 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been designing a plastic lens and using POV's mesh2 object type to
raytrace and visualise the results.
The iterations are taking too long.
What I want to do is define a bounding area I want the light to shine into,
and a spot light or lite material, and have POV design the lens between and
output the results as a mesh.
Possible/Impossible ?
Comments?
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon Dyer" <sim### [at] paradise netnz> wrote:
>I've been designing a plastic lens and using POV's mesh2 object type to
>raytrace and visualise the results.
>
>The iterations are taking too long.
>
>What I want to do is define a bounding area I want the light to shine into,
>and a spot light or lite material, and have POV design the lens between and
>output the results as a mesh.
Have you already tried the intersection of two CSG-speres? That's just
what real spheric optical lenses are.
And I guess, POV-Ray can handle it quite efficient.
And you wouldn't get aberration caused by the facets of your mesh-lenses.
Best regards,
Günther
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?= Dietrich" <gue### [at] despammedcom>
wrote:
> "Simon Dyer" <sim### [at] paradisenetnz> wrote:
>
> >I've been designing a plastic lens and using POV's mesh2 object type to
> >raytrace and visualise the results.
> >
> >The iterations are taking too long.
> >
> >What I want to do is define a bounding area I want the light to shine into,
> >and a spot light or lite material, and have POV design the lens between and
> >output the results as a mesh.
>
> Have you already tried the intersection of two CSG-speres? That's just
> what real spheric optical lenses are.
> And I guess, POV-Ray can handle it quite efficient.
> And you wouldn't get aberration caused by the facets of your mesh-lenses.
>
Yes it does work. Here’s one I did earlier, see
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cjkr0b19tiku4gcivd7ilrjdsiet3motjj0@4ax.com%3E/
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
G?nther Dietrich <gue### [at] despammedcom> wrote:
> Have you already tried the intersection of two CSG-speres? That's just
> what real spheric optical lenses are.
Are you sure? Can you give a reference?
I have tried to find the exact mathematical function for a convex lens
geometry (ie. a lens which focuses perfectly and evenly) but I just can't
find it on the net.
As far as I can tell, there are at least two possibilities: The surface
of the lens has to be parabolic, or it has to be spherical. It might also
be that it has to have some other shape. However, I can't find this info
anywhere!
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> G?nther Dietrich <gue### [at] despammedcom> wrote:
> > Have you already tried the intersection of two CSG-speres? That's just
> > what real spheric optical lenses are.
>
> Are you sure? Can you give a reference?
>
> I have tried to find the exact mathematical function for a convex lens
> geometry (ie. a lens which focuses perfectly and evenly) but I just can't
> find it on the net.
>
> As far as I can tell, there are at least two possibilities: The surface
> of the lens has to be parabolic, or it has to be spherical. It might also
> be that it has to have some other shape. However, I can't find this info
> anywhere!
>
> --
> - Warp
Is this the sort of thing?
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
news:web.446da040d77f358ac6b359800@news.povray.org...
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Are you sure? Can you give a reference?
> Is this the sort of thing?
> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
Hecht is the more authoritative source, if you're looking for the more
complete derivations:
Hecht, Eugene, Optics, 2nd Ed, Addison Wesley, 1987
(Although, IIRC, there's at least a 3rd edition out. I'd check, but
somebody around here seems to have borrowed my copy...)
- How
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Stephen who wrote:
>Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> G?nther Dietrich <gue### [at] despammedcom> wrote:
>> > Have you already tried the intersection of two CSG-speres? That's just
>> > what real spheric optical lenses are.
>>
>> Are you sure? Can you give a reference?
>>
>> I have tried to find the exact mathematical function for a convex lens
>> geometry (ie. a lens which focuses perfectly and evenly) but I just can't
>> find it on the net.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, there are at least two possibilities: The surface
>> of the lens has to be parabolic, or it has to be spherical. It might also
>> be that it has to have some other shape. However, I can't find this info
>> anywhere!
>>
>> --
>> - Warp
>
>Is this the sort of thing?
>http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
The lenses in eyeglasses tend to be more complicated than that. Most
eyeglass prescriptions have a spherical and a cylindrical component, and
some (like those for my mother who has one eye that doesn't point in
quite the right direction due to a mild stroke) have a prism component.
Some info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeglass_prescription
Eyeglass lenses never focus mathematically perfectly. In order to do
that they would have to be parabolic, but parabolic lenses are very much
more difficult to grind. The focussing error of spherical lenses
(spherical abberation) is not sufficient to be a problem for eyeglasses.
I happen to use varifocal lenses, which have regions that warp and twist
the light in strange ways, but it doesn't cause a problem.
