New formula for eliminating spherical aberration

[jim10219]

So a Mexican physicist has apparently developed a new formula that completely eliminates spherical aberration. This could be the final days of large complicated lenses and the begining of cheap, fast, and sharp lenses.

https://gizmodo.com/a-mexican-physicist-solved-a-2-000-year-old-problem-tha-1837031984/amp

I'm sure it won't reduce everything to single elements because there are other aberrations to worry about, as well as focusing and zoom issues. But we'll soon say goodbye to soft corners!

 

[cmacd123]

a lot depends on how this changes the process to make lenses.

 

[mshchem]

Still need to remember to remove the lens cap

 

[AgX]

Here the scientific paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.03792.pdf


Its conclusion reads less spectacular than the title of this thread...
"We are convinced that this family of freeform lenses has many potential applications."

 

[darkosaric]

I hope used market will be flooded with used Summicrons that nobody wants any more...I will take them .

 

[Agulliver]

It is not in the nature of scientists to write hyperbole about their discoveries and developments.

 

[jim10219]

It is not in the nature of scientists to write hyperbole about their discoveries and developments.

Correct. That nature belongs to internet users like me!

 

[removed account4]

lots of crazy stuff going these days,
no spherical aberration
the kilogram has changed from
a chunk of je ne sais quois under a bell jar
to some insane calculation
( https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-mass-and-plancks-constant )
and the world seems topsy turvey .
thank goodness the giant trash island in the pacific is still there,
too much change is not good..

 

[Nodda Duma]

The problem he solved is almost entirely academic.

From an actual practical designing-a-lens perspective, not quite as useful. Sir Isaac Newton eliminated these aberrations entirely when he used a paraboloidal surface for a mirror back in the 1600s.

The physicist worked out a mathematical solution — which is great — for a problem that is solved via other methods every day by lens designers. That’s a great way to earn his doctorate. But in reality it can actually take longer to set up the initial conditions in Zemax or Code V than to run the optimization itself that drives sph ab to zero ..which is not much faster for a simple lens than doing the Seidel coefficient calculations by hand.

So leading to cheaper, simpler solutions... I shudder at the thought of trying to convince an optical shop to turn a surface like that, or even a molded optics shop to do the same. More expensive and more complex.. definitely.

Not knocking what he did, don’t get me wrong... the sensationalist misleading reporting that followed is just a bit too much.

 

[BAC1967]

We’ll probably see it in scientific applications first.

 

[choiliefan]

And then the phone.

 

[EdSawyer]

like Jason said, for practical purposes this has been a solved issue for years. It's basically been "brute-forced" to below the limit of the tolerance of the machines making the lens elements, so regardless of having a perfect mathematical solution or not, creating a lens element was as close to perfect as possible already (within manufacturing limits) so from a practical standpoint, this is non-news.

 

[nmp]

Here the scientific paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.03792.pdf


Its conclusion reads less spectacular than the title of this thread...
"We are convinced that this family of freeform lenses has many potential applications."

Darn, that looks pretty straight forward....why didn't I think of it.....

 

[Ariston]

It is not in the nature of scientists to write hyperbole about their discoveries and developments.

Hah! This makes me laugh. I'm not sure we can count the times that a new discovery supplanted an old discovery as the accepted fact of the day. Scientists are human beings who want desperately to get published.

 

[nmp]

Hah! This makes me laugh. I'm not sure we can count the times that a new discovery supplanted an old discovery as the accepted fact of the day. Scientists are human beings who want desperately to get published.

Yep, remember cold fusion?

 

[MNM]

Hah! This makes me laugh. I'm not sure we can count the times that a new discovery supplanted an old discovery as the accepted fact of the day. Scientists are human beings who want desperately to get published.

Yep, remember cold fusion?

.

I was thinking polar bears but your example works as well.

 

[Agulliver]

The hyperbole is not in the scientific papers, but in the hysterical musings of journalists and news reporters........universally disliked by scientists.

The cold fusion lot were not scientists...they were frauds.

 

[nmp]

The hyperbole is not in the scientific papers, but in the hysterical musings of journalists and news reporters........universally disliked by scientists.

The cold fusion lot were not scientists...they were frauds.

