Our webinar presenter is answering your questions for a limited time.
For a limited time, Sandrine & Flurin are answering questions about the webinar!
Questions for Esteban? Ask them here for a limited time!
Hi all,I used the method 1 from this article (Resolution of diffraction-limited imaging systems using the point spread function) in knowledgebase to calculate the resolution of my optical system, and got some weird results. When distance between two points are 10um, I can see they are two objects (see fig1). However, when the distance increase to 15um, the two objects are not distinguishable ( see fig2). Then if the distance continue increase to 30um, the two objects are distinguishable again. Do I miss something here? The results don’t make sense to me. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks,Xiaolei
1. How to model and partial polarized light as source?2. We want to know how to enter parameter values of muller matrix since muller matrix is more generalised. In opticStudio we have option for Jones vector. Converting Jones parameter into muller is easy by using some formula but converting muller matrix into Jones needs lots of calculation and it is tedious. So how to enter parameter values of muller matrix?
Hi, I’m simulating a laser imaging system (diffraction limited) and would like to measure the focused spot size on the image plane. The commercial software I’m using now takes measurement of beam spot by gaussian fitting and obtains its FWHM as the spot size. However, in Zemax the spot size is evaluated by the Airy disk (do I understand it right?), which uses the Bessel fitting. How can I convert the Airy disk size to the industrial measurement method FWHM ? Or is there any more realistic beam size measurement method in Zemax? If I did not describe my question clearly, please comment and let me know. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Oliver
This thread is dedicated to the upcoming webinar: Designing Cell phone Camera Lenses with an Interoperability Workflow – Part 1. Any questions received during the webinar will be responded to as a reply on this thread. Feel free to post your own questions! The speaker will be notified and will respond as long as the thread is still open.Be sure to subscribe to this thread if you want to see additional discussion regarding this webinar topic. The thread will be open to new replies for a limited time following the event. [The webinar has concluded] Webinar detailsDate: Tuesday, September 13thTime: 6:00 - 6:45 AM PDT | 11:00 - 11:45 AM PDTPresenter: Sandrine Auriol, Lead Application Engineer & Flurin Herrin, Application Engineer IIAbstract:The cell phone market has experienced rapid growth over the past two decades. Cell phones improving significantly on a yearly basis, part of that evolution are also the camera lenses of the cell phones. With image quality reaching higher levels than
I enjoy using catalog lenses in my designs. Often I need to build non-sequential models using catalog lenses.Inserting a catalog lens is straightforward. However, it is often necessary to reverse the order of the elements. This is easy to do in sequential mode. Can this be done when inserting in non-sequential mode?I know how to move the elements around, but this is a bit awkward because the remaining geometry winds up references vertices that are non-intuitive.-B
While the MTF at each individual wavelength in your system may be good, if the system has some chromatic aberration then this means that the individual wavelengths are offset from each other. Therefore, when the results of the individual wavelengths are combined you will get a reduced value of the polychromatic MTF.
Let's say, for example, that you have excellent monochromatic modulation, say 90% at each of three wavelengths individually. But if you have lateral color, the peaks and valleys of each wavelength are offset from each other. The polychromatic intensity modulation gets reduced since it never goes as low as the individual monochromatic intensities do. So you may get a much lower modulation, like 40% polychromatically.
This thread is dedicated to the upcoming webinar: Designing Cell phone Camera Lenses with an Interoperability Workflow – Part 2. Any questions received during the webinar will be responded to as a reply on this thread. Feel free to post your own questions! The speaker will be notified and will respond as long as the thread is still open.Be sure to subscribe to this thread if you want to see additional discussion regarding this webinar topic. The thread will be open to new replies for a limited time following the event. [The event has concluded] Webinar detailsDate: Thursday, September 22ndTime: 6:00 - 6:45 AM PDT | 11:00 - 11:45 AM PDTPresenter: Esteban Carbajal, Senior Product ManagerAbstract:Cellphone camera designs are required to meet evermore stringent performance specifications to compete in the field. Laboratory testing typically occurs late in the manufacturing phase where any previous errors in estimates that are found will cause significant schedule delays and cost increases.
