0°, 80.0°兴, ␪4 ⫽ 关⫺80.0°,

3238 APPLIED OPTICS 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 1 July 2000

 Table 2. Parameters for the Systems Illustrated in Fig. 3

Parameter System I System J System K System L System M System N System O System P

␪obj 共°兲 26.121 ⫺23.460 ⫺7.469 ⫺1.810 7.417 22.918 15.894 15.762
␪1 共°兲 6.784 1.746 21.767 4.655 13.148 24.066 10.504 3.023
␪2 共°兲 47.675 ⫺19.560 47.590 ⫺12.711 ⫺19.638 ⫺70.117 ⫺10.697 3.754
␪3 共°兲 12.407 6.611 41.385 7.284 5.043 ⫺1.768 2.308 ⫺6.340
␪4 共°兲 ⫺44.877 ⫺10.640 33.058 ⫺10.291 ⫺5.265 11.640 8.129 15.518
␪im 共°兲 ⫺5.607 ⫺4.847 ⫺20.066 0.393 ⫺0.061 ⫺0.107 0.731 ⫺1.226
d0 共cm兲 101.664 95.507 21.023 18.829 48.223 10.010 15.665 90.115
d1 共cm兲 133.271 69.091 38.041 17.314 37.004 12.561 36.327 83.118
d2 共cm兲 152.669 41.901 20.457 19.192 136.741 199.999 102.001 84.010
d3 共cm兲 81.009 20.477 67.876 21.101 118.382 152.754 154.292 84.670
d4 共cm兲 142.733 58.946 118.012 44.787 175.428 90.963 53.178 216.745
c1 共cm⫺1兲 ⫺8.022 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.183 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺3.418 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺3.071 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺9.399 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.336 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺2.279 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺6.659 ⫻ 10⫺3
c2 共cm⫺1兲 ⫺1.624 ⫻ 10⫺2 2.825 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺3.359 ⫻ 10⫺2 2.805 ⫻ 10⫺2 6.432 ⫻ 10⫺3 5.959 ⫻ 10⫺5 1.199 ⫻ 10⫺2 6.549 ⫻ 10⫺3
c3 共cm⫺1兲 ⫺8.513 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺2.623 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺3.927 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺2.726 ⫻ 10⫺2 ⫺5.477 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺5.054 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺6.713 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺6.394 ⫻ 10⫺3
c4 共cm⫺1兲 2.033 ⫻ 10⫺2 8.699 ⫻ 10⫺3 ⫺1.199 ⫻ 10⫺2 2.965 ⫻ 10⫺2 7.952 ⫻ 10⫺3 1.615 ⫻ 10⫺3 1.690 ⫻ 10⫺2 7.063 ⫻ 10⫺3
m1 4.0 4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0
m2 4.0 4.0 4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0 ⫺4.0
Rms spot 21.0 44.1 45.8 11.7 29.6 10.0 11.2 7.2
size 共␮m兲

80.0°兴, ␪obj ⫽ 关⫺40.0°, 40.0°兴, and ␪im ⫽ 关⫺40.0°,
40.0°兴. We used ASA to determine one hundred sys-
tems for each of the four combinations of signs of the
magnification, taking ⬃70 h. Eight of the resultant
systems are illustrated in Fig. 3, and their parame-
ters are listed in Table 2. The figure of merit is also
listed next to each system. As a point of reference,
the diffraction-limited spot radius for these systems
is approximately 13.4 ␮m 共for light with a wave-
length of 0.55 ␮m兲.
Systems I and J have positive values for both m1
and m2, and, for system K, m1 is negative and m2 is
positive. The remaining systems all have negative
values for m1 and m2. As in Section 3, we found no
interesting systems with an odd number of internal
images for tangential rays and an even number for
sagittal rays 共i.e., with m1 ⫽ 4.0 and m2 ⫽ ⫺4.0兲. In
system I the internal image for tangential rays is
located just after the second mirror and the image for
sagittal rays is only slightly displaced from it. Sys-
tem J also has a single internal image for both tan-
gential and sagittal rays, and they can be found
between the second and third mirrors. This system
is a good example of a configuration in which the
centers of curvature of all four mirrors are almost
collinear. This implies that that system is 共nearly兲
an off-axis portion of an axially symmetric system.
As such, system J is illustrated with a dashed line
representing an approximate axis of symmetry.
Note that this result was driven solely by the imag-
ery of the system: No attempt was made to look
specifically for a system with an underlying axis of
symmetry. Unlike system J, system K is highly
asymmetric, and it is unique in Fig. 3 in that all its
mirrors are concave. In this way it is comparable
with system C, which has similar constraints on the
number of internal images owing to the signs of the
focal lengths.
System L has the best figure of merit of all sys-
tems shown in Fig. 3, and it happens to be the
most-compact arrangement. System M has a sim-
ilar configuration but is much larger and has more
working space for the object than does L. Often-
times a system that results from global optimiza-
tion does not have a desirable layout. Systems L,
O, and P, for example, have little working space for
the object or image because one or the other is
placed close to a nearby mirror. As we discussed
briefly in Section 3, one can alter such systems by
changing the independent degrees of freedom by
small amounts while updating the constrained pa-
rameters to keep the system corrected to first order.
Once a more-desirable layout has been achieved,
the system can be locally optimized to maximize
performance.
Systems N and O have similar mirror arrange-
ments when they are compared with each other, but
the tilt angles of the third mirror are of opposite
signs. This implies that these two systems are in
distinct minima separated by a region of obstructed
systems. In other words, for the optimizer to
travel from system N to O it must cross through a
region in the configuration space where the rays to
and from the third mirror would be obstructed.
This simple argument shows that the merit-
function space is disconnected and, left as such,
requires that a true global optimizer be used.
However, a wandering-type global optimizer can be
used if these hard boundaries in the configuration
space are removed. One strategy for doing this is
to penalize the merit function, say, by adding a term
proportional to the percentage of rays obstructed.
This generally results in an upward slope to the
merit function as a mirror tilt approaches zero and
then a downward slope as fewer of the rays are
obstructed after the sign of the tilt changes. An-
other source of discontinuities that also must be

