Use this space to learn more about your software!
NSC Simulation speed problem, workstation slower than laptop
Hello,I am mostly running Zemax OS on my laptop, based on Intel i7 4 x 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM (Win 10 Enterprise, 64-Bit), to speed up simulations, I recently started using workstation with AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-core 3.7Ghz 128GB RAM (Win 10 Enterprise, 64-Bit). Pure NSC raytracing is about 8 times faster on the workstation then on my laptop. However, on the same NSC optimization tasks I am getting longer optimization times on the workstation. For example, comparing with the results from the KA-01591 How to optimize non-sequential optical systems Intel Quad Core CPU (2.90 GHz) and 16GB of RAM (as stated in KB Article)Algorithm MF Value On-axis brightness (Cd) Time for optimizationDLS 6.69 238 4.4 minOD 6.68 254 6.5 min My laptop i7 4 x 2.9Ghz 16G
ISO Element Drawing: open issues
I'd like to point out some mandatory features which, in my humble opinion, the ISO Element drawing utility lacks. I'm probably referring to all well known issues, but still, I believe them to be of paramount relevance to be left unsolved over the years. 1) support for triplets. 2) xml file support for doublets/triplets. More on this, I report a sneaky behaviour of the current feature: if a doublet design is saved, no error is reported by OpticStudio and an empty xml file is saved instead, so that the average user can believe its manually inserted data are securely saved, but actually they are not. When opened, such xml file just reports the string 'XML output is not currently supported for doublets'. 3) drawings saving in a native vector format, such as pdf or svg. At the present time an external pdf printer sw is needed to do so, often with unpredictable results. The same request holds for every graphic output of OpticStudio (diagrams, histograms, plots,...). The cha
Save .ZMX files by default
I’d like to save my OpticStudio files as .zmx by default to preserve compatibility with older versions of OpticStudio that my colleagues may be running. Manually saving .zos files as .zmx is functional but tedious - will the feature to change default save type ever be added? Thanks!
[Webinar] Cell Phone Lens: The Fundamentals Behind the Optical System Design [Q&A]
This thread is dedicated to the webinar: Cell Phone Lens: The Fundamentals Behind the Optical System Design. 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. This event has closed. Click here to watch the recording. Presenter: Katsumoto Ikeda, Manager Application EngineeringAbstract:The methods and tools for optical lens design have been evolving for over a hundred years, and today we have modern computing software to assist our lens design process. In particular, the degrees of freedom that plastic lenses provide, coupled with the computational power of today's computers with software have made the optical lens design of plastic optics more adv
Standard Lens in NSC
Hello I frequently use standard lenses in NSC modeling such as for imaging a light source onto a detector, fiber etc. Prior to optimizing them the lenses would be roughly 'created' in situ i.e. in the NSC Lens Editor. As an old school optical designer I need a feeling for magnification of the optical system I am setting up. It would help in determining the magnification if I knew the individual (paraxial) EFLs of the lenses in my setup. Any quick way? Thank you, Dusan
Henyey-Greenstein bulk scatter model
I am currently modeling light scattering inside of the human skin. The known mean path for human skin is 0.1 mm. In the knowledge base articlehttps://support.zemax.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500005577062-Using-the-Henyey-Greenstein-distribution-to-model-bulk-scattering I found that The Mean Path (mean free path) was set to 0.0001 mm, which is small relative to the 0.1 mm thickness of the volume. The measured OpticStudio values reproduce those results derived from the theoretical model within statistical error, as we would expect for a case in which each ray is only allowed to scatter once (the results will vary from ray trace to ray trace due to statistics, so you will get different – but very similar – numbers). I am a bit confused what mean path should I use in my model (there is very big difference in the results when using 0.1 mm and 0.0001 mm. May I get more detailed explanation how the reduction of the mean path compensates the single ray scattering approximation. I use the thickn
[Webinar] Zemax and Lumerical: Part 2 - From Nano-scale to Macro-scale Optics and Back [Q&A]
