Got a question?
Can't find the answer you need? Ask your peers!
- 2,120 Topics
- 5,891 Replies
Tolerancing of telecentric system
Hello, I have an object telecentric imaging system and I would like to tolerance its telecentricity.I have simulated the object moving in z using 2 configurations for the two object positions. My idea was to generate a merit function that calculates the magnification for each configuration and ask the difference between the two to remain below a certain value. Is this good enough or does someone have a better proposition? Thank you
Gaussian beam propagation in Multi-configuration
Dear Zemax- community,I have a question regarding simulating gaussian beams in a multi-configuration and would be thankful if you could answer me. In my setup I have 532 and 1064 nm light coming out of separate fibers and being combined. Then the bichromatic beam is split 50:50 and made to interfere at one point (to create an optical lattice). As the Rayleigh range is on the order of the propagation length, standard ray-tracing won't do and I need either Paraxial Gaussian Beam Analysis or Physical Optics Analysis. I want to simulate the 4 different paths as different configurations. Ultimately I want to optimize the lenses to have each beam be focused on the same location My problem is now that for both of these, I need to enter the beam-parameters in the settings. In the Multi-configuration window however, the only (seemingly) relevant operand changes the aperture for standard ray-tracing. How do I change the beam size in a Multi-Parameter setting for either Physical Optics or Parax
[Zemax coupled with Ansys] Simulation optical system integrated with seal and figure out the light leakage out of system
hi there,I would like to do kinds of simulation about the risk of light leakage out of seal that integrated with optical system. Is it possible to get any preliminary results from simulation to predict the light leakage? Or is there any experience or examples for this kinda simulation/scenario? Thanks Doris
rays frome one source ignore paraxial lens in NSC
Hi,I am having a weird issue in non sequential ray tracing. rays from a source files ignore a paraxial lens and create unfocused rays on a sensor. Only direct rays are affected. If they are scattered or reflected by a surface i dont see this issue. I have checked that ray never ignore object. Anyone has any idea what is going on ? purple rays ignore my paraxial/ lensblue rays from a diode source dont have this issue.white speckled rays are due to the ray ignoring the paraxial lens
Sequential Zemax RSCE doesn't match Spot Diagram
I am trying to optimize a lens prescription based on RMS Spot Radius at a specific distance. Set the image plane to 500mm, in the merit function I use the operand RSCE and target RMS Spot Radius to 16.25mm. In Spot Diagram I get a completely different output for RMS Spot Radius. Am I missing something here?
Coordinate system for skew gaussian beam propagation
Hello,I have a question regarding skew gaussian beam propagation mode:A simple astigmatic gaussian beam can be described by two separate caustic hyperbolas.These two hyperbolas belong to two perpendicular planes (e.g. xz-plane and yz-plane, z:propagation direction).The x and y-axis are parallel to the principal axes of the elliptical intensity profile of this beam.Now let’s assume that we have a spherical convex mirror. The simple astigmatic beam hits this mirror in an arbitrary point on the spherical curved surface. Now let’s assume that the coordinate system of the beam (defined by the principal axis of its elliptical intensity profile) is not parallel to the sagittal and the tangential plane of this reflection scenario.Which physical model does Zemax use to simulate such a scenario?How can I get the information about the orientation of the new principal axis coordinate system of the intensity profile after reflection? I did not find any formulas in the help manual…Does the physical
sagittal and tangential MTF values are far different
Hi everyone,Do you have an idea on why the sagittal and tangential MTF values are far by this much as shown below?Some details about the System: Off-axis mirror set, curved mirrors involved.Red arrow: sagittalYellow arrow: tangentialLooking forward
How can I define a non-circular stop in Sequential Mode? For instance, I would like to define my stop surface to be a rectangle. When I apply a rectangular aperture to a surface and then check the box to make that surface the stop, it still creates a circular exit pupil. I use the Float by Stop Size setting for the Aperture Type.
The relation between exr, exi, eyr, eyi, ezr, ezi and phase_at in the ZRD file in NSC
In NSC mode, if the exr, exi, eyr, eyi, ezr, ezi in the ZRD file could correspond to phase_at by mathematical deduction？ When grating is included in the NSC mode，the “exr, exi, eyr, eyi, ezr, ezi” seem not able to be deduced corresponding to “phase_at”. If the “exr, exi, eyr, eyi, ezr, ezi” is only related to accumulated phase due to propagation but not the phase introduced by objects that impart phase (i.e. gratings, etc.) as presented in the OSmanual?
Geometric MTF map interpretation
Hello All, I was trying to plot the MTF for 60 linepairs/mm for 100° and 50° in x and y field.I expect the MTF to be max in the center (close to 0° in both direction) and change radially (i think it would decrease), however, when I look at the results I am surprised to see the opposite.Am I missing something here? I tried to look at the help section but I cannot make sense of the results.Could someone please explain how the MTF is least in the center closer to the optical axis and gets better as the FOV increases?Looking forward to the answersAmit
Flux v.s. Wavelength Graph Not Gathering Data
I am trying to use the Flux v.s. Wavelength tool on Zemax to gather information for calculating a resolution of a lens involving a grism. When I run the program, the graph shows a straight line with a measurement of zero flux. I believe my program is having problem collecting the rays properly, however I have tested different ray databases and experimented with other options as well. Any ideas?(Will also take secondary advice on a possibly better way to gather data on resolutions)Thank you, New Zemax User
model a lens optical aberration with Zernike coefficients
Dear all, How to model a black-box optical system using Zernike coefficients – Knowledgebase (zemax.com) tells us how to model a lens optical aberration using Zernike coefficients. However , this method can only define the aberration in one field at one wavelength, in most cases it’s not sufficent to define a lens overall aberration. any further suggestions? (I’m working on the measurement of infinity corrected objectives with Shack-Hartmann sensor and i want to reconstruct the aberration in a simplified model.)