Scientists are human beings as well so they are not precluded for being frauds. Having said so, I wouldn't call the guys behind cold fusion frauds (in the legal sense anyway) as there was no evidence that the data they came up with initially was all made-up. Pons and Fleischman may have been sloppy and careless experimentalists, perhaps a little too quick to label what they saw as cold fusion, as someone called their report a result of delusion and incompetence. The university (of Utah) where Pons was a professor was in on the debacle as well, as they tried to capitalize on the potential of the "discovery." Of course, the media was a part of it too in the frenzy that followed. Then there was big money to fund more research and the politicians got in the act as well. All in all, a lesson on how not to do major scientific breakthroughs....

:niranjan.

 

[pentaxuser]

The hyperbole is not in the scientific papers, but in the hysterical musings of journalists and news reporters........universally disliked by scientists.

The cold fusion lot were not scientists...they were frauds.

Yes, Dr Linus Pauling was convinced that a high enough dose of vitamin C taken on a regular basis gave great protection against getting the common cold. I read his book and while his theory turned out to be wrong I don't recall the book being sensationalised by him.

There is cant and Kant and what a difference the use of letters 3 and 11 makes in the English alphabet when applied to these two words


pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

like Jason said, for practical purposes this has been a solved issue for years. It's basically been "brute-forced" to below the limit of the tolerance of the machines making the lens elements, so regardless of having a perfect mathematical solution or not, creating a lens element was as close to perfect as possible already (within manufacturing limits) so from a practical standpoint, this is non-news.

Lenses can't be close to perfect if manufacturers are using all sorts of software corrections.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So a Mexican physicist has apparently developed a new formula that completely eliminates spherical aberration. This could be the final days of large complicated lenses and the begining of cheap, fast, and sharp lenses.

https://gizmodo.com/a-mexican-physicist-solved-a-2-000-year-old-problem-tha-1837031984/amp

I'm sure it won't reduce everything to single elements because there are other aberrations to worry about, as well as focusing and zoom issues. But we'll soon say goodbye to soft corners!

a pinhole has no aberations either.

 

[ic-racer]

Everything's About to Change

How?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Essentially there are 3 approaches to lens surface design:

1. Traditional --- spherical lens surfaces, where every surface is a portion of a spherical surface (circular radius to all points)
2. Aspheric --- where some lens surfaces employ a conic, parabolic or other non-circular surface --- for these surfaces the deviation from a true sphere is measured in wavelengths of light, and the deviation generally is noticeable only in the outer 10-20% of the lens’s optical clear aperture. One aspheric surface (when used properly) will typically provide the same aberration correction as 1-2 spherical surfaces. In other words, you can get the equivalent optical performance with fewer parts when an aspheric is used. However aspheres are more than twice as hard to make as spherical surfaces.
3. Freeform --- Freeform optics are a modification of aspheric surfaces. Instead of applying a specific mathematical form to the aspheric surface (e.g. parabola), you let the last 10-20% of the optical clear aperture vary as required in order to insure all the optical rays meet at the focal point. This generally creates a generic shape that follows no common mathematical formula (e.g. conic).

So the freeform optic will only give a slight improvement over an aspheric optic, which in turn only replaces 1-2 surfaces in an all-spherical lens design. If you are making exotic optics, this is a great tool. But the fabrication costs are probably orders of magnitude different.

Also notice that the article only addresses a single lens element, not a more useful/complex lens design with multiple elements.

I’ll hang on to my current lenses for a while.

 

[Agulliver]

Re cold fusion....we may be thinking of different people....I was referring to the lot at a Mormon university in the 90s who claimed to have achieved cold fusion in yoghurt pots.....made huge, sweeping statements about how they would change the world - even save the world - were quickly disproved and never heard from again.

Scientific papers are not known to contain hyperbole. It is highly likely that a physicist who's come up with new ideas regarding lenses would write in a "hype" style. It's the secondary sources, such as people on forums and journalists who might say" everything is going to change". In this case, maybe it will.....though I expect there will still be devotees of Tessar lenses even in the 23rd century.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have heard of Snake Oil before - perhaps they have found a way to 3D digital print these new lens designs. I have now switched on my cynicism module to full volume.