Pursuing High Quality Phase-Only Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) Devices
, Hao-Ting Yen 1, Zheng-Ning Hsu 1, Yuge Huang 2 and Shin-Tson Wu 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done an interesting review about the technological state about the SLM devices based in LCoS. It can perform a good reference for the community that makes use of these displays.
There are several minor issues about describing some terms EO (in line 159) are not presented. Some of them are presented after their use, as CGH (in line 14).
All the equations need a better explanation of the terms involved.
Figure 5 needs a better explanation about what it is the P-1, 2 ...
Figure 9, gray level 145 present a fluctuation that have to be discussed (Any idea about the origin).
Due to the subject of the paper I think that can be interesting to include some reference and disccussion about the next paper:
https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-26-10-12723
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143816615001347
Where the author modeled this kind of SLMs and ideas about the influence of the construction parameters involved.
About the phase stability there are other works that make an exhaustive review about PA-LCoS that is interested to be included and discussed.
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering/volume-53/issue-06/067104/Electrical-dependencies-of-optical-modulation-capabilities-in-digitally-addressed-parallel/10.1117/1.OE.53.6.067104.full?SSO=1
Author Response
We have highlighted the revision parts in the text. The author contributions are added in the text, too. Commends from the reviewer 1 are addressed point-by-point as followed:
1. The abstract was rewritten. (Line 14)
2. The Equations 1~4 have added the parameters explanation. Figure 5 was added in order to explain Eq. 4.
3. The explanation of P1 to P8 in Figure 6 (original Fig.5) was added in Line 283.
4. We adopted the polarization interferometer (PIF) method based on liquid crystal polarization to measure the intensity fluctuation then converted to phase value according to Eq. 1 at each gray level. The intensity values measured from PCU-3-01-633 either at or near the maximum and minimum points have less fluctuation. As a result, the converted phase modulation line, as shown in the Figure 10 (original Fig. 9), appears convergence around gray level 145.
5. The 3 references suggested by reviewer 1 are important in the LC physics. Due to the length and scope of this review, we added sentences and references in the conclusion (Line 380-383).
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have highlighted the revision parts in the text. Commends of the reviewer 2 are addressed point-by-point as followed:
1. Some minor English check is required, for example: line 11: … “have been developed by” instead of “from”, line 14: the sentence needs to be grammatically edited. Line 100: “in recent years” or “recently”, line 263: “algorithm”.
Reply: The typo and suggested changing words are finished and highlighted in the text.
2. Line 27, please use [4,5] instead of [4-5]. Same for the lines 69, and 246.
Reply: The style has been corrected.
3. Use period at the end of the captions for figures 2-10.
Reply: The figure caption has added period at the end.
4. Change “et. al.” to “et al.” wherever used in the manuscript.
Reply: all “et. al.” have changed to “et al.”
5. Lines 142 and 154: The references cited seem to be misplaced. Check the order of the references for the manuscript.
Reply: There is a missing reference 4 which is added in the revision. All references have been checked.
6. Remove the dots after the equations and number them (for example (1)) at the right side.
Reply: The dots after all equations have been removed.
7. For all equations in the manuscript, add description of the parameters used.
Reply: The Equations 1~4 have added the parameters explanation. A new Figure 5 was added in order to explain Eq. 4.
8. Figure 5: the curves are not easily distinguishable. Please change the scale or make the graph larger.
Reply: Figure 5 (new Fig. 6): The font in PCM-2-01-633 has been enlarged. The phase precision measurements of 3 different LCoS-SLMs are very close (only ~1% error to the ideal one). Inserts of gray level from 100~150 are prepared for each figure to see the enlarged portion.
9. Lines 294 and 295: References should be cited before the end of the sentences.
Reply: Cited references have been moved before the end of the sentences.
10. Line 298: Remove “The” form the beginning of the sentence.
Reply: “The” in line 298 (new: Line 309) has been removed from the beginning of the sentence.
11. Lines 313 and 315: change “photo detector” to “photodetector”.
Reply: Lines 313 and 315 (new: Line 324 and 326): “photo detector” has changed to “photodetector”.
12. Line 361: add “,” after “presently”.
Reply: Line 361 revised (new: Line 375 and 377): The sentence has been revised.
13. Remove “(received …)” in ref. 36.
Reply: ref. 36 (as new ref. 37) has revised as Liq. Cryst. 2018, DOI: 10.1080/02678292.2018.1499971. “(received date….)” is removed.
14. One important change required is the following: I believe following the comparison between different technologies and different cited works is a little bit difficult and the reader gets confused when authors are comparing a single parameter in different works. Please add a graph, wherever comparing a single parameter, to visualize the differences to help the reader follow the argument. It can be a simple graph with reported value (for example the error or the response time) being the Y-axis, and different works being the x-axis.
Reply: We tried to prepare the summarized data similar to the Figure 4 for readers. However, some comparisons are not able to be narrowed down to a chart due to the different specifications. Besides, we do add single parameter values in the Figure 6, and 10 for easy comparison.
