Hi, I would be interesting in understanding if making OpticStudio cross platform is in the roadmap. Especially with the release of .NET 8, which would enable it. Note that I am aware that this is gated by making sure that all the dependencies and calls in the implementation are cross-platform. I think though that compatibility with other OSes is an important feature. Just to give you some context, Zemax is the only unsupported program in my Linux workstation, either natively or through Wine. I have a Win VM for it, but it’s not an ideal situation.

Hello, After following the next article: The easiest way to tolerance an off-axis mirror I have been struggling to manage the tolerances in my system since it has 2 different OAPs and as in the example, I have set one of them as the global coordinate reference Apart from that issue, I really don't think my coordinate breaks are working properly to tolerance the OAPs (I only want to check the decentered and tilt tolerances). Lastly, I don't really know why final focus is not hitting the center of the image. Thanks

Hello, I have made a system with two off-axis parabolas (in fact acting as a single parabola) and find that the input field semi diameter is different from the output field semi-diameter, although the spot diagram (with a paraxial lens) states that the image is perfect. Looking at the 3-D model and making an overlay of two images that are flipped alonng the z-axis, I notice that the rays on either side of the focus of the OAP do not seem to have the same angle, which indeed then would lead to a different semi-diameter. Anything to fix this? I have added a screenshot of the focal region of the off-axis parabola, with two identical images shown, but one transparant and flipped. I would have expected to have these images be symmetric to the mirroring.

I am trying to create a pair of 90-degree off-axis parabolic mirrors, oriented with the focus between them: Sketch As others have suggested, and taking inspiration from this post—Off Axis Parabolic mirror collimation | Zemax Community—I create entire parabolas and then aperture down to only the off-axis sections. However, I’m struggling to get the correct geometry. This is the layout (with apertures) Zemax attempt (w/ apertures) and without the apertures: I would like the rays to reach the second parabola and be reflected towards the image. Any obvious mistake with the geometry?

Hi everyone, I'm having difficulty understanding how I can reproduce the emission spectrum by providing only xy CIE1931. I would like to compile an Excel file or an Octave routine that simulates this calculation. Sometimes white LED suppliers do not provide SPDs but only CIE1931 coordinates. Thanks so much everyone.

Hello everyone, I am in the process of creating a human eye model in OpticStudio, and I am looking to incorporate the Stiles-Crawford effect as described by the attached equation: I = 10^(- (α/2) * r²) where: I is the beam intensity, α = 0.05, r represents the radial distance from the pupil center. To give more context, the Stiles-Crawford effect describes how light entering the eye near the center of the pupil is perceived as brighter than light entering near the edges, due to the directional sensitivity of cone photoreceptors in the retina. What would be the most straightforward method for implementing this effect into my optical model? Thank you in advance for your help!

Hello, New user and first post here. I am trying to collimate a beam coming from a fiber with 0,26 NA, 4,5 nm and apodization of 1.0 in order to have a 6 mm diameter beam along the maximum possible distance (desired between 2-3 meters). I did it using lenses but now I want to try with an OAP from Thorlabs. This is the model used: For achieving my goal I think I have to inverse the mirror so the image shown in the picture acts like my source, but I have tried with coordinate breaks and I can not manage to do it. Once I have done it I have to optimize the position of my source using those operands in order to achieve the desired width of the beam right? Thanks for your help

Hi, I have a two element design and I am a struggling with understanding how the airgap errors are handled and input in the tolerance data editor (TDE). Below are what I see the airgap errors to be: 1. Distance tolerance between lens 1 and lens 2 barrel seats In TDE 2. Thickness tolerance between lens 1 surface 2 vertex and the flat mounting interface (sag of R2) Set up dummy surface? 3. Thickness tolerance between lens 2 surface 1 vertex and the flat mounting interface (sag of R1) Set up dummy surface? 4. Center thickness of lens 2 In TDE 5. Center thickness of lens 1 In TDE For example, my concern is that if I input TTHI CT error for L1 of 0.050 and flat edge to vertex error of .025 Zemax will try to take the cumulative of this, .050 + .025 = .075. Below I show in 1.2 this would not occur as the CT would be out of spec.

