Zemax vs OSLO
Detector195
having inherited them with different projects. For historical reasons
I am a "power user" of Zemax, and quite frankly I have never had any
problems with it. But I could become a power user of OSLO in short
order if there was a motivation for doing so. I will probably keep
both licenses since I have the funds, but suppose I was starting a new
project -- which would I choose and why?
To avoid getting into negatives, let's focus on things that one can do
better than the other. Add your comments about other similar programs
as well.
Discuss.
Helpful person
I have been using lens design programs for many years. Although not
familiar with OSLO, I have been using Zemax for the past six years. I
would describe it as an excellent program for the amateur designer or
someone who does not have a deep knowledge or experience of lens
design. It is very easy to use.
However, for the experienced designer it lacks the versatility that
should be available in an advanced program. I do not want to go into
details (I am not in the business of criticism).
The most versatile program i have used was Synopsis. The version I
used ran under DOS. I am not familiar with the new Windows version,
but if you have the time, it is worth a look.
In summary, I would recommend Zemax for the casual or amateur user.
An experienced designer should investigate other options.
Steve Eckhardt
Detec...@yahoo.com says...
quite well, and have met and spoken with Doug Goodman (author of OSLO), and
consider them both friends. I have also discussed working for both of them
but decided not to.
The strengths of Zemax are ease of use and galloping featuritis. I have no
trouble picking it up after a month or more of disuse and going right back to
work, so I consider it easy to use. On the other hand, it has so many
features that I'm constantly amazed. I have suggested new features more than
once only to be told where to find them in the menu structure.
I am not as familiar with OSLO. (I only have a copy of the light version.)
But I am convinced that it is very powerful and accurate. Doug included the
best optimization features of COOL/GENII in OSLO, and they were superior to
anything else available outside of (and maybe, in some senses, including)
CodeV. In the brief time I spent with a demo copy of OSLO, I found its
optimization section to be impressive. Finally, Doug is very intent on making
his program accurate. Ken is also convinced of the importance of accuracy,
but Doug is almost nuerotic about it. If things ever slow down around here, I
hope to check out OSLO's optimization of a really difficult lens and their
transmissive differential phase in optical coating calculations. (CodeV is
the only program I will trust with these until I try them with OSLO or
SYNOPSIS.)
Another issue that may come up is customer support. I have hade good
experiences with both Zemax and Lambda Research (who are now supporting OSLO).
It is possible that the Zemax staff may have had problems with a huffy caller,
but I wouldn't guarantee that you'll never hit Lambda on a bad day, either.
--
Best regards,
Steve Eckhardt
skeckhardt at mmm dot com
Mark W. Lund, PhD
Doug Sinclair is the one who pioneered OSLO>
Best regards
mark
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark W. Lund, PhD ** Custom Battery Chargers
CEO ** Bulk Cells and Custom Battery Packs
PowerStream Technology ** Custom Power Supplies
140 S. Mountainway Drive ** DC/DC Converters
Orem Utah 84058 ** Custom UPS
http://www.PowerStream.com ** Custom power management electronics
Brigham Young University Alumni e-mail: lu...@xray.byu.edu
Mike
program.
Zemax is obviously the best bang for the buck. it also has the most
system level features and the best NSS modelling of any program.
We use it here and do quite a number of professional quality designs
every year. Also, the person I consider the best working lens
designer in the US uses Zemax and comes up with some amazing stuff.
Either program will work fine. For general lens design all the
programs are good. It's designer input that creates good lenses.
There are certain design areas where one program does excel over the
others. If you have very specific and difficult requirements you may
consider talking to other designers in that area and seeing what they
use.
I have used Zemax, Code V, OSLO and ACCOS. All of them allowed me to
design high quality lenses that performed as advertised.
It's all what you are used to. If you started on Code V and have 10+
years experience then that's what you are good at.
Detector195
Glad you made the distinction about the level of design expertise.
Come to think of it, I probably qualify as an amateur designer. I have
a PhD in physics, and extensive opto-electronic instrumentation design
experience. But I do not have a formal background in the high art of
lens design, i.e., designing multi element lenses for demanding
imaging applications.
No need for criticism here. I don't expect anybody to "dis" either
vendor. They have both been very nice to me.
West Coast Engineering
>Any good lens designer can do a good lens design on ANY decent
>program.
>
>Zemax is obviously the best bang for the buck. it also has the most
>system level features and the best NSS modelling of any program.
>
>We use it here and do quite a number of professional quality designs
>every year. Also, the person I consider the best working lens
>designer in the US uses Zemax and comes up with some amazing stuff.
Ahem,
Lacy Cook at Raytheon is the best designer in the US and he uses
HEXAGON.
