I see full-field optical coherence tomography (OCT) as a technique to do OCT with a light bulb and a 2-D detector. In my opinion, this is attractive for two main reasons: 1) you lose the complexity associated with scanning mirrors and 2) Halogen lamps and CCD/CMOS sensors are generally cheaper than conventional FDOCT sources like SLDs/femto laser and line detectors. It's been many years now, and I still only see microscopy setups using full-field OCT. Why is that? Is the challenge mainly in setting up the Kohler illumination when a real eye is involved?
Why would axial resolution be any better than any other OCT setup that uses a broadband source? SLD with bandwidths beyond 60 nm are available from Superlum, and femto laser have huge bandwidths. You didn't mention cost which makes it a different story but if that's what you meant, then you definitely get more bandwidth for your buck using a light bulb to do FFOCT.
Assuming you can design the illumination optics so that it would be appropriate for human eyes (pretty sure this is one of the biggest obstacles), I don't see why it would be any less comforting to the patient than standard flood illuminated fundus camera currently on the market.
- Badges
- Science topic