Hello there friends from the Zemax community, I have an optical system which I converted into a non-sequential system. I am trying to estimate the focal plane field distribution from a source file in which essentially I am trying to model a point source that has a non uniform intensity pattern. First, I have checked that for an ideal Point Source in the non-sequential mode, I can compute the “PSF” by using the Hyugens integral based approach by setting the PSF Wave # parameter to a value of 1. Here you can see an example of what I get in this case: As mentioned, for the ideal point source I can get the focal field distribution. From the Ray Database Viewer, you can clearly see how the rays are being terminated at the object number 5 (my detector with the material set as ABSORB) However, once I replace the Point source with a Source file which also is supposed to model the case of a point source but with a lmn dependent and varying intensity value (For this, I used a source file in wher

The process to get the new ANSYS licenses to work is a nightmare! They do not have record of me being under support after paying more for support that my original license cost. Noone answers the help line! The instructions are garbage and some of the links do not work. The ANSYS system has no record either. [Mod edit: updated the title of the post.]

For a given system, with field type defined as “Real Image height”, the relative illumination at say Y=2mm is say 0.95 For the same system, with field type defined as “Paraxial Image Height”, the relative illumination at still Y=2mm is now 0.92. Since the Y coordinates of the relative illumination curve are given in mm in the image plane, I would expect the relative illumanition value at a given height is independant of the field type selected. What am I missing ?

Hi everyone, I’m working on an illumination design project in OpticsStudio and have a question about optimization goals. For an imaging lens, the optimization goal is often clear, like minimizing the spot size. But for illumination systems, e.g, Köhler illumination, I’m not sure what the primary optimization target should be in sequential mode. Also, I noticed that some designers do the design in a reverese way, with the LED surface placed as the last surface and that surface is not an image surface, just a standard one. Assume that my design is Köhler illumination and includes: (see the figure) Three lenses One field stop One aperture stop what should I set as the optimization criteria in sequential mode? If anyone could provide some hints with suitable optimization functions for sequential mode, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance for your help!

Hello there, I have an optical system of 9 lenses focusing collected light from a telescope onto an image plane. The line on the far left of the design is the focal plane from the light collected from the telescope. This imager will double as a spectrograph when a prism/grating is added into the collimated beam. Because of this, I need to know where to place the STOP in this design. Original design: I understand the STOP position will be located where the image of the secondary mirror is formed. Attempt 1 to find STOP position: In my attempt, I set the OBJECT to be the secondary mirror which is 3913mm before the focal plane. (Should this have infinite thickness?) The height of the secondary mirror source is set to be 118mm by adjusting the field lines. I then set the STOP surface to be where the focal plane is. (Should I set the secondary mirror to be the STOP position since that is where the light is originally focused?) Finally the aperture is set to a value so the rays reaches top a

In a Spot diagram plot, one can the see the position of the rays OR their direction - but how can we associate which position goes with which direction ? In other words, given the 2 following plots (spot diagram and spot diagram with cosine directions), how can we map a ray position to its direction :

In order to realize the full screen display in mobile phone, it is desired to put the front camera under screen. We will discuss the modelling problem for this situation and show how MTF is impacted by the screen.

From my understanding, the method used to compute the relative illumination is based on sequential mode From the doc : This feature computes the relative illumination (RI) as a function of radial y field coordinate. RI is defined as the intensity of illumination per unit area of image surface normalized to the illumination at the point in the field that has maximum illumination (which may not be on axis). The computation considers apodization, vignetting, apertures, aberrations of both the image and pupil, variations in F/#, chromatic aberrations, image surface shape, angle of incidence, and optionally, polarization effects assuming unpolarized light. The method is based upon one described in M. Rimmer, "Relative illumination calculations", Proc. SPIE Vol. 655, p99 (1986). The published method was extended to include apodization, transmission, polarization, and non-planar image surface effects. The computation method assumes the following are all true: The object scene is plane, unifor