West Coast Engineering
>In article <6213f73a.03110...@posting.google.com>,
>Detec...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>Let's get down and dirty here. I literally have licenses for both,
>>having inherited them with different projects. For historical reasons
>>I am a "power user" of Zemax, and quite frankly I have never had any
>>problems with it. But I could become a power user of OSLO in short
>>order if there was a motivation for doing so. I will probably keep
>>both licenses since I have the funds, but suppose I was starting a new
>>project -- which would I choose and why?
>>
>>To avoid getting into negatives, let's focus on things that one can do
>>better than the other. Add your comments about other similar programs
>>as well.
>>
>>Discuss.
>I hope we can refrain from the negatives! I know Ken Moore (author of Zemax)
>quite well, and have met and spoken with Doug Goodman (author of OSLO), and
>consider them both friends. I have also discussed working for both of them
>but decided not to.
>
Doug Sinclair
mg
"Mark W. Lund, PhD" <ml...@powerstream.com> wrote in message
news:3FA80429...@powerstream.com...
mg
language, with all its flexibility. You can really automate things with
it.
In Zemax, I liked the ease of modeling fiber coupling.
I think it is a good idea to refrain from criticism. Both programs and
their authors deserve a lot of respect.
"Detector195" <Detec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6213f73a.03110...@posting.google.com...
Steve Eckhardt
the correction.
In article <3FA80429...@powerstream.com>, ml...@powerstream.com says...
>
>I won't be the only one to point out that you got your Dougs mixed up.
>Doug Sinclair is the one who pioneered OSLO>
>
>Best regards
>mark
>
--
Steve Eckhardt
says...
>
>Any good lens designer can do a good lens design on ANY decent
>program.
There was a rule of thumb back in my days at Itek: If you can't get the
design done, change programs. If that doesn't work, change designers. My
experience corroborates this dictum.
Helpful person
While it is true that for "normal" lenses most programs can do a good
job. However, if you're in the business of designing lenses systems
for very unusual conditions (as professional lens designers often do)
then it can sometimes be almost impossible to find the best solution
with some programs.
As a particular example, system (and other) constraints are very
important to control during design. In some programs, the only way to
control such constraints is to target them and add them to the
abberrations rather than being able to use a solve. This method can
affect the optimization process to such a degree that a good solution
can be difficult, if not impossible to find.
Mike
Ok maybe it's a tie.
I consider Brian Caldwell the best US designer right now (mostly for zooms)
DonJan
> Mea culpa! I don't know why I wrote Goodman instead of Sinclair. Thanks for
> the correction.
>
> In article <3FA80429...@powerstream.com>, ml...@powerstream.com says...
> >
> >I won't be the only one to point out that you got your Dougs mixed up.
> >Doug Sinclair is the one who pioneered OSLO>
> >
> >Best regards
> >mark
people say that Zemax gives you the most bang for the buck, their
wrong. Optalix is the most cost effective. It can read all the major
codes: Zemax, OSLO, CodeV, Macleod ... and export to Zemax, OSLO and
CodeV and that's the free demo version. For $800 you get an awesome
code. Take a look at its partial dispersions..., manual, tutorial.
Even Klein would agree! I think that in 20 years we will think of
Bellinger as respectfully as Sinclare.
For $800, its in our interests to have an alternative code out there.
Don Janeczko, P.E.
JK
Forgotten Winlens Linos 5.0 for 300$ ?
best regards
John
West Coast Engineering
West Coast Engineering
Hi All Optical Designers,
Beyond contestation, Code-V is the best commercial optical design code
you can get. The user support is supreme and the people who support it
are at the top of the ladder. Real designers use Code-V. Everyone else
uses something else. If this offends, too bad.
ZEMAX is the easist program to use though some of their user support
staff is less than nominal (you know who I am talking about) and some
of their algorithms need work. Really Ken, do a better job with the
interanls and stop looking at the $ bottom end. It lacks a command
interface which would have made it great. When a user asks for a new
feature, like an alternate pivot point about which to tilt an off-axis
mirror, the correct and only answer is, "where do you want the pivot
point and how soon do you need the capability" not, "it is is the
referense manual".
OSLO's algorithms were deftly crafted by Dr. Douglas Sinclair of the U
or R and he is also one really fine human being. Lambda Research, who
now supports OSLO, is made up of some of the best optical people I
have ever met including the owner Dr. Ed Freniere. If you can't afford
Code-V, get OSLO and not ZEMAX.
Synopsis by Don Dilworth is a race car in an old and bad paint job.
Buy a copy of Winteracter and a copy of Compaq Visual Fortran Don and
fix the front end Don.
