The pinhole method of ISO 32543-1 is for focal spots >100µm. As the method can be used very simple and fast in production there was the question if it also would fit for smaller focal spots. And what would be the difference to the edge method of ISO 32543-3? A Kowospot camera was taken and the pinhole element was replaced by a cross hair wire segment: PinHole&CrossHair_1.png - Bild entfernt (keine Rechte)
The evaluation using Image.3500 from YXLON show similar results to the result of the pinhole image - but the influence of the manual drawing of the line profile and read out may have an influence ... PinHole&CrossHair_2.png - Bild entfernt (keine Rechte)
An algorithm was added to the KowoSpot software to evaluate the unsharpness at the eight edges of the two wires. The evaluation was done in X and Y direction and for a 60µm focal spot the results are comparable using a 800µm tungsten wire set PinHole&CrossHair_3.png - Bild entfernt (keine Rechte)
Another focal spot with the identical setting is not as good as before:
The reason is well visible in the both images: in X-direction we see somehow sharp edges but in Y-direction the edge is unsharp - which is conform to the result of the evaluation. The first focal spot seem to have a Gaussian distribution and the second one appears to have a Lorentzian distribution which has a long tail at the end. The ILP method measures the Klassens values from 16% to 84% which reduces the influence of the tails, but the edge method also takes the values from the tail in account.
The two methods of ISO 32543-1 and -3 give different results depended on the statistics of the X-ray photons ...
If you have any idea how to fix this issue please write a posting here