This thread will be used to collect questions before the webinar, and to answer any questions we received during the webinar. Feel free to post your questions! Be sure to subscribe to this thread if you want to see additional discussion regarding this topic. The thread will be open to comments through Friday, May 27th. [The event has concluded] Date: Thursday, May 19thTime: 6:00am PST & 11:00am PSTPresenters:Shin-Sung Kim, Manager Application Engineering Csilla Timar-Fulep, Senior Application EngineerAbstract: In this webinar, we will examine how the portfolio of Ansys Optics tools offers a complete workflow for the design of metasurfaces, or metalenses. These revolutionary ultra-thin optical components can be used to manipulate light in the visible and IR range for many applications, including smartphone cameras, AR/MR displays, 3D sensing and face recognition. Because of the sub-wavelength nature of metasurfaces, it is critical to use a combination of electromagnetic field solver
Modeling an approximation of a converging gaussian beam in non-sequential mode
Hello, I would like to model an approximation of a converging Gaussian beam source in the non-sequential mode. I first tried to model the source with Source DLL, (Guassianbeam.dll) and use a negative position (Position in the object editor), so that the source is behind the waist, but it doesn’t look like the beams are converging on the waist. Of course, I understand why the divergence angle should always be positive. Basically, my model should be relatively simple: a converging gaussian beam hits a reflective object.The Gaussian beam waist is located inside the object. The detector’s distance from the beam waist is also negative (~-40mm). Perhaps I could use some lens objective to recreate an approximation of what I need, but it would be nice to have the appropriate source directly. I am using non-sequential mode, because there are presumably some multiple reflections occurring inside the object. Thank you, Mariangela
Imaging an Aspheric doublet using the operand REAY/X
Hello all, I hope you are all well in the Corona epoch. This is my first post. Let's say I am trying to imaging a sensor of 4.8*6.4 mm with Aspheric doublet (FOV 15.2, EFFL 30). The total Aperture stop is 18*6 mm but for each group of fields(up,center,down) we are intrested in much smaller aperture of 6*6mm(displaced -6,0,6 mm respectively-see attached image). Rays outside ot this smaller aperture don't propagate further into the optical system. 1. I am trying to use the REAY/X operands for this approch by enforing the above rays to arrived to specific smaller aperture. Am i doing it right? 2. Is there a way to use the multi configurations editor, to displace the apreture stop for each group of fields? I try to do it, but when using the 3d viewer, when choosing all configurations, it seem like it can't be done. Attached below the zemax files before and after opitmization and the merit function file. Many thanks, Nadav
Problems with Version 22.1
Yesterday I installed the newest version of Zemax, after the that I couldn’t run Zemax anymore since everytime I started it it froze during the “Copy Data to Zemax Folder”-step Zemax does when you start it the first time after an update.A collogue of mine had initially the same problem, but in his case restarting the PC solved it.In my case the problem persisted after the restart and I got Zemax only working again by reinstalling the previous Version.Does anyone else has this problem with Version 22.1 and is there a solution.
How to manually create a ZBF file
ZBF stands for Zemax Beam File. This format is used in POP to describe the beam at a surface.To create a ZBF text file manually, here are two useful documents:- an Excel sheet that summarizes the syntax of the Help File (The Analyze Tab (sequential ui mode) > Laser and Fibers Group > About Physical Optics Propagation > Defining the Initial Beam > File (defining the initial beam) > Zemax Beam File (ZBF) text format > Zemax Beam File (ZBF) text format). The G column of the tab "ZBF" of the Excel sheet is a ZBF file. To create a ZBF file, copy that column into a text file and save it with a ZBF extension under \Zemax\POP\BEAMFILES. The two other tabs represent and plot the data as a matrix.- the ZBF text file created from the Excel sheet History:Date Version OpticStudio Version Comment 2019/05/20 - - Creation 2020/09/04 v2 - Updated the Excel file with non-zero imaginary profile. 2021/01/06 v3 - In the Pivot_Table tab, there are now 3 colum
Does anyone understand how to define fields for tolerancing asymmetric systems?
From the help files:XY-Symmetric: Similar to Y-Symmetric, except there are 9 field points used. The 5 Y-Symmetric points are used, and -1.0, -0.7, +0.7, and +1.0 are added in the X axis direction only.It is also highly recommended when tolerancing non rotationally symmetric lenses...that user defined fields be used. Are both negative and positive field points really needed along both x and y axes if your asymmetry is only about one axis? If you designed the system with only positive x field points, for instance, you still need to tolerance it with both negative and positive x field points? In addition to asymmetry, what if you have distortion? Aren’t edge and corner points needed as well then? The XY Symmetric option assigns a weight of 4 to the on-axis field. Can anyone explain the basis of this weighting? How does that weighting need to be adjusted if more than 9 fields are used or if some don’t lie on either axis (user-defined fields)? Thanks!