Hello,I’m using the TEZI to model surface irregularity. I’ve set the Zernike terms to be from 4-11, which excludes wavefront tilts. I see that terms 2,3 aren’t populated when I use the SAVE tolerance operand. The RMS wavefront error only matches my MIN/MAX value with tilt removed. I see the large tilt terms when I Zernike fit the toleranced wavefront. Why does the tilt term show up in this case? Here is a simple file with one mirror surface. On axis only. 0.633nm wavelength. Aperture f/6, EPDHere is the MAX tolerance file SAVE, without the 2,3 terms in the Zernike standard sag surface but tilts are significant in the wavefront.The RMS to centroid is 2.08 waves which is close to the 1 wave RMS error input to TEZI in double pass (due to mirror). Why is the RMS to chief so much different? I’m probably missing something fundamental…Thank you,John
This User-Defined Surface DLL provides a realistic model of relief-type diffractive lenses based on zone-decomposition. Using zone-decomposition, diffraction into multiple orders can be accurately considered at once, and this method inherently accounts for wavelength dispersion and diffraction efficiency by modelling the actual shape of the diffractive element.Application examples include the creation of advanced intraocular lens models, where the different orders are designed to provide sharp vision for multiple viewing distances, thereby substituting accommodation of the natural crystalline lens.This application is discussed in detail in the following knowledgebase article:Realistic modeling of relief-type diffractive intraocular lenses using User-Defined Surface DLLs – Knowledgebase (zemax.com)Source code download link:Download files (DLL Surface): Relief Type Diffractive Surface | Zemax Community
Hello, I have some old DDE code and currently Zos api is used as a dynamic link. But for older version of Zemax, do we only need to use DDE or Zos api can be used regardless of the version of Zemax we use?
Hello,I want to be able to use step files in Zemax, so I followed the following tutorial : https://support.zemax.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500005489041So I added the file given at the begining of the article and clicked on NSC Sag, and then a blank box opens and the setting button on there is not doing anything. So my questions are : Is there everything ok with the software ?If yes, what am I doing wrong ? Have a nice day, Jérôme
Is it possible to do a ZOS-API Interactive Extension with Excel VBA?I’ve been able to do a standalone with examples from this forum. This works: Set TheApplication = TheConnection.CreateNewApplication() Set TheSystem = TheApplication.CreateNewSystem(SystemType_Sequential)This does not work (get the VBA error message “Object variable or With block variable not set” for the second line which seems to say that TheApplication is not being Set properly): Set TheApplication = TheConnection.ConnectAsExtension(0) Set TheSystem = TheApplication.PrimarySystemI’ve also been able to do an Interactive Extension with MATLAB from the boiler plate code (similar to above) generated by OpticStudio … just can’t seem to get it to work in Excel.Thanks.
Hi! I’m calculating the energy inside a surface with LEDS with different detectors: volume detector, sphere as detector, volume pipe as detector… but I can’t get the same values across them… I don’t know why if I hace the same system…From objects as a detector I get total power, but from volume detector total flux (all of them in mW); is this the same?When I take a value from the matrix in volume detector, what is this? flux, power¿?This is my file, I calculate the three detectors individuallyThanks in advance,Carmen
Hi all, I have a question about simulating the diffraction efficiency of holographic in-coupler for AR waveguide. I would like to mimic what Bernard Kress had did for the figure 19 (also attached below) in his paper ‘Waveguide combiners for mixed reality headsets: a nanophotonics design perspective’. He said the relfection HOE coupler with mean index 1.53, index modulation 0.03, thickness 16um, wavelength 550nm, and the construction angle 0 deg and 50 deg is able to achieve up to 17 deg (FWHM) angular bandwidth. However, when I try to reproduce this result in Zemax, I found it is only about 5 deg. I also attached the Zemax file below. I would appreciate if anyone could help me to vefiry this discrepancy. Thank you! Best,Kaden
Hi all,Thanks in advance for putting your advice to my post.I am simulating a microscopy in sequential mode which contain a tube lens from Thorlab. The tube lens provided by Thorlab is in black box. I want to transfer my simulation design from sequential to non sequential mode. Can I do that? Is it possible to use black box in non sequential mode?Thanks.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.