I started as a designer at Hughes Aircraft Co. in Culver City CA in
1979. I spent almost 10 years designing with HEXAGON with a manual
with no index and no table of contents and I will tell you most
truthfully:
The best Optical Design program ever written is the HEXAGON optical
design program. It was originally brought to Hughes by Patrick
Hennessey from Scientific Calculations in 1969 and has been tended and
grommed and greatly improved (since 1987) by one of the brightest
individuals I have ever met in my life, Mr. Steven Fry.
The best designer in the Western Henisphere (Lacy Cook) uses it
exclusively.
The only way anyone outside of Raytheon can get anything like HEXAGON
is to email me and get a copy of ENTERPRISE which is a reverse
engineered version of HEXAGON started in 1987 and still available (for
free in the SE version) and for a reasonable fee in the PRO version
with unlimited support and updates.
Now let's get back to the discussion of aberration coefficients
because only HEXAGON, ENTERPRISE and CODE-V go beyond 3rd order
aberration coefficients.
Sincerely,
Jim Klein
West Coast Engineering
If I have offended anyone by this post, it was purely intentional. :-)
JK
Well, that is offtopic, I think.
I can continue with offtopic information: I am me, 180 cm, and 77
kilogram, 51 years. Previously optical designer, as most in this
field.
best regards
John Knuhtsen
Copenhagen
Brian Blandford
"West Coast Engineering" <westcoaste...@westcoastengineering.com>
wrote in message news:l90mqv4lvtndva1hm...@4ax.com...
>
> Hi All Optical Designers,
>
...snip...
> If you can't afford
> Code-V, get OSLO and not ZEMAX.
>
The original post suggested we looked for the good points in both
programmes. So in that spirit:
In favour of OSLO I would suggest:
1. A long tradition of development as a teaching tool by a first-rate
academic.
2. A really good freebie version - OSLO-EDU - which has the capacity for
serious optimisation tasks.
3. Several good pre-defined merit functions for getting up the optimisation
learning curve really fast.
4. Original development under DOS which has left behind an excellent
command-based
C-like macro language, CCL, and visibility of much of the program code
written in this language.
5. A much simpler macro language, SCP, for those reluctant to master CCL.
In favour of ZEMAX I would include:
1. A highly intuitive graphics interface for high quality self-explanatory
presentations to the lens designers' customers.
2. Storage with the lens of key parameters such as maximum frequency in the
MTF curve, and scale of transverse ray aberration curves, which make
comparisons of successive designs easier.
3. Active display of cursor Y-Z coordinates on lens cross-section drawings,
making possible quick estimates of clear apertures etc.
4. "Adaptive spread sheets" whose headers change surface-by-surface to
reflect the different data items in the columns. These make lens data input
easier to follow.
5. At least in the UK, an excellent speed of response to user's queries.
I've tried to be impartial. But I must declare a vested interest in OSLO!
Brian
Helpful person
Hello Brian,
Amazing who turns up here!
I know you used to like ACOS (many years ago!) because of it's
versatility. I haven't tried Synopsis for windows, but the DOS
version was very powerful (and universally versatile). You could link
anything to anything and plot anything versus anything! Was it
available in the UK? Did you ever try it?
Best wishes,
Richard Fisher
Detector195
>
> Beyond contestation, Code-V is the best commercial optical design code
> you can get. The user support is supreme and the people who support it
> are at the top of the ladder. Real designers use Code-V. Everyone else
> uses something else. If this offends, too bad.
No offense taken. I am not a real designer.
> Now let's get back to the discussion of aberration coefficients
> because only HEXAGON, ENTERPRISE and CODE-V go beyond 3rd order
> aberration coefficients.
Fair enough. Persuade me that I care about the 4th order terms. Let's
take as an example an un-obscured reflective telescope using an
off-axis Gregorian with spherical surfaces as a starting point.
West Coast Engineering
>West Coast Engineering <westcoaste...@westcoastengineering.com> wrote in message news:<l90mqv4lvtndva1hm...@4ax.com>...
>> Hi All Optical Designers,
>>
>> Beyond contestation, Code-V is the best commercial optical design code
>> you can get. The user support is supreme and the people who support it
>> are at the top of the ladder. Real designers use Code-V. Everyone else
>> uses something else. If this offends, too bad.
>
>No offense taken. I am not a real designer.
Then you have no business using an optical design program.
>
>> Now let's get back to the discussion of aberration coefficients
>> because only HEXAGON, ENTERPRISE and CODE-V go beyond 3rd order
>> aberration coefficients.
>
>Fair enough. Persuade me that I care about the 4th order terms. Let's
>take as an example an un-obscured reflective telescope using an
>off-axis Gregorian with spherical surfaces as a starting point.
AHEM!
