OpticStudio includes the feature of geometric line/edge spread and FFT line/edge spread, which are useful analyses for measuring beam width. For example, consider using a 20/80 knife edge. Geometric calculations are based on the Spot Diagram, while FFT calculations use the FFT PSF. It is helpful to read the discussion in the following forum post to gain a better understanding on line/edge spread function. Geometric ESF vs FFT ESFHow can the similar calculation be implemented for extended source results? 

I am working on a design that involves an array of sources.  To speed-up simulations, emitter/source details are reduced to saved ray-set files.  FILE-A:   (Emitter Ray-Set)I generate a source file (ray-set) by combining an LED source with a custom TIR lens and a detector.  The detector is placed following the output face of the TIR lens.  The captured rays are then saved to a  (*.SDF) file.   FILE-B:.. (System)I create a larger system model, that involves an array of “n” emitters.  I setup “n” sources, using the saved  (*.SDF) file above.  I place a detector between the sources and downstream optics.   Those rays then propagate forward.   The issue I am having is that when I check the angle of the rays from [File-A] incident upon the detector following the TIR lens , it is significantly different than the angle of the rays I get from using the “generated sources” [File-B]  I measure around 18 degrees (half-angle) in [File-A] with the TIR lens, that I am using to generate the source fi

In the following article, we introduced how to build an EPE based on surface-relief grating (SRG). However, this does not work for holographic gratings.How to simulate exit pupil expander (EPE) with diffractive optics for augmented reality (AR) system in OpticStudio: part 1The current available Kogelnik model in OpticStudio cannot be used for EPE waveguide. Here we will explain why and provide a workaround DLL. Note this is based on assumptions and the result could be inaccurate.In Kogelnik’s method, it assumes, as below, that the refractive index of the hologram itself and its environment are same. Even after the hologram fringes are developed, the average refractive index is still same.However, in reality, the refractive index from the environment is different.For example, we might have a hologram, with average refractive index of n0 = 1.5, coated on a glass substrate, with refractive index of n1 = 1.7. And the other side is AIR, with refractive index of n2 = 1.0.In real situation, t

It’s mentioned in the help that the field curvature plot shows the distance from the image surface to the paraxial image surface as a function of field coordinate. Is this a result of paraxial ray tracing?

Hey Zemax Team,I have another suggestion for a feature that would make ZPL even more useful: A Settings dialog box.I’m writing a macro that traces rays, so it has something like:    hx = .5    hy = 0    Px = 0    Py = .5    primary = PWAV()This is fine except when you want to change the ray traced easily. I have to edit the file, save and rerun, or use the INPUT keyword which only accepts one variable at a time. It would be ideal if ZPL supported a generalized Settings dialog like so: The ZPLSettings dialog would include drop-downs for wavelength, field and surface, and have say 10 data input variables and 5 check boxes. The user could ideally set all these to draw/not draw individually, and could define the labels used. It would be far more flexible than just using INPUTsMark

Hi, I’m trying to make a NSC 2D plot where I sweep the incidence angle of light going into a cuboid sample and use the NSRA operand to determine the path length. This is an example using a 2 degree incidence angle:However, there are some instances where the NSRA operand gives an error (‘Geometry error. Run the NSC Ray Trace tool for more information.’)  I think the issue might be when the incidence light and output light are collinear with each other (so they overlap, essentially) but I might also be wrong. An example of this is when the incidence light is 0 degrees.What happens then is when I try to make a NSC 2D plot, there are certain step counts that are invalid, causing the whole graph to give an error:Is there a way to ignore these instances when making the 2D plot?

Hi,I have a question regarding the behaviour of polarized rays at metallic (MIRROR) interfaces, in my case the coating is SILVER. I go in with diagonally polarized rays (from below in the image, propagating in positive z-direction).The polarization before the rays hit the mirror look like thisNow I WOULD expect, based on the Fresnel equations for the reflection coefficients rho_p and rho_s that for a silver mirror at 45° with complex refractive index n_2 = 0.18 + 6.2*j that the reflection causes a phase difference between the two components of about 190°. That would mean that the polarization would change from diagonal to roughly antidiagonal (a bit elliptical along the antidiagonal direction. However, I do not observe this, the polarization stays roughly diagonal (with an elliptical part). Do I missunderstand the reference frame of the polarization pupil map in zemax? Does zemax change the direction in which it looks onto the rays somehow, such that diagonal and antidiagonal become ex

I’d like to vary the stop surface as part of an global optimization search. Any advice?Thank you,John

I’ve suddenly gotten an issue exporting a design to a CAD file.  When I import the file (I’ve tried STP and IGS) into SolidWorks the only places that the rays show up are when they are transmitting through the lenses.  For example this NS system in ZOS:Shows up in Solidworks as: This only seems to have started after the latest update. Any ideas?

I’m modeling microscope objectives with at NA > 0.5 and interested in knowing the PSF or alternatively how much energy is contained in the central lobe at a given beam radius. Depending on which direction rays are traced through the objective, I obtain a different amount of energy in the central lobe (either 65% or 84%), even when using the Huygens PSF and Diffraction Encircled Energy function. For high NA (>0.5) lenses, I think much less than 84% of the energy should be in the central lobe (it doesn’t technically have a diffraction pattern unless the NA is low). How do we know whether Huygens PSF is working correctly? The results seem to depend a lot on the aperture setting, even when the rays traced in the Cross-Section look the same.

