Hi, I am trying use ‘decenter of a lens’ as a compensator in Tolerancing. For that i have made coordinate breaks before and after the lens that i want to decenter. Then used the tolerancing operand CPAR and used the first coordinate break as the surface and parameter as the x and and y decenter. My question is will the pickup solve on the second coordinate break will cause problems when the Sensitivity based tolerancing is carried out. Is there any other method to use element decenter as a compensator in tolerancing analsis. Thanks in advance.

I have a model for which the image simulation outputs an overall greenish/blueish image when polarization is used, while I could not find any reason for why the red component would have lower power. Here is the image with no aberration and no polariztion (with wavelength 1+2+3): And here is the result when polariztaion is enabled (still no aberration) : On the other hand, I could not find any anyslis that shows a wavelength dependency ; relative illumination is the same for all wavelength, across all field transmission vs wavlength is the same for all surfaces Is there a way to investigate further the wavelength dependency of the image simulation/polariztion of the design ?

I have a zemax file that seems to do no change in the lens data when I try to use the Quick Adjust tool. I set the tool to the right surface number and use thickness to optimize the Spot Size Radial at the image plane, but it does not modify the surface’s thickness, even though it is not at an optimal value (I handedly modified it to be a bit off) I’m guessing something is limiting the computation, but I get no error or no message, the system just stays the same Note that using the Quick Focus does change the second-to-last surface thickness. Also note that the surface I’m trying to tune the thickness through the Quick Adjust tool is the “back” of a black box model.

Hello friends, I have a license key that expires on April 2016. What is the last version of optic studio I can use? I am currently using 14.2 and its working fine but I don’t know if that is the last version of optic studio before april 2016. Any feedback will be helpful.

The documentation about Image Simulation on the “Apply fixed apertures” is : Apply Fixed Apertures If checked, all surfaces with optical power that have no aperture defined are modified for this computation to have a circular aperture at the current clear semi-diameter or semi-diameter value. Without this change in the aperture definition, rays may pass the surface beyond the listed clear semi-diameter or semi-diameter, especially if the Field Height exceeds the field of view defined by the field points. This leads to misleading illumination, typically at the edges of the image. I’m kinda confused by the vocabulary here, probably just by lack of knowledge on my side. In the first sentence, “… have no aperture defined...” refers to the surface’s Aperture data ? so that means “for surfaces whose Aperture data is None for Pickup From and Aperture Type” ? - like so : Then, “to have a circular aperture at the current clear semi-diameter” : from what I understnd, with “Clear Semi-Diameter” s

The Ray Database Viewer reports quite a bit of data, but it doesn't seem to have angle of incidence. Is there an option to show that information? Or do I have to derive it myself?

EDIT TITLE: How to setup boundary constraints for custom Compensator Surface in LDE/MFE. Hello: I am having trouble understand how to constraint a compensator surface. Setup: I am using Surface7 as a compensator as shown below defined by MNCA, MXCA, PMGT and PMLT operands to control the boundary limits of this compensator surface variables (thickness, Decenters X&Y, Tilts in XYZ). For test: I apply a DecenterX of -0.002mm on Surface3. When I execute optimization; I notice that the Optimizer can change the Compensator thickness value to go beyond the set boundary limits. Why does this occur? How can I strictly limit the Optimizer to limit itself within the boundary limits I specify? Thanks - Asuku

Hi everyone, I'm working on an afocal system using its paraxial layout, and I’m wondering if there's a way to specify or constrain the F# of a single paraxial lens within the MFE. Specifically, I’d like to optimize both the focal length and diameter of the lens, but maintain a fixed ratio between them (i.e., control the F#), or at least define some boundary conditions to keep them consistent. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

I want to overlay a pair of greyscale Huygens PSFs from the same source field, but two different wavelengths. It’s a spectometer, so the image locations are different. SOLVED! the Huygens PSF plots are showing the different wavelengths at the correct locations. Not sure why it didn’t seem to be working last night.

I want to create a universal plot of Huygens PSF FWHM vs wavelength or field. Is there an operand that would make this possible or do I need to write a script to (or manually) extract the FWHM from the Huygens plot data? This is for a spectrometer. I’d also like to get the local dispersion around a number of central wavelengths. If you can think of any built-in tools or shortcuts for doing this, please let me know. Thanks!