A Gregorian, on or off-axis, comprises a parabolic primary and an
elliptical secondary. It has zero spherical aberration but has coma,
field curvature, astigmatism and distortion. It becomes very much more
aberrated if you use spheres.
There are no "4th" order aberration coefficients but through the use
of paraxial ray trace data and conic through 8th order rotationally
symmetric aspheric terms, one can start with plane parallel plates and
rough out quite a few useful optical design forms when one is lacking
a reasonable starting point, using 3rd order (Seidel) and 5th order
(Buchdahl) and 7th order spherical as operands.
The importance of 5th and 7th order aberrations, as well as their
chromatic differences and paraxial chromatic aberration, is that they
can lead to a much better understanding of what the optical system
under study is doing.
I was once asked to design a Cassegrain telescope with a wide FOV. I
had been a designer for only a short time. My supervisor did not think
to look at the basic aberrations of such a design, namely that trying
to drive the Petzval sum to zero is equivalent to a violation of
causality. Well, I proved though hours of optimization that it was not
possible though it would have been much cheaper to look at the 3rd
order aberrations of a two mirror telescope.
Using the the paraxial chromatic display commands of HEXAGON, ACCOS-V
or Enterprise,FCHY and FCHX ( in non-rotationally symmetic aperture or
field systems), for example, one can see how the various elements in
the system are correcting chromatic aberration (axial and lateral,
primary and secondary). One looks for large positive and negative
contributors and tries to drive their magnitudes down so as to reduce
chromatic sensitivities.
Fast systems (f/5 and faster) require orders higher than 3rd order in
order to be characterized, particularly when one is trying to drive
down large equal and oppositley signed aberration contributions.
It is far more important to understand what is happening in an optical
system under design or analysis than it is to blindly use someone's
default merit function and run the optimizer all day long.
We had a senior designer once who hated HEXAGON and loved CODE-V
(version 6). He was given a requirement to have specific MTF responses
to vertical bars at specific FOV positions for a two field of view
FLIR. He used the CODE-V default merit function tuned to these
specified performance reqs and designed the system. It had exactly the
correct MTF for vertical bars at .7 FOV. The response to horizontal
bars was ZERO. He didn't want to THINK about what he was doing. He
just wanted to PUSH THE BUTTON.
He and his supervisor blew the Christmas break fixing the system. He
is retired now but if he had been given access to ZEMAX, he could have
really been dangerous.
What I'm driving at is that if you are not an experienced optical
designer and if it is not your goal to become one, then let an expert
do the designing and resign yourself to being the systems engineer or
manager or whatever.
Sincerely,
West Coast Engineering
Brian Blandford
"Helpful person" <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote ..snip...
> Amazing who turns up here!
> I know you used to like ACOS (many years ago!) because of it's
> versatility. I haven't tried Synopsis for windows, but the DOS
> version was very powerful (and universally versatile). You could link
> anything to anything and plot anything versus anything! Was it
> available in the UK? Did you ever try it?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Fisher
No I never got Synopsis because I believe that no matter how good the code,
unless it's got some kind of future-proofing (e.g. a large company like ORA
or a committed small company like Lambda Research) the code will probably
die with the author - this is sadly true of Kidger's SIGMA. Yes I loved
ACCOS - way way ahead of its time, and it established a command language
which - to his credit - Doug Sinclair implemented much of in OSLO, to
prevent us designers from having to relearn all the syntax. I hope future
software writers - are there any out there? - will follow his example.
Actually I suspect the number of programs will eventually - like the number
of manufacturers - erode with time. But because of the visibility of the
code of much of OSLO, it will get a new lease of life from those who submit
routines. The same is true of CODE V and some other software.
Brian.
Helpful person
Detector195,
Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by West Coast Engineering .
It is rarely possible to learn useful information from people who are
that rude and opinionated.
Detector195
> There are no "4th" order aberration coefficients but through the use
I have a problem with this statement, because IIRC the absence of
even-ordered coefficients is based on a rotational symmetry argument,
and my goofy Gregorian was anything but rotationally symmetric when I
got done with it. I am trying to see how aberration theory solves my
problem better than I solved it using the default merit function in
ZEMAX. All that I get from OSLO is that the Seidel terms are probably
invalid for my system.
> What I'm driving at is that if you are not an experienced optical
> designer and if it is not your goal to become one, then let an expert
> do the designing and resign yourself to being the systems engineer or
> manager or whatever.
I would agree to a somewhat softened statement: If you are not an
experienced optical designer, be up front about your limitations,
stick with designs that can be laid out in one of the lesser optics
design programs, let an expert do the hard jobs.
In fact, it is probably fair to say that I am mainly a systems
engineer. I work at a small shop in the sticks that does not have an
optical engineer. My designs are either quite simplistic, or they are
outside the domain of Seidel theory as I understand it. I have no
problem buying an expertly designed subsystem. The actual optical
design part of my job would bore a real optical designer.
