Abstract

I thank Canales et al. very much for their attention to the effect of the phase apodizer, especially for their comment on my paper [Appl. Opt. 44, 4870 (2005)]. I reinvestigated the three-dimensional intensity distribution by a pure phase-shifting apodizer, and the main results on focal shift, focal split, and three intensity distributions are correct. However, the changing principle of the Strehl ratio is wrong, as Canales et al. show in their comment. Here, I show the cause leading to the erroneous result and give the correct dependence of the Strehl ratio on the inner radius and relative waist width. I am very sorry for the incorrect results in the paper.

© 2006 Optical Society of America

Comment on "Tunable three-dimensional intensity distribution by a pure phase-shifting apodizer"

Vidal F. Canales, José E. Oti, and Manuel P. Cagigal
Appl. Opt. 46(2) 180-181 (2007)

Tunable three-dimensional intensity distribution by a pure phase-shifting apodizer

Xiumin Gao, Zhou Fei, Wendong Xu, and Fuxi Gan
Appl. Opt. 44(23) 4870-4873 (2005)

Reply to comment on "Partially coherent flat-topped beam and its propagation"

Demeng Xu, Yangjian Cai, De Ge, and Qiang Lin
Appl. Opt. 45(2) 369-371 (2006)

Reply to comment on “Redundancy of phase-space distribution functions in complex field recovery problems”

Daniela Dragoman
Appl. Opt. 44(1) 58-59 (2005)

Reply to criticisms of the Pope and Fry paper on pure water absorption made in a comment by Quickenden et al.

Edward S. Fry
Appl. Opt. 39(31) 5843-5846 (2000)