If you Google for "parabolic lens" you'll find that you get hits that
are generally for rather exotic applications, such as focussing X-rays
(plus a pile of hits for therapeutic lighting systems, I can't believe
they use optical quality parabolic lenses).
The spherical aberration effect is significant for telescopes: telescope
mirrors are often parabolic, but even for those the additional
complexity of creating a parabolic surface makes some constructors use
spherical mirrors together with other optical components that cancel out
the aberration.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> Is this the sort of thing?
> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
Why not give an url to the original article, which has the images etc.
intact and not raped like in that site?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)
The article says "the most common type of lenses are spherical lenses".
Then in the spherical aberration subsection it says that the spherical
shape is not the optimal for light focusing but it doesn't say what is.
Why can't they simply give the mathematical function for the perfect
lens surface instead of just saying: "Lenses in which closer-to-ideal,
non-spherical surfaces are used are called aspheric lenses. These were
formerly complex to make and often extremely expensive, although
advances in technology have greatly reduced the cost of manufacture
for these lenses."
What is the function for the perfect lens surface?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Warp who wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>> Is this the sort of thing?
>> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
>
> Why not give an url to the original article, which has the images etc.
>intact and not raped like in that site?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)
>
> The article says "the most common type of lenses are spherical lenses".
>Then in the spherical aberration subsection it says that the spherical
>shape is not the optimal for light focusing but it doesn't say what is.
>
> Why can't they simply give the mathematical function for the perfect
>lens surface instead of just saying: "Lenses in which closer-to-ideal,
>non-spherical surfaces are used are called aspheric lenses. These were
>formerly complex to make and often extremely expensive, although
>advances in technology have greatly reduced the cost of manufacture
>for these lenses."
>
> What is the function for the perfect lens surface?
I initially thought that parabolic lenses would have perfect optics,
like parabolic mirrors do, but it turns out that the light rays are not
at the correct angle when they reach the second surface.
Here's one solution that produces a lens with perfect optics, but you
wouldn't want one of these in your eyeglasses:
http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/science/opt0503.htm
I also came across this news article
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?newsID=2064
Which bears the title: "The Perfect Lens is Possible According to
Researchers at Purdue and MIT", but the text says "Researchers have now
shown, through rigorous mathematical analysis, that a perfect lens is
not possible, said Kevin J. Webb, a professor of electrical and computer
engineering at Purdue."
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> "Researchers have now
> shown, through rigorous mathematical analysis, that a perfect lens is
> not possible, said Kevin J. Webb, a professor of electrical and computer
> engineering at Purdue."
That's a rather surprising result (or not, after you study optics for
some time, I suppose).
Seems that the best possible lenses available with current technology
are the so-called apochromats which try to minimize both spherical and
chromatic aberrations (but are not *perfect* either), and are really
expensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> > Is this the sort of thing?
> > http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
>
> Why not give an url to the original article, which has the images etc.
> intact and not raped like in that site?
>
You really take the biscuit, Warp. I just hope you are not as rude and
pretentious to your students as you are to people on these newsgroups.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> > Why not give an url to the original article, which has the images etc.
> > intact and not raped like in that site?
> You really take the biscuit, Warp. I just hope you are not as rude and
> pretentious to your students as you are to people on these newsgroups.
Exactly which part of my sentence was rude?
And I don't have any students. (Not that it matters.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > > Is this the sort of thing?
> > > http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lens_(optics)
> >
> > Why not give an url to the original article, which has the images
> > etc. intact and not raped like in that site?
> You really take the biscuit, Warp. I just hope you are not as rude and
> pretentious to your students as you are to people on these newsgroups.
I struggle to find a way of reading Warp's comment to be more rude than
what sites like the one you link to do to Wikipedia. Now, as a supporter
of truly free information, I must accept that there is nothing *wrong*
with what they do, but it's damned ungentlemanly, and it isn't good for
promulgation of information.
--
And for mile after mile you'll never see me tire/You'll never me me slow
down for a while/'Cause I am the fox, like it or not/I'm always gonna be
there running over the rock/ Yes I am the fox, a fascinating cross/ Of
sharp as a whip and tough as an ox Bernie Taupin, 'The Fox'
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Exactly which part of my sentence was rude?
perhaps he is referring to the raping you said the website commited against
the original wikipedia article, which it indeed did: the wikipedia article
is far more complete and with plenty of illustrative images. i don't have a
problem with the sentence and would have used it myself to describe the
situation, but i guess some people feel it a bit agressive, even though the
real agression is against Wikipedia...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> Wasn't it Stephen who wrote:
> >Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >> G?nther Dietrich <gue### [at] despammedcom> wrote:
> >> > Have you already tried the intersection of two CSG-speres? That's just
> >> > what real spheric optical lenses are.
One of the first renders I ever did in DKBtrace