West Coast Engineering
It's even harder to learn when you allow yourself to be bothered by
the roughness of the real world and instead bother yourself by what
you percieve and rudeness and opinion.
A person who isn't a little rude and opinionated is like tepid,
decaffinated tea and I have not time in my short life for such bland
people.
West Coast Engineering
West Coast Engineering
There has been some theoretical development of aberration theory for
off-axis systems but none of it has made it to any commercial optical
design codes.
Aberration theory is generally applied to the centered optical design
before you take it off-axis (in field, aperture or both). In TMA and
REFLECTIVE TRIPLET designs you use PTZ3 and the positions of the
pupils and images and EFL with the variables of air space and
curvature.
Then you correct SA3, CMA3, AST3 and maybe DIS3 by varing the conic
constants.
Then you switch to real ray constraints for pupil mag and EFL and real
ray aberrations. Then you go off-axis.
Without that process or someone to give you a starting point design
set up this way, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to design a TMA (Three Mirror
Anastigmat) or a Reflective Triplet.
This goes in spades if you are working with a refractive design where
you need to also correct primary and secondary axial and lateral color
and sphero-achromatism.
West Coast Engineering
West Coast Engineering
Well if you think ZEMAX will be around 3 days after it's author steps
infront of a bus you will probably be disapponited. Oh, ZEMAX
purchased SIGMA. Then it took it out behind the building and
essentially put a bullet in the back of it's head. At least Doug
Sinclair merged Cool Genii into OSLO rather than plowing it under.
ACCOS-V is, by the way, still supported by OPTIKOS. It is not a dead
program. They just have other fish to fry at OPTIKOS.
ENTERPRISE PRO is the only commercial code on the planet available
with fully rebuildable source code (Using Compaq Visual Fortran and
Winteracter from ISS in England). This is the best insurance you can
get except to use CODE-V.
I would not count on OSLO being around after ZEMAX and CODE-V drive it
from the market in a year or two.
Detector195
Reflective triplets. Now you got my attention. Where can I read up on
this? To be perfectly honest, my starting points have come to me by
luck.
I have the bad habit of "learning by doing." Messing around with
reflective triplets might be a fun way for me to learn aberration
theory.
Detector195
Don't worry about me. I deal with tougher customers every day, and I
am no saint myself. I absolutely cannot be intimidated, and I am
basically a punk, so I would go ahead and do something after promising
not to do it anyway.
West Coast Engineering
much. I learned the design techniques from Lacy Cook while at Hughes
Aircraft and am planning to include examples in TUTORIAL 2 of
Enterprise soon.
Jim
West Coast Engineering
>
>Don't worry about me. I deal with tougher customers every day, and I
>am no saint myself. I absolutely cannot be intimidated, and I am
>basically a punk, so I would go ahead and do something after promising
>not to do it anyway.
Helpful Person was really who this was pointed at as he seemed a
little bent by my directness.
West Coast Engineering
Mike
V or Zemax or OSLO, but it seems you can always get what you need on
whatever Code you are using.
One aspect of a great code is great tech support and ORA wins hands
down there. Even sans Rick Juergans, these guys still have the
absolutely best support going.
West Coast Engineering
ORA support is like going to a really good doctor who is a great
diagnostician and having him correctly diagnose your symptoms after
which the correct medicine helps cure you.
ZEMAX is like buying a Windows medical diagnosis software from the
internet, diagnosing your own symptoms and then buying a cure from an
online pharmacy in Mexico. If your lucky, you didn't have anything
serious to start with and it dosn't kill you.
I personally consider ZEMAX to be the "ionic bracelet" of optical
design software because I believe it was designed to do one thing and
one thing only and that was to seperate fools from their money. It
does that extremely well, so I guess it is a success.
Sincerely,
Mr. Positive
Alex
I spent some time to read all responces to the original question.
The only responce RELATED to the original question was done by Brian
Blandford.
It seems we are like spamers - too many words about all but not to help to
answer the question.
Just to remind you the original question was to compare two specific
programs not to discuss the best optical program in the world.
Alex
West Coast Engineering
Detector195
I love ZEMAX. For me, it does everything. It is also very quick for
setting up models, thanks to the lens data editor and friendly graphic
displays. Their support has always been prompt and helpful.
Optimization tends to be robust. The one thing I have noticed is that
a design has to be fairly close to the desired EFL before you
constrain the EFL in the merit function.
OSLO seems to do a lot of the same things, but I have not really tried
it out yet. The really nice thing about OSLO EDU is that you can try
it out. You can also try out Enterprise. Those are the only two
programs that offer enough functionality in the free version to
actually learn about both layout and optimization. Just going through
the tutorials and manuals for these programs is an education if you
are a beginner.