dichroic mirror in NSC mode
Hi,I would like to model Long Pass DM ( >665nm), my laser is 785 nm and a collected signal from the sample below 665 nm. I read the article on dichroic mirror simulation, but in my simulation, I need two light sources. For the excitation light 785 nm I don’t see a problem, however on the sample, at the same point the detector (for the excitation beam) and light source ( for the light from the sample >665 nm) is needed. How to locate to two different components of different functions at the same location? I want to add, that this is my assumption that this could be done that way. Thank you,Regards,Marzanna
Set a source parameter as a variable.
Hi all,in an NSC system, I need to obtain a precise x and y luminance value on the color detector, I know the transmittance curves of the material to be crossed and consequently created the glass, I set a merit function where I search for the desired x and y values. I have created a radial source to which I would like to set the x and y emission values according to CIE1931 as variables. In the past, to find the scatter values to apply to a given HPA material, I used the parameters of the multi configuration editor. Is it possible to use the same methodology?Thanks a lot to everyone.
Optimization with Optically Fabricated Holograms (OFH)
I frequently encounter a problem when optimizing with the optically fabricated hologram (OFH) surface where the local optimizer or hammer optimizer will not close. I have to stop the OpticStudio process in the task manager and reopen the file. The hammer optimizer seems to be much more prone to this problem.I will provide a toy file for examination shortly; however, I was wondering if this is a known bug or if there is a work around to prevent this behavior? I do call the HLGV operands and also the CMFV operands during optimization.
Invariance of XY Polarization to Coating Layer Thickness & Refractive Index
I have a layered coating that I made a coating file for. It is defined through material index vs wavelength and defining the layers, material, and thickness for each layer. Currently, I am using a tolerance analysis to see the effects of variation of the thickness and index of said coating, and am seeing nearly no sensitivity to changes in layer thickness or index, even with high orders of magnitude of change to thickness. This is not reflective of the real-world system data that currently exists. Is there a good place to start in debugging this? I'm assuming ther has to be an error in the analysis somewhere.
MTF at what contrast should be used for tolerance analysis
Hi everyone,Normally, what percentile MTF you use for system tolerance analysis? I have a microscope system and want do tolerance analysis for alignment (optomechanics design). However, I am not sure how I choose MTF value. Should I use MTF value at 20% contrast, 50% contrast, or other value? Any information would be helpful!Thank you,Xiaolei
Tolerance script - saving Monte Carlo tolerance values for use in several optimizations
I am trying to use tolerance scripts to realistically model my lab’s compensation procedure. The system consists of several lenses mounted in two lens barrels that fit together. If the performance of the system is not compliant, then one of the barrels is rotated 90º with respect to the other and the performance is checked again; subsequently it can be rotated 180º or 270º as needed. I am thinking to model this by using multi-configuration for each of the barrel rotation options (0º, 90º, 180º, 270º), but as the system is nominally rotationally symmetric, this by itself will not do anything. I want to know how to apply the rotation AFTER the tolerance values (on lens wedge, tilt, shift, etc.) are selected for each Monte Carlo trial, so that I can rotate the directional tolerances for the lenses in the first barrel with respect to the tolerances for the lenses in the second barrel. For example, if a lens in barrel #1 has a tilt of 0.062º +X in a Monte Carlo trial, I want to compare this
How to set max cores by default for ray trace in NSC
Hi dears,I would like to know how to set the maximum number of cores for the ray trace in NSC. My workstation has 32 cores, but to be able to work with other applications during the calculation I considered it sufficient to launch the ray trace using a maximum of 25 cores, unfortunately at the first launch of the calculation the SW sets the maximum number of cores available and if I forget to change this value I have to stop the simulation and change it.Thanks a lot to everyone.
Hi,I was reading Shawn Gay’s excellent article on the geometry used by the various curvature calculations. In it, Shawn writes:In the Surface Curvature analysis, the convention that OpticStudio adopts is to align the tangential direction with the x-direction at the surface vertex.This statement is true and of course the choice is arbitrary, but it seems to me this convention is 90 degrees at odds with where we use the term tangential elsewhere. The surface curvature data is independent of ray tracing, but when doing raytracing the convention OS uses is that tangential is along the y-axis.I must admit I assumed that this was the case in the curvature plots. I read the documentation, and it’s not described there. I searched for a KB article instead and found what I needed to correct my understanding. But since the convention is arbitrary, did we have to use a convention that is orthogonal to the convention used elsewhere?This is an old feature and I know that changing the convention will
How to limit the relation between thickness and radius to make sure the lens is realistic
HiI want to check how should we limit the diameter-to-radius ratio in Zemax? I’m using MNCG and MXCG to limit the thickness of the lens. However, during the optimization process, the lens radius can be negative and the absolute value is larger than the lens thickness which make these lens not real. Could we use some operand to avoid the situation? I’m trying to find the operand to get the radius and limit the thickness according to the radius but failed to find the operand. Do we have other operand to do that?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.