Difference between "POP" pattern and "Huygens" Diffraction Pattern
Hi, I followed the recommendations given in other forum threads (ref. 1) or tutorials from Zemax. My optical model consists of a standard Ritchey-Chretien telescope such as f#=6 and fl~500 [mm]. However the PSF obtained using the "Huygens" method (as it is a non sequential system) and POP are quite different. In both cases, the illumination of the entrance pupil is uniform (="Top Flat Apodization"). In addition, I don't see any artifacts in both results that would point to a "bad choice of algorithm" or settings (e.g. under-sampling). Below, please find attached, the spot diagram, the diffraction pattern calculated with the "Huygens" method, and the one calculated by POP, for the outermost position in the FOV (but this is also true for intermediate positions in the FOV). Do you have any comments to explain this discrepancy? Thank you for your help.SPOT DIAGRAM:SPOT DIAGRAM“Huygens” DIFFRACTION PATTERN:“Huygens” DIFFRACTION PATTERN“POP” DIFFRACTION PATTERN:“POP” DIFFRACTION PATTERN
Light Propagation Through Optical Fiber
I have tried to model the propagation of light through the fiber, but my model doesn't looks it undergoes TIR. Can anybody please help me to identify what parameters should I check and alter ? Expecting your guidance on this for my good understanding. (For your reference i have attached the LDE of Seq & NS and the parameters) Kindly let me know if any more parameters neededCore Nd=1.49 ; Clad Nd=1.43EPD = 0.5 (Syst Expl)Core dia = 0.98 micronClad dia = 1 micronSEQ LDENS LDEActual Expectation:
Optics Studio 20.3 CAD export changes
My workflow requires exporting my optical designs to CAD, then importing them into SolidWorks. With OpticsStudio 20.3, some change was made to how the document is exported to CAD, so the structure of my imported file has changed significantly, including significantly increasing the import/conversion time. One major problematic change has been the re-interpretation of the rays from lines to splines. Becasue splines can have curvature, I have many difficulties with mates in SolidWorks that I did not have previously. I find it odd that splines are being used since the rays will never have curvature, and the emply spline data would seem to take up more file space. Is there an option to revert to the previous export behavior? If there is not a benefit to using splines instead of lines, please revert this change.
Ask an Engineer: Making a Surface DLL
Topic: Creating a user-defined surface using DLLsLive solution reveal and Q&A: May 19th, 8am - 9am PDT (See the attachments for a calendar invite.)Engineer: @Sandrine Auriol - Lead Application Engineer at Ansys Zemax This month, Ask an Engineer looks a little different! Give the challenge a try to learn more about DLLs, then come back on May 19th to discuss! Submit your solution or questions as a reply to this thread. Challenge opens: May 2nd Submit your code as a reply by: May 18th, EODChallenge: OpticStudio surfaces are typically represented with continuous curves - either given by a smooth sag equation, or a spline which connects individual sag points. However, discrete steps may be needed to best represent an optical surface. For example, when manufacturing an optic with a 3D printer or lathe, the tool may generate the shape through the use of different zones of sag data, instead of a smooth profile, and you may want to represent a rough first-pass prototype in your simulation
Ask an Engineer: Gaussian Beam Propagation
Join us for our monthly “Ask an Engineer” event! On January 19th at 8am PST, Hui Chen will be answering your questions about Gaussian Beam Propagation. This event will be hosted on this thread in text form with a focus on the spotlighted topic… Topic: Gaussian Beam Propagation in OpticStudioDates: January 10th - January 19thLive Discussion Time: 8am - 9am PST, January 19thEngineer: @Hui Chen - Senior Application Engineer at AnsysSubmit your questions for Hui as a reply to this thread between now and the end of the event. Questions added to the discussion will be answered starting at 8am Pacific on January 19th. Once the event is concluded, the thread will be closed.If your question pertains to a particular file, the question may be moved to a private support case. In that situation, your license support status will be considered. Do you have a topic you want to see during these events? Let us know here: Ask an Engineer proposed topics.
How to define my interest of source file as a Source Object
I have a light source (LED)in my hand with spectral graph, I would like to analyze its spectral distributions in studio. In knowledge base LED modelling is there. But this is not as direct as adding the coating files in catalogue. Help me to fix this.
Understanding the Method behind Huygens PSF
Hello everyone, I'm interested in finding out more details on the Huygens PSF method. The OpticStudio Help claims that 'a grid of rays is launched through the optical system'. Here I would like to know, what algorithm is used for the actual propagation. How are the abberations of all optical components accounted for? Are they propagated as rays, by paraxial propagation or by actually using Huygens formula? It would be very helpful if anybody could clarify this detail. Thanks a lot in advance, best wishes
Point spread function and MTF for factory achromat lens hopelessly low
All, I have an Edmund Optics Achromat for which I am trying to obtain a PSF and MTF for 600, 700 and 800nm. After extensive attempts the PSF and MTF results are hopelessly low to the point where I refuse to believe the results as they do not agree with practical experiments. Any help would be appreciated.
[Webinar] Speeding Up Optical Design with AnsysNews
This thread will be used to collect questions before the webinar, and to answer any questions we received during the webinar. Feel free to post your questions! Be sure to subscribe to this thread if you want to see additional discussion regarding this topic. The thread will be open to comments until Thursday, March 31st. Webinar details:Register here: [The event has concluded]Date: Thursday, March 24thTime: 6:00am PST & 11:00am PSTPresenters:Tom Pickering, Manager Product Management for Ansys ZemaxJames Pond, Principle Product Manager for Ansys Lumerical Abstract: Optical design has long been constrained by the lack of being able to design the optics and photonic components in one workflow. This webinar explores how the new connection between Ansys Zemax and Ansys Lumerical accelerates optical design time today and in the future. We will showcase some example workflows that combine your optical simulations with other Ansys solutions such as Ansys Speos and Ansys optiSLang to deliv
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.