We all have a lot invested in our expertise, much of which revolves
around the particular tools that we are familiar with. It is also the
case (perhaps optics is unusual in this respect) that the authors of
these programs are real people with names, friends, and reputations.
Thus, I can see how there are a lot of emotions at stake in this
discussion.
West Coast Engineering
>"Alex" <si...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:<botpvt$qs0$1...@zware.space.ru>...
>> Hello to all,
>>
>> I spent some time to read all responces to the original question.
>> The only responce RELATED to the original question was done by Brian
>> Blandford.
>> It seems we are like spamers - too many words about all but not to help to
>> answer the question.
>> Just to remind you the original question was to compare two specific
>> programs not to discuss the best optical program in the world.
>>
>> Alex
>
>I love ZEMAX. For me, it does everything. It is also very quick for
>setting up models, thanks to the lens data editor and friendly graphic
>displays. Their support has always been prompt and helpful.
>Optimization tends to be robust. The one thing I have noticed is that
>a design has to be fairly close to the desired EFL before you
>constrain the EFL in the merit function.
Try using a paxaxial solve to hold the marginal ray slope rather than
using an EFL operand. At least for non-decentered systems.
>
EFL is based on the paraxial ray trace in ZEMAX so if there are tilts
and decenters or a diffraction grating in your system, their EFL can
be next to useless. A lot of other stuff is based purely on the
paraxial trace though I doubt you could get the author to admit it.
Only ENTERPRISE has its EFLX and EFLY operands based upon a close
differential ray trace with respect to the chief ray that passes
through the center of the object and the center of the stop. These
intersection are performed iteratively and the user can set the
accuracy of the intersections with the AIMTOL ans SURTOL commands just
as in the HEXAGON program at Raytheon (the program I reverse
engineered when writing ENTERPRISE 15 years ago.)
This same differential ray trace is used to make distortion, field
curvature and astigmatism calculations good for ANY kind or optical
system, not just centered systems. It provides a general gaussian beam
propagation through generally decentered systems just as is done in
CODE-V.
This same close differential trace is used to provide the OPD
calculation with an exact location for the system exit pupil, even
when the gut ray is not exactly intersected by a general chief ray
from an off axis image point. It also provides a Generalized Paraxial
Ray Trace which is the real ray equivalent to the algebraic paraxial
trace for off axis systems.
But WHO CARES if it isn't easy enough for a moron or a section head to
use? If you need to read instructions, why even try the software? It
certainly can't be any good.
Ya, Ya, that's the ticket to my success. I'll tell people NOT to use
Enterprise.
Enjoy using your "ionic bracelet"
West Coast Engineering
Detector195
> EFL is based on the paraxial ray trace in ZEMAX so if there are tilts
> and decenters or a diffraction grating in your system, their EFL can
> be next to useless. A lot of other stuff is based purely on the
> paraxial trace though I doubt you could get the author to admit it.
Ugggh, you got me. I never even bothered to look up that command. Sure
enough the manual warns that certain commands are based on paraxial
solves, including this one.
> Only ENTERPRISE ...
Don't worry, I have not given up on Enterprise. But I just have a lot
of other crap going on.
Alessandro Del Bianco
my question now is: now are Enterprise and Hexagon commercially
available? And if yes do you know where to get more information? I also
have to buy an optical design software...
Alessandro
--
Ciao,
Alessandro
Submarining is inherently safer that air travel. This is supported by
the fact that there are more airplanes at the bottom of the sea than
subs in the air.
Mike Leveille
Web site is:
www.westcoastengineering .com
Mike
"Alessandro Del Bianco" <nope@nope> wrote in message
news:3fb4...@e-post.inode.at...
West Coast Engineering
(now Raytheon) in-house proprietary code.
ENTERPRISE is available from West Coast Engineering at
www.westcoastengineering.com.
You can call us at 1-818-507-5705. The SE version is just a full
version with only 25 surface lenses and 5 zoom positions but it is,
other than that, the same as the PRO forsale version without user
support.
West Coast Engineering
Alessandro Del Bianco
you, there will still be somebody for support?
Alessandro
email is: delbianco AT ipac DOT at sorry for the half anonimous posting
but I try to limit the spam somehow...
West Coast Engineering wrote:
--
West Coast Engineering
eventuality and will be able to rebuild ENTERPRISE and make it your
own.
The only codes immune from this single point failure problem are
CODE-V, and to some extent OSLO. Since I predict that OSLO will be
driven out of business by ZEMIN in the next few years, CODE-V will be
left as the sole program backed by a staff of engineers and
developers.
