Dear all,Please help me to modeling of combination of lens and prism like drawing. 

When I changed the aperture type from 'floating stop' to 'image space f#', the image f# is set automatically a value that's different from the previous image f#, if I want to change it, zemax does not allow me to.  How to change the aperture type and set the correct f#? thanks a lot. 

Hey @Brian.Catanzaro & community,Quick question about your VCSEL work, maybe primarily about Case 3 (I didn’t want to detract from the answer your already gave).  I assume you validate your final sequential model with POP, but have you come across cases where POP doesn’t work and needed to use CodeV’s BSP (Gaussian Beam Decomposition)?  BSP/GBD can be much quicker than POP with the added benefit that you can simulate free-space divergence in non-sequential mode.  However, from my understanding BSP/GBD has some issues with sampling/MSF ringing and sometimes has issues with accurately calculating intensity.  I think Zemax should add GBD as another tool that can validate diffraction systems like this, but I haven’t looked into this too much.  There are dozens of resources talking about GBD which could be a good starting point for Zemax to look into:https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.09162.pdfhttps://poppy-optics.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Curious about everyone’s thoughts.

Hello, is there a possibility taking account thermal expansion in nonseq. mode? Seems like thermal pick up solves in multi config editor do not work in nonseq. mode. Best regards Dirk  

hello All,I have a title question attached: what is the minimum gap between two neighboring outcoupling beams can be kept, and still no empty will be perceived?Thank you !

Hello,I have a VCSEL which consists of 7 emitters. Each emitter has a gaussian-beam profile with approx. divergence of 20° (FWHM). I have a collimator lens. The aim is to get a collimated laser beam. Of course, due to the finite size of the VCSEL the collimated beam will always have some degree of divergence. Setup:In SEQ-Model each emitter is represented by a field. The Position of the fields is according to the tech. drawing of the VCSEL. I used the clear aperture specified by the supplier.I ran an optimization using the rms-wavefront-error (OPDX) to find the distance between VCSEL and collimator to achieve a collimated beam with as little beam divergence as possible. Afterwards I built a NSQ-model of VCSEL and collimator. The emitters are simulated by a “Source Gaussian”.If I use this result from the optimization and apply it in the NSQ-model, the irradiance profile and beam divergence don’t match my experimental data at all.If I reduce the clear aperture of my collimator lens and r

Hello,I read with interest the KB topic by Mark Nicholson about Image simulation within Zemax/OS. According to the article, “ The PSF grid also includes the effects of polarization and relative illumination”. I assume this type of information is obtained by setting polarization, and the software computes the Huygens PSFs.I wonder whether you could be a little bit more specific about how the image simulation takes into account the polarization aberrations whith this PSF grid? Does Zemax go over a similar method as the one outlined in Brickenridge, Lam, and Chipman paper, with the building of a 4x4 Mueller matrix (the so-called Point Spread Matrix)?Thanks for your feedback,Ben

Hello,Pretty new to this, and trying to design a lens package.However, I have a problem with lenses overlapping when designing.I like the radii to be the same, but I would like to “cut” the lens.Changing the thickness won’t do itPlease advise. Br, Oscar

Hi all,I try to use Zemax Element Drawing for my tolerance analysis report. However, I found the value of Radius tolerance after I clicked Reset from TDE are not consistent with values from Tolerance Data Editor.  The below picture shows that the tolerance for surface 1 is 0.0366 (note: my first surface is 2), however the TRAD for surface 2 is +/-0.1. Could someone explain what happened here? Thanks,Xiaolei

Hello!  I am using multiple fold mirrors and also have off axis folding (in X tilts on few mirrors and Y tilts on few mirrors). Now I am trying to tilt one fold mirror in both X and Y in order to return to same XY plane as the first elements. Need some help about this. Can someone suggest how can i achieve this ? Thanks, Vamsi 

Hi all,I’m trying to simulate point spread functions for phase-modulated surfaces (using Zernike Fringe Phase Surface) in the Sequential mode.In previously discussed topics, it seems like that the Huygens PSFs are most powerful and accurate method to calculate PSFs of phase-based systems. However, in my case, results from the POP were  more likely to make sense rather than the Huygens PSF. For example, for the Zernike Fringe Phase of Z4=-50, Z5=30 made PSFs as follows:With considering the Spot Diagram and rays’ trajectories in 3D Layout, a result of the POP looks like more correct answer compared to Huygens PSF; an origination for red colored multiple hot-spots in the Huygens PSF was unclear. Where they were coming from? interference? The Huygens PSF may suffer from sampling issues but the results were not improved regardless I enlarged the sampling numbers in Pupil or Image sides. Is there any techniques to get accurate Huygens PSFs in my case? Thank you.

Hi all, I am just curious how to model the liquid crystal layer in Zemax sequential and non-sequential mode?Thank you for any input or suggestions! Best,Kaden

Hello All,I am working on design consisting a grating. Analysis in  sequential mode shows all desire wavelength of -1st diffraction order is coming at the desire position of detector after diffraction form Grating. But when I have converted this file to non-sequential mode for radiometric analysis, I found all the diffraction order (-2,-1,0,1, 2) is having same power. But in actual case, zero order should have maximum intensity compared to other diffraction order and intensity should gradually diminish as we move away from zeroth order in +ve and -ve direction. How Zemax is calculating radiometric data for different diffraction order? Sample file I have used for the analysis is attached here for your reference. Thankyou. 

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

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?