illumination opなし → table(引数だけで決まる op —— 画像やデータの入力を取らない)import fullseye as fs; fs.ledger.illumination_design(surface='glossy', defect='topographic', slope_deg=10.0, part_size_mm=50.0, camera_height_mm=300.0) (実装を直接呼ぶなら import illumdesign; illumdesign.illumination_design(surface='glossy', defect='topographic', slope_deg=10.0, part_size_mm=50.0, camera_height_mm=300.0)、台帳から引くなら opsoptics.get("illumination_design"))Rank the standard light families for a surface / defect pairing (table).
Candidates: low-angle ring (dark field, elevation 20°), high-angle ring
(bright field, 70°), the elevation that :func:lighting_sweep finds best,
dome, coaxial and (for defect="edge") backlight. Each is scored by the
simulated Michelson contrast of the stated defect — topographic: a
smooth facet of slope_deg (a dent wall, a bump); scatter: a rough
patch (chipped edge, pit, fine scratch); pigment: an albedo patch at
half the surround; edge: a silhouette — multiplied by the uniformity
of the background radiance the camera sees across the part (min/max over
the centre and the four edge midpoints). That second factor is what
separates a robust choice from a fragile one: coaxial light on a glossy
part gives a huge negative contrast exactly on axis (the glare) and almost
none a few millimetres away, so its background uniformity is poor and it
ranks below a dark field whose background is uniformly dark. Irradiance
uniformity is reported too. The result lists the candidates best first
with their numbers, the recommended family, and rule_of_thumb — the textbook
choice (a smooth facet → coaxial bright field on a glossy finish, else the
ring elevation that mirrors it into the camera; scatter → dark field; pigment →
dome; edge → backlight) so a disagreement between simulation and rule is
visible rather than hidden. Two things the numbers say that folklore does
not: a smooth 10° facet does not light up in dark field (it mirrors
the low light away from the camera) — the “dark field shows scratches”
rule is about their rough flanks, the scatter class here; and for that
class a large coaxial (bright-field) source often scores higher than
dark field because the rough patch appears dark on a uniform glare with
contrast near 1 (the wafer / glass inspection practice). The model does
not score sensor saturation or the glare’s dependence on part flatness,
which is why the dark-field rule survives on the shop floor; the table
shows both so the choice is made with the numbers.
optics の全 op は入力を検証してから計算する(黙って通さない):
_mm / _um / _deg / _mrad。mm と µm の取り違えは crash ではなく「もっともらしく間違った答え」なので、名前で防ぐ。大きさから単位を推測する処理は一切しない。ValueError — float('50') は成功してしまうため、未パースの設定値が長さとして通り抜ける(実測: thin_lens('50', '200') がもっともらしい 66.667 mm を返していた)。bool も True == 1 の暗黙昇格として拒否。ValueError(実数枠のみ。虚部の無言切り捨て・マスク剥がしを拒否)。NaN/Inf は全入力で ValueError。depth_of_field の過焦点距離以遠の far_mm = inf(それが過焦点距離の定義)と gaussian_beam のウエストでの wavefront_radius_mm = inf(平面波面の曲率半径)。どちらも有限の相棒(far_is_infinite / curvature_per_mm)を併せて返す。それ以外の無言 NaN/Inf は内部で検出して ValueError —「float64 が溢れた」と「答えが無限大」は別の主張なので、後者の顔で前者を返さない。optics.MAX_GRID(4096)、供給された場/PSF/開口は optics.MAX_FIELD_ELEMENTS(2^24)、ABCD 素子列は optics.MAX_SYSTEM_ELEMENTS(1024)、Zernike は MAX_ZERNIKE_TERMS(512)/ MAX_ZERNIKE_ORDER(40)/ MAX_ZERNIKE_BASIS(2^25)。小さな引数から巨大な内部確保が起きる経路(実測: n_max=40 × 4096² で 108 GB)を fail-closed で塞ぐ。| 物理的に不可能な状態も拒否: 偏光度 > 1 の Stokes ベクトル、負の透過率、負の強度、n- | m | が奇数などの不正な Zernike 添字。 |
py -3.11 examples/illumination_design_demo.pypy -3.11 examples/poc_solder_fillet_aoi.pytable を入力に取れる)abcd_matrix · wavefront_stats · paraxial_trace · seidel_coefficients · spot_stats · tolerance_analysis · wavefront_from_opd · spot_diagram
illumination)light_source · irradiance_map · illumination_uniformity · defect_contrast · lighting_sweep
Provenance: illumdesign.py — OPTICS operator registry. この per-op ノートは tools/opdocs.py md が自動生成(手編集しない)。
© 2026 Kazufumi Furuse — Fullseye operator documentation. Licensed under Apache-2.0.