I avoid buses at my wife's insistance. :-)
DonJan
updates, I am hesitant to say anything inflammatory. Can a software
manufacturer refuse to sell me a maintenance contract, if I bad mouth
his product?
West Coast Engineering
>> >>
>I see certain people complaining about Zemax. Since I use it and need
>updates, I am hesitant to say anything inflammatory. Can a software
>manufacturer refuse to sell me a maintenance contract, if I bad mouth
>his product?
Of course I can't speak to what any one software manufacturer would or
would not do but most businesses reserve the right to serve or not
serve based on their own reasons.
I know for a fact that some optical design software makers won't sell
their products to any company that is in direct competition with them.
When you buy ENTERPRISE PRO for $2600.00, it comes with unlimited
updates and email support and since I pride myself with providing the
best possible support I, you don't really need to worry about
continually sending me $ every year for support and upgrades unless
you opt for the 7-day/week phone support with source code access at
$500.00/year.
Sincerely,
West Coast Engineering
Brian Blandford
"West Coast Engineering" <westcoaste...@westcoastengineering.com>
wrote in message ...snip....
>Since I predict that OSLO will be driven out of business by ZEMIN in the
next few years, ....
There is no evidence supporting that opinion. At the point when Doug
Sinclair sold his rights in OSLO to Lambda Research, OSLO ceased to be a
one-jockey horse. There are now enough people worldwide with a vested
interest in keeping OSLO up-to-date and supported, to make its maintenance a
viable commercial proposition. Subscribe to OSLO-talk discussion group if
you don't believe me. http://www-lit.lambdares.com/lists/listinfo/oslo-talk
Sorry to seem so mercenary, Jim, but at the end of the day the salaries of
the softies have to come from somewhere. Oh, and I don't drive a bus!
Brian
Detector195
Most people in any commercial enterprise, with any hope of retaining
their sanity, ignore what people say about them in newsgroups.
I doubt that anybody is going to refuse your money for any reason.
Since you have support, have you given them a chance to work out your
problems for you?
West Coast Engineering
All you need to do is come to my day job and see how many "we are not
really optical designers" have a supported copy of ZEMAX and then
never come to the real designers for any help again. It's enough to
make you want to toss your cookies.
Real optical designers may stick with CODE-V and OSLO but the new
"psudo designers" will eventually push OSLO out. The only reason
CODE-V will never go out is not software sales. CODE-V will never go
out, even if ZEMAX takes 99% of the market because the ORA Engineering
Services organization will always demand an in-house code to give
themselves the edge.
That's why HEXAGON at Raytheon and Optima at Lockheed will persist.
In-house code gives the big guys an in-house advantage and it always
will do so.
West Coast Engineering
Detector195
> All you need to do is come to my day job and see how many "we are not
> really optical designers" have a supported copy of ZEMAX and then
> never come to the real designers for any help again. It's enough to
> make you want to toss your cookies.
>
> Real optical designers may stick with CODE-V and OSLO but the new
> "psudo designers" will eventually push OSLO out. The only reason
> CODE-V will never go out is not software sales. CODE-V will never go
> out, even if ZEMAX takes 99% of the market because the ORA Engineering
> Services organization will always demand an in-house code to give
> themselves the edge.
>
> That's why HEXAGON at Raytheon and Optima at Lockheed will persist.
> In-house code gives the big guys an in-house advantage and it always
> will do so.
>
> West Coast Engineering
Back in the early 1980's, when I was in high school, scientists began
buying their own computers and programming them in BASIC. Naturally
the real programmers felt threatened by this, and they raised the FUD
response: The desktop computers are not professionally operated, they
are going to produce inaccurate results, and so forth.
As it turned out, programmers were not put out of business by BASIC.
Although BASIC was the original killer app in science labs, the
proliferation of computers created demand for more sophisticated
software, resulting in more employment for real programmers.
The success of BASIC was not due to cost. There were accounting
studies proving that mainframe computers were more cost effective. The
advantage of BASIC was in how people did their jobs. Writing a program
in BASIC did not require permission from the boss, a written
specification, wheedling the programmer, evaluating the results, and
starting all over again. And you could do strange things with BASIC
that could not have been forseen by the programmers, such as
controlling an experiment and collecting data.
Likewise with ZEMAX. This program does not threaten Code V. It does
not take away from real designers. Rather, it extends optics design
into areas where people would not have bothered with optics design at
all. ZEMAX is not competing with Code V, but with the overwhelming
number of problems that can be solved with crude paraxial ray tracing,
catalog optics, and good old fashioned trial-and-error.
Life is not a zero sum game. I think that in the long run, two things
have to happen. First, ZEMAX and its ilk will create more
opportunities for sophisticated design, where companies did not even
know that they needed optics design at all. I have paved the way for
this at my day job. Second, the optics design profession will adapt to
the existence of ZEMAX, just as programmers have adapted to BASIC.