1 July 2000 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 APPLIED OPTICS 3239

considered is the constrained parameter d3. When
this mirror separation turns out to be negative, the
system is unphysical. To make the merit-function
space continuous when d3 is negative one can add a
term proportional to its magnitude to the merit
function. This method of smoothing the topogra-
phy of the configuration space and making it con-
tinuous should enable a wandering-type global
optimizer also to be used for these searches.
System P has an axis of symmetry similar to that of
system J but with an added twist. The first and
third mirrors are nearly concentric and of the same
curvature, implying that a single mirror could be
used for the both of them. The overlap of the rays
between these two nearly concentric mirrors in sys-
tem P would be inconsequential if the design were
adjusted such that a single mirror were used for both
reflections.
5. Concluding Remarks
These methods could be extended to encompass mul-
tireflection imaging systems similar to the configura-
tion of system P. In such systems, the base ray
configuration space would have been able to be re-
duced even further. Even without inclusion of
such higher-order constraints, the advantage of ap-
plying the first-order constraints cannot be over-
stated. We made a comparison of the results
presented here and those that we found by perform-
ing a search for systems with the object at infinity
but with none of the first-order imaging constraints
imposed. The deviation from the desired focal
lengths was added to the figure of merit as a pen-
alty, and no attempt was made a priori to correct for
the first-order blur. The resultant ASA runs con-
sumed much more CPU time and failed to yield the
variety of good systems found when the constraints
were employed. We believe that the approach that
we have developed to the design of unobstructed
mirror systems gives the best chance for finding
optimal solutions.
Appendix A. Constraint Equations for Four Spherical
Mirrors
The following equations serve to define Ki 共i ⫽ 1, 2, 3,
4兲 that appear in Eqs. 共12兲:

cos ␪3共m2d22 ⫺ sin2 ␪4 ⫺ m1d11 cos2 ␪4 cos ␪im兲

c3 ⫽ ⫺ ,
2共m2b22 cos2 ␪3 ⫺ m1b11 cos2 ␪4 cos ␪im兲 (A1a)

共m2b22 ⫺ m1b11 cos ␪im兲共m2b22 cos2 ␪3 ⫺ m1b11 cos2 ␪4 cos ␪im兲

d3 ⫽ , (A1b)
sin ␪4关m2b22 cos2 ␪3共m1d11 cos ␪im ⫺ 1兲 ⫺ m1b11 cos ␪im共m2d22 ⫺ 1兲兴
2

cos ␪4共m1d11 ⫹ 2m1b11c3 sec ␪3 ⫺ sec ␪im兲

c4 ⫽ ⫺ , (A1c)
2m1关d11d3 ⫹ b11共1 ⫹ 2c3 d3 sec ␪3兲兴
d4 ⫽ ⫺m1 cos ␪im关d11d3 ⫹ b11共1 ⫹ 2c3 d3 sec ␪3兲兴. (A1d)