Hi, I’m trying to make a NSC 2D plot where I sweep the incidence angle of light going into a cuboid sample and use the NSRA operand to determine the path length. This is an example using a 2 degree incidence angle:However, there are some instances where the NSRA operand gives an error (‘Geometry error. Run the NSC Ray Trace tool for more information.)  I think the issue might be when the incidence light and output light are collinear with each other (so they overlap, essentially) but I might also be wrong. An example of this is when the incidence light is 0 degrees.What happens then is when I try to make a NSC 2D plot, there are certain step counts that are invalid, causing the whole graph to give an error:Is there a way to ignore these instances when making the 2D plot?

Hi everyone,  I got the following, most simple setup consisting of only the gaussian beam source and a rectangular detector.With a beam size of 0.15mm I expected to see the same as RMS Spot Radius on the detector viewer. But the detector displays RMS Spot Radius 0,10606mm which is 1/sqrt(2) of the given beam size.  The beam size radius is where the residual intensity account for 13.5% of the peak intensity. It should therefore be identical to the RMS Spot Radius.I just can’t wrap my head around as why the RMS Spot Radius is 1/sqrt(2) of the beam size, can anyone explain?Is there a relation between RMS Spot Radius and Gaussian beam size that I am missing?Sincerely, Zu

Hi,I wanted to reconstruct a wavefront of a plane / distorted wave passing through a micro-lens array. Let’s say, the array consists of 7*7 lenses (similar to the us_array.dll in zemax) and we can get 49 focal spots, and the corresponding Zernike coefficients can also be found. But if I want to calculate the coefficients manually, I need to measure the shifts in X and Y coordinates of the centroid of focused spots. Is there any way to get these shifts (Shifts caused by the distortion) of each individual spots in mm / microns? 

I need to be able to simulate grit-ground or sandblasted glass scattering in Zemax.  I looked through Knowledgebase articles and nothing jumped out at me about how to do that.  Total integrated scatter (TIS) for a ground surface is generalized by the scatter function TIS = [ 4π (RMS surface roughness) / wavelength ]² If I have a surface with RMS surface roughness of 100Å and illuminate it at 6328Å, TIS = 0.039, or about 3.9%.   What Zemax settings can I use to simulate TIS? Suggestions?  Mike

I want to design the toroidal mirror with AOI 44 degrees. I calculated the tangent and sagittal radius of curvature, and entered the values as the attached file. I want to get an elliptical beam shape with a ratio of 2 to 1, but I don't know how to optimize it. Please let me know what part of the attached file needs to be adjusted and optimized. 

I want to export to CAD, but Surface 2 failed to export.How to export to CAD?   

Hello everyone, I have a system view of shaded model, however my shaded model viewer has some missing rays starting from a certain distance as shown on the picture below with a red indicaiton.What might be the possible reasons? Any help/comment is appreciated.Thank you in advance.

Recently I study a stack that is different colorful ink such as red, black and White painted on glass back side  and the measure side is from glass front side. the ink thickness is ~30um which will make the stack opaque.  I can use Macleod simulate this stack reflectance spectrum match with Shimazu UV 3700 measure R% of all color ink. I think this is because UV3700 measure R% is specular reflectance so all color show similar R% spectrum. But the Konica 3700A measure different color ink with SCI, SCE model is different and I can’t use Macleod simulate the LAB match with Konica measure LAB, I know this should be colorful ink scatter and absorption then cause the different.  How can I use my data on hand that SCI model spectrum, SCE spectrum, specular reflectance in Zemax Opticstudio and set up model which can match with Konica  3700 A measure LAB, thanks.

When I simulate my setup, in MATLAB using the ZOS-API for raytracing, it seems to ignore or improperly account for aperture. I assume I am missing something, but don’t know what, and am looking for help on how to simulate apertures properly with raytracing. Any tips would be appreciated.  

Hi, in the release notes for the latest release, under Bugs fixed, we have:For scattering in non-sequential mode with both transmission and reflection .BSDF files specified for each surface, a restriction was removed that had limited the sum of both transmitted and reflected total integrated scatter to a total of 1.0. This restriction could have caused some cases to have improperly allocated power for split rays.Can you give us more details of this? What is happening to conservation of energy?

Is there any way to setup a tolerance on the m^2 of a beam?I’m trying to see the effects of variating m^2 on my optical system. Thanks, Eli

Hi all, I am trying to make a collimating system with folding grating:But I can’t focus the system. What I am missing? Thanks,Nadav

Hi Zemax team,Whenever a macro is run, the Edit/Run dialog briefly flashes on the screen:Can that be suppressed? There’s no time to intercept any of the options. It’s just a bit annoying, and it takes longer for this to flash on the screen than for my macro to run

Hello Guys,In sequential mode, how to design a collimated rectangular beam with different divergence angles along X and Y?Regards