And I must confess here that I am not only doing this in optics
design. I also program in BASIC, design my own electronics, and have
done my own plumbing work at home.
Now, this is only my perspective, and I respect yours. One thing to
consider is that we live in different states, which might as well be
different planets. You live in a hot bed of high tech, where it is
possible for one person to compete with another in optics design. I
live in a farm town in the Midwest, and am possibly the only
industrial optics guy within a large radius. Another thing is that you
are designing optics, and I am designing electronic instrumentation
containing optics. There is a huge distinction. So it could very well
be that we are both right in our own domains.
optics2design
Optics2
Posted at: http://www.groupsrv.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
yas
This is just one man don't like another one.
"optics2design" <optics...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid>
???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????: news:424be056$1...@127.0.0.1...
Helpful person
Actually the main problem I find with focus software is their lack of
useful customer support, in particular their denial of the way that
nature does not always agree with Zemax.
Skywise
news:424be056$1...@127.0.0.1:
> why always fight between ZEMAX AND West Coast Engineering ( WCE)
>
> Optics2
If you're willing to take the time and do some Google
News searching, Mr. Klein at one time laid out in detail
what his beef with Zemax is.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy
Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Gaspard de la Nuit
"optics2design"
> why always fight between ZEMAX and West Coast Engineering
Troll bait
West Coast Engineering
of things to say about ZEMAX. :-)
Jim Klein
Danny Rich
Does this mean that you operate on the philosophy - "If you can't say
anything nasty about someone don't say anything at all!" ?
Danny
"West Coast Engineering" <westcoaste...@westcoastengineering.com>
wrote in message news:jmnq41t0pebjt3n2t...@4ax.com...
West Coast Engineering
Unless I have something nice to say but I can't think of anything nice
to say about ZEMAX at this moment in time.
Jim
kacc...@gmail.com
Phil Hobbs
off everybody's newsreader, how about quoting some context?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Skywise
news:JfGdnbm6us2z2ODP...@supernews.com:
> Not an unreasonable question, but since all that stuff has long scrolled
> off everybody's newsreader, how about quoting some context?
Basically it was about why Jim Klein doesn't like Zemax. Very short
polite thread that didn't go very far.
I tried to find the thread in GoogleGroups but since the last time
I've used it, I see Google has Royally Kceduf the search function.
Can't even find an advanced search.
This is the best I could do:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/WWF$20sci.optics$20optics2design
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Phil Hobbs
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in
> news:JfGdnbm6us2z2ODP...@supernews.com:
>
>> Not an unreasonable question, but since all that stuff has long scrolled
>> off everybody's newsreader, how about quoting some context?
>
> Still on mine.
>
> Basically it was about why Jim Klein doesn't like Zemax. Very short
> polite thread that didn't go very far.
>
> I tried to find the thread in GoogleGroups but since the last time
> I've used it, I see Google has Royally Kceduf the search function.
> Can't even find an advanced search.
>
> This is the best I could do:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/WWF$20sci.optics$20optics2design
>
> Brian
>
What client do you use, Brian? Thunderbird has some horrible
quadratic-time algorithm in its guts that makes it practically unusable
for groups with lots of posts.
Skywise
> What client do you use, Brian? Thunderbird has some horrible
> quadratic-time algorithm in its guts that makes it practically unusable
> for groups with lots of posts.
http://xnews.newsguy.com/
It's different, in a refreshing old school kind of way. Reminds
me of the old BBS days. :)
But having old messages can also be a function of the usenet
provider. I didn't have those articles cached (just the thread
listing), but they were still on the server.
I'm not sure who the usenet provider actually is as I am
accessing through an ISP. I am almost certain they're just
acting as a reseller since they also do not host their own
email servers either.
Brian
--
http://www.earthwaves.org - Earthquake prediction & Earth Sciences
chris.b...@gmail.com
Bump.
I'd love to revisit this discussion. I am researching the best optical engineering software packages and note that there are a lot of options. Zemax, OSLO and FRED seem to be lower-cost, more basic packages, while Synopsys' Code V and LightTools as well as ASAP, TracePro, ComSol and RSoft seem to be more high-end solutions. What I am having a tough time understanding is why anyone would pay so much extra for the high-end solutions, when the less expensive ones seem to have broad functionality across optical/illumination/laser applications. What software packages do you think are best suited for light vs. heavy users for optical, illumination and laser? I'd really appreciate you passing along any resources and opinions you may have. And if anyone can provide more in-depth consulting services for my research, let me know because I'm willing to provide some compensation.
Thanks and warm wishes,
Chris