would reflect off an individual mirror twice 共or more兲,
as occurs, for example, in an Offner relay. The mir-
ror with two reflections would be modeled as two
individual mirrors, but geometry constraints would
be necessary to ensure that the curvatures be equal
and that the centers of curvature be coincident. Ei-
ther a single mirror could be considered as a multire-
flector, making, for example, three mirrors into a
four-reflection system, or two mirrors could be mul-
tireflectors, forming a two-mirror four-reflection sys-
tem. 共Of course more mirrors or more reflections
can be added if so desired.兲
In this paper and in the accompanying paper on
three-spherical-mirror systems5 we originally in-
tended to include constraints based on a second-
order analysis similar to that performed in a related
paper on two spherical mirrors.9 However, the
constraint equations based on second-order proper-
ties turned out to be too complicated to be solved
algebraically, and therefore only first-order proper-
ties are considered. Had we been able to include
constraints based on second-order properties, the
It is understood that c3 and d3 that appear in Eqs.
共A1c兲 and 共A1d兲 are given by Eqs. 共A1a兲 and 共A1b兲.
Values b11, b22, d11, and d22 appearing in Eqs. 共A1兲
are given by
b11 ⫽ 兵d0 ⫹ d1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ 2c2 d2共d0 ⫹ d1兲sec ␪2
⫹ 2c1 d0关2c2 d1 d2 ⫹ 共d1 ⫹ d2兲cos ␪2兴
⫻ sec ␪1 sec ␪2其sec ␪obj, (A2a)
b22 ⫽ d0 ⫹ d1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ 2c2 d2共d0 ⫹ d1兲cos ␪2
⫹ 2c1 d0共d1 ⫹ d2 ⫹ 2c2 d1 d2 cos ␪2兲cos ␪1, (A2b)
d11 ⫽ 关2c2 d0 ⫹ 共cos ␪2 ⫹ 2c2 d1兲
⫻ 共1 ⫹ 2c1 d0 sec ␪1兲兴sec ␪2 sec ␪obj, (A2c)
d22 ⫽ 关2c2 d0 cos ␪2 ⫹ 共1 ⫹ 2c2 d1 cos ␪2兲
⫻ 共1 ⫹ 2c1 d0 cos ␪1兲兴. (A2d)
Note that Eqs. 共A1兲 have been put in a form that
can be used to configure the final two spherical mir-
rors in any system to achieve the first-order proper-

3240 APPLIED OPTICS 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 1 July 2000

ties specified by Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲. This can be done, Note that c3 and d3 in Eqs. 共A4c兲 and 共A4d兲 are given
provided the derivative matrix of the subsystem pre- by Eqs. 共A4a兲 and 共A4b兲. In Eqs. 共A4兲, a11, a22, c11,
ceding these mirrors is known, and this derivative and c22 are given by
matrix must be of the form of that of a plane-
symmetric system 共i.e., the off-diagonal elements of
each 2 ⫻ 2 submatrix must vanish兲. We adopted the a11 ⫽ 关共1 ⫹ 2c2 d2 sec ␪2兲 ⫹ 2c1共d1 ⫹ d2
convention in developing Eqs. 共A1兲 that the final ref-
erence surface for this subsystem lie at the penulti- ⫹ 2c2 d1 d2 sec ␪2兲sec ␪1兴, (A5a)
mate mirror 共i.e., the next-to-last mirror兲 in the
system and be normal to the base ray segment before
this mirror. To illustrate this point we consider the a22 ⫽ 关共1 ⫹ 2c2 d2 cos ␪2兲 ⫹ 2c1共d1 ⫹ d2
following matrix: ⫹ 2c2 d1 d2 cos ␪2兲cos ␪1兴, (A5b)

冋 册
a b
c d
⫽ 共T2R2兲共T1R1兲T0, (A3) c11 ⫽ 2关c1 ⫹ c2共2c1 d1 ⫹ cos ␪1兲sec ␪2兴sec ␪1, (A5c)

c22 ⫽ 2关c1 ⫹ c2共2c1 d1 ⫹ sec ␪1兲cos ␪2兴cos ␪1. (A5d)