Let’s say I have a design which relies on TIR between high index and low index glass with a coating between them: In sequential mode I can model this surface as a mirror, but let’s say my incidence angles span 45 to 80degs and I want to model the relative illumination effects from the less than prefect reflection over incident angles and wavelengths. Is there any way to do this? Thanks in advance for any advice, John

Hello there again friends from the Zemax community, I am using the Batch Ray Trace tool from python via the ZOS-API. In general this works for me. However now, I want to model the propagation of a full vectorial field distribution. When reading the documentation, it seems that I can do this using the Polarization option for the TraceNSCData case in the non-sequential mode or by using RayTraceNormPolData in the sequential mode case. However, from the documentation, I see the following: Note that the input intensity is always assumed to be equal to 1.0. So the e-field magnitude (if used) should also be 1.0. What if my input field distribution does not correspond to the case of a source with uniform intensity (each ray with an intensity of one). I have been able to model such a angle varying source via a Source file, however I would like to do the same via the Batch Ray Trace tool by setting the field components (ex, ey and ez) directly from python. Can this be done? Is this something ach

Hi! I have a perfectly working sequential model in OpticStudio, where I use “Elliptical grating 1” to model a reflective grating. I am desperately trying to recreate this in a non-sequential model, but can’t seem to get it working. I am attempting to use the Binary 2A object. However, I only require one surface, not both sides, and the diffraction does not seem to be performing as expected. When I try to convert my sequential model to a non-sequential one using the Zemax wizard, it suggests a “Grid Sag Surface” and “Standard Surface” combined with a “Compound Lens”. However, this surface does not perform diffraction. I tried to import the surface as a STEP file, but I also cannot get this to perform diffraction either. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Wrong exported STP Hello everyone, I am writing with a problem with correct STP export of a hyperbolic mirror. After exporting, as You can see on the image above, there are four grey regions, which corresponds to the back surface of the mirror, which should have the same shape as the optical surface of the mirror, and thus, should be not visible. Export settings as on the image below. STP export settings

In the example 17 from the ZOS-API doc, the number or analsyis and layout rays are changed: #! [e17s04_py]# Source pointoType_1 = Object_1.GetObjectTypeSettings(ZOSAPI.Editors.NCE.ObjectType.SourcePoint)Object_1.ChangeType(oType_1)Source1_data = Object_1.ObjectDataSource1_data.NumberOfLayoutRays = 3Source1_data.NumberOfAnalysisRays = 1000000#! [e17s04_py] But when I open the file created by the script, those parameters are 0 in the NCE:

Hi, I am trying to optimise the detector distance for maximum flux in a simple collimation setup made of one LED and 2 lenses. I want to set constraints for the detector location as for it to not travel before the lenses. I do not manage to optimise with the following Merit function and not sure what I am doing wrong. Any help would be appreciated.

A CO2 laser beam (10.6 μm) with a diameter of 2.5 mm was focused with a ZnSe lens with a focal length of 200 mm. When using the Quick Focus function on Zemax, the spot size is about 500 nm. When using the spot size calculation equation, it is 1.3 mm. The difference is too big. Is it possible to interpret the spot size on Zemax similarly to the spot size in the equation?

Hi, I am trying to use an anulus and a cylinder 2 pipe to form a lens aperture stop, I set both to ABSORB at the material taps. But there are still a lot of rays pass through. I close the anulus or open the anulus, the intensity on the detector is the same. Looks like they are still transparent. Could you tell me how to fix this. Thanks so much

I am trying to use the HYLD operand. When I type ‘hy’ into the merit function editor, HYLD comes up and I can enter it, but when I run/update the merit function it turns back to BLNK with comment “was HYLD”. In the optimization wizard under Optimization Goal, it wont let me select “Improve Manufacturing Yield” and the section bubble is grayed out. I am running a professional version of Zemax 22.2. Are these options just not available on my version? Or is there something I have to do to enable it?