Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of a sample surface from scanning electron microscope (SEM) images taken at two perspectives has been known for decades. Nowadays, there exist several commercially available stereophotogrammetry software packages. For testing these software packages, in this study we used Monte Carlo simulated SEM images of virtual samples. A virtual sample is a model in a computer, and its true dimensions are known exactly, which is impossible for real SEM samples due to measurement uncertainty. The simulated SEM images can be used for algorithm testing, development, and validation. We tested two stereophotogrammetry software packages and compared their reconstructed 3D models with the known geometry of the virtual samples used to create the simulated SEM images. Both packages performed relatively well with simulated SEM images of a sample with a rough surface. However, in a sample containing nearly uniform and therefore low-contrast zones, the height reconstruction error was ≈46%. The present stereophotogrammetry software packages need further improvement before they can be used reliably with SEM images with uniform zones.

Dimensional measurements from secondary electron (SE) images were compared with those from backscattered electron (BSE) and low-loss electron (LLE) images. With the commonly used 50% threshold criterion, the lines consistently appeared larger in the SE images. As the images were acquired simultaneously by an instrument with the capability to operate detectors for both signals at the same time, the differences cannot be explained by the assumption that contamination or drift between images affected the SE, BSE, or LLE images differently. Simulations with JMONSEL, an electron microscope simulator, indicate that the nanometer-scale differences observed on this sample can be explained by the different convolution effects of a beam with finite size on signals with different symmetry (the SE signal’s characteristic peak versus the BSE or LLE signal’s characteristic step). This effect is too small to explain the >100 nm discrepancies that were observed in earlier work on different samples. Additional modeling indicates that those discrepancies can be explained by the much larger sidewall angles of the earlier samples, coupled with the different response of SE versus BSE/LLE profiles to such wall angles.