I used global optimization on a 2-lens imaging system with each lens having dual even asphere surface. The merit function improved a lot but now the diffraction MTF seems too good compared to how the rays look focusing in the 3D layout and how they look in the spot diagram. The only thing I can think is that since I have rather steep slopes to my lenses (due some high conic constants and one surface have high r^8 coefficient) that maybe there is some sampling issue. I did increase the ray density for the spot diagram and it does improve, but I am still concerned about the accuracy of the results I am getting. Any advice would be helpful -- Dan

I’m trying to export CAD for someone who can’t read STEP 242, but can read STEP 214. Is there a way to do this in Zemax? Thanks!

Hi Everyone, I would like to ask for help with an assignment that addresses the topics of polarization and absorption? I will try to introduce you to the problem at the beginning. Unpolarized light at a small angle of incidence reaches the front surface of the cell (a 1mm window of MgF2), and then passes through a cell filled with absorption gas. During propagation, the gas absorbs 99% of the P-polarized light and transmits 100% of the S-polarized light. At the end of the cell is another MgF2 window through which the beam passes. The axis of the crystal is parallel to the optical axis. I expect that because of this residual p-polarized light, the total polarization state will change (probably not much) but I would like to quantify the final polarization state. I don't quite know how to model in Zemax the absorption coefficients k as a function of wavelength for different polarization components and in turn determine the final polarization state. I tried to use the Birefringece In/Out s

Hello, I have a model as shown below. How can I shift the existing coordinate break origin to the new location and reset it back to original location? Is my ask equivalent to the new Zemax MPVT operand? Thanks - Asuku

I think tolerance results were missed with the Dark Mode conversion. The white text on light gray cell background is difficult to read. I like the feature otherwise though.

Hi all, I am trying to make an illumination system where the input are plane waves (-10,10 fields, right in the figure-laser with fixed beam size of 1 mm), and the output are divergent cones of -10 to 10 degree (small in the figure), something like that: Should I start from obejct space by using angles from -10 to 10 and force the image to have divergent cone of -10,10? If so what operands can I use? Working the otherway around by forcing the objects to have diverging cone (object cone angle )of -10,10 degree? Maybe working in non sequential mode? What operands to use? Many thanks, Nadav

Hello Using Interference Example 1- A Simple Interferometer from SAMPLES folder I created a simple setup to test a right-angle prism with pyramidal error. At the end I wanted to save the file but OS just froze and didn’t react any more - even after a longer time. I ended the program in Task Manager and opened it again without problem. The file to-be-saved before seemed to have saved well and it was possible to continue the work. I tried to save again and OS froze again. And so many times… In my last trial I wanted to check Preferences and after some time in Preferences OS froze again. All other sequential and non-sequential files that I have behave normally. What could be the reason. Attached is the screenshot of the file. Thanks, Dusan

In reference to this KB article, “Single-Mode Fiber Coupling in OpticStudio”. The receiving fiber is a Single-Mode. A SM fiber has fiber-core size = φ9.0 micron. Therefore, I added a φ9 micron aperture at the Image plane. This resulted in a drastic drop in Coupling Efficiency: 0.99% to 0.72%. Why is that? In a Laser fiber-coupling applications, doesn't the laser beam have to couple into the φ9.0μm dia. core? Or is it truly not the case, and the beams are much larger than the fiber core? Please help understand the reason behind this. Thanks -Asuku

Zemax 2025R1.00 includes new tolerance operand MVTP.It gives options the Zemax users options about mechanical pivot points. The below article explains this feature. Optomechanical Tolerancing and Systems Engineering - Mechanical Pivot Points – Knowledgebase However now Zemax doesn't include the sample file.It will include from Zemax 2025R2.00So this post provides the sample file.

Hi everyone, Apologies — I'm very new to OpticStudio, so this might be a fairly basic question. I've inserted a lens into my setup and would like to model the beam size as a function of propagation distance. I assumed the 1D Universal Plotting tool would be the right way to do this, but it's currently greyed out, and I can't seem to figure out how to enable it. I'm using Zemax OpticStudio 2025 R1.00 (Student version).Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

I’m new to tolerancing in Zemax. Does anyone know of resources on how to tolerance irregularity on cylindrical/acylindrical lenses used as diode laser slow axis collimators (SAC)? What are some good merit figures to use for a cylinder? Is it typical to tolerance the power and nonpower axes separately? Thanks!

Hello all: Is it possible to create a UDA on Image Plane such as shown below? I am looking at an array of beams falling on the Image Plane, where each beam is to be coupled back into a given SM fiber. Basically I want to model the image plane as an array of SM fibers. Problem: When I do a optimization on the rest of the system, the beam array can fall anywhere on the Image plane. Therefore, I would like it to restrict the array of beams falling on the Image plane with apertures as illustrated below. Any ideas on how to do this is appreciated. Cheers - Asuku