where Ti 共i ⫽ 0, 1, 2兲 and Ri 共i ⫽ 1, 2兲 are given by
Eqs. 共4兲. To respect the convention described above,
T2 must have its final reference surface normal to the
base ray segment between mirrors 2 and 3 共mirror 3
is the penultimate mirror in this case兲. That is, ␪3 in
Eq. 共4a兲 with i ⫽ 2 must be taken to be zero. In this
case, b11, b22, d11, and d22 in Eqs. 共A2兲 are precisely
the corresponding elements of b and d that appear in
Eq. 共A3兲. If there is a different subsystem preceding
two final spherical mirrors, Eqs. 共A1兲 could still be
used 共with the understanding that c3 is the curvature
of the penultimate mirror in the system, c4 is the
curvature of the last mirror, etc.兲. b11, b22, d11, and
d22 in Eqs. 共A1兲 simply need to be replaced by the
corresponding elements of b and d for the actual sub-
system preceding these two mirrors.
Of course, Eqs. 共A1兲 fail in cases when the preced-
ing subsystem presents imaging properties that
make it impossible for the following two mirrors to
achieve the first-order properties specified by Eqs. 共5兲
and 共6兲. For example, when the preceding sub-
system forms a sharp image 共to first order兲 on the
penultimate mirror in the system, b11 ⫽ b22 ⫽ 0 关and
Eq. 共A1a兲 becomes ill defined兴. In this case the final
mirror is essentially required to form a perfect image
共to first order兲 of a point object, which cannot be
achieved unless the tilt angle of the final mirror is
zero 共resulting in an obstructed system兲.
For the case when the object is at infinity, the
following equations define Li 共i ⫽ 1, 2, 3, 4兲 that
appear in Eqs. 共13兲:
As was done for the finite-conjugate case, Eqs. 共A4兲
have been put in a form in which they can be used
with any preceding subsystem, provided that a11, a22,
c11, and c22 in those equations are replaced by the
corresponding matrix elements for the preceding sub-
system 共with the final reference surface for this sub-
system located at the penultimate mirror but
oriented normally to the base ray segment before this
mirror兲.
The authors thank Tropel Corporation for support-
ing this research.
References and Notes
1. D. Korsch, Reflective Optics 共Academic, Boston, Mass., 1991兲,
Chaps. 10 and 12.
2. The original research can be found in K. Schwarzschild, “Un-
tersuchungen zur geometrischen Optik. II. Theorie der
Spiegelteleskope,” Abh. Koenigl. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen Math.-
Phys. Klasse, Folge 9 IV共2兲, 1–28 共1905兲. A modern summary
translated into English can be found in R. N. Wilson, “Karl
Schwarzschild Lecture of the German Astronomical Society,”
Rev. Mod. Astron. 7, 1–29 共1993兲.
3. G. D. Wassermann and E. Wolf, “On the theory of aplanatic
aspheric system,” Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 2– 8 共1949兲.
4. D. R. Shafer, “Four-mirror unobscured anastigmatic telescopes
with all-spherical surfaces,” Appl. Opt. 17, 1072–1074 共1977兲.
5. J. M. Howard and B. D. Stone, “Imaging with three spherical
mirrors,” Appl. Opt. 39, 3216 –3231 共2000兲.

cos ␪3共 f2c22 ⫹ sin2 ␪4 ⫺ f1c11 cos2 ␪4 cos ␪im兲

c3 ⫽ ⫺ , (A4a)
2共 f2a22 cos2 ␪3 ⫺ f1a11 cos2 ␪4 cos ␪im兲
共 f2a22 ⫺ f1a11 cos ␪im兲共 f2a22 cos2 ␪3 ⫺ f1a11 cos2 ␪4 cos ␪im兲
d3 ⫽ , (A4b)
sin ␪4关 f2a22 cos2 ␪3共 f1c11 cos ␪im ⫹ 1兲 ⫺ f1a11 cos ␪im共 f2c22 ⫹ 1兲兴
2

cos ␪4共 f1c11 ⫹ 2f1a11c3 sec ␪3 ⫺ sec ␪im兲

c4 ⫽ ⫺ , (A4c)
2f1关c11d3 ⫹ a11共1 ⫹ 2c3 d3 sec ␪3兲兴
d4 ⫽ f1 cos ␪im关c11d3 ⫹ a11共1 ⫹ 2c3 d3 sec ␪3兲兴. (A4d)

1 July 2000 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 APPLIED OPTICS 3241

6. For the mechanics of differential ray tracing through homo-
geneous media, see, for example, A. Cox, A System of Optical
Design 共Focal, London, 1964兲, pp. 112–121; D. P. Feder, “Dif-
ferentiation of ray-tracing equations with respect to construc-
tion parameters of rotationally symmetric optics,” J. Opt. Soc.
Am. 58, 1494 –1505 共1968兲.
7. Details of this global optimization method can be found in
A. E. W. Jones and G. W. Forbes, “An adaptive simulated
3242 APPLIED OPTICS 兾 Vol. 39, No. 19 兾 1 July 2000
annealing algorithm for global optimization over continuous
variables,” J. Global Optimization 6, 1–34 共1995兲.
8. Details of imaging with a single spherical mirror can be found
in J. M. Howard and B. D. Stone, “Imaging a point to a line
with a single spherical mirror,” Appl. Opt. 37, 1826 –1834
共1998兲.
9. J. M. Howard and B. D. Stone, “Imaging a point with two
spherical mirrors,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 3045–3056 共1998兲.