Image Quality for Near-Eye Display Based on Holographic Waveguides

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Presented article entitled Characterization of image quality for near-eye display based on holographic waveguides analyzes the influence of the DOEs configuration on the image quality based on the presence of chromatic aberrations and different brightness uniformity artifacts. Four DOE configurations for three-channel RGB system were tested and their advantages and disadvantages are presented.

The article is written in a lively style and is easy to follow. It is divided into 5 sections, which satisfy with their content and the way of presentation. Previous work on the subject is adequately cited in the introduction, as well as in other sections.

In some parts of the text the authors tend to write we studied; we analyzed; we made… these parts should be rewritten in passive.

I also suggest the change in the title. Since the authors didn’t make any kind of measurement of image quality the term characterization should be emitted from the title.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Solomashenko and colleagues presented four different layouts of holographic waveguides used for near-eye display and their resulting image. 

The configurations are well presented and the results clear. However, I do find numerous typos, grammar errors, or misuse of figure numbers, which needs to be corrected before this work is considered for publication.

Such errors/issues include:

• line 12 “depend on of” grammar error

• line 46~48 “in case of xxx have …” grammar error * 3.

• line 130: +-15 degree is combined, not discretely given.

• line  140~141, needs to define axis x and y

• line 142~148, needs a plot showing the structure geometry.

•  

• line 193: “the developer time” --> the developing time, typo.

•  

• line 213: “A feature of the proposed here configuration” → “the difference between this configuration and the ones proposed in [20,30] is …”

• line 247,275,296 “parasitic” grating line 259 “no segmentation”, misuse of symbols

• line 262 264, figure 5a --> figure 6a

• line 273 out-couple → out couple

• line 274, grammar error.

• Fig. 6(a), DOE2 is not labeled

• line 285 figure 8 --> figure 7.

• line 287,295,296 DOE2c-->DOE2b

• line 312 Figure 9 → figure 8

• line 334, 335, grammer error

• line 346 figure 10b --> figure 9b

• line 369~370 grammar error
  
  

Also I'd like to ask authors the following questions:

• figure 3:

• does blue have smaller FOV since the waveguide efficiency decays dramatically from normal incidence before reaching 15 deg angle? 

• why for blue waveguides, red is not diffracting?

• table 1: what is the recording angle? what is the structure of the grating (S1813 on substrate?, what is F6 stand for as a substrate?), the listed channel wavelengths is different from line 141?

• line 193: developer was in the proportion of 1:4 with what solvent?

• line 152 recommended height of 100~150nm, but the most efficiencies keep increasing until 200 nm. How is the range picked? line 156~158: i found the statement unconvincing.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf