Merit Function / Third Order Aberrations merit function is conspicously missing feature

  • 9 June 2021
  • 1 reply
  • 146 views

Userlevel 3
Badge +4

There are a growing number of articles in the Freeform optics literature that optimize based upon third order aberrations.  This is a classical approach, but not (?) supported by a Merit Function wizard in Zemax OpticStudio.  I am wondering if there is a specific reason.


For example, Ken Moore impressed upon people that optimizing for the spot width in X and spot width in Y was much more computationally efficient that the radial spot size.  This was a great observation and one that required some thought and experiment to discover.  This is incorporated into the wizard for spot size optimization.


A wizard to sum up the third order aberration contribution from each surface would be trivial to create (ZOS-API or otherwise).  It would seem to be computationally efficient and a good starting point for optimizing many designs especially given it is the textbook approach to explaining why aberration theory is useful.  Yet it is conspicously absent from OpticStudio. 


Is there a compelling technical / performance reason why this is absent from examples, the merit function wizard, and the documentation for Zemax OpticStudio?


-B


1 reply

Userlevel 7
Badge +3

Hey Brian,


It's true the wizard does not support it, but it's easily added with SPHA, DIST, FCUR, ASTI etc. Just create it once and save it as a .MF file to load up whenever you want!


But the real reason in that the physically significant merit functions of RMS spot, wavefront, angle, plus the contrast option, represent the best way to optimize an imaging system irrespective of the surface types used. This is what you actually measure in real life. In general, aberrations should be balanced, not minimized.


I've been banging on about this very topic a lot on my video series on Youtube.com/DesignOpticsFast.


BTW, the family and I are moving to the San Diego area in August/September time. Let's get together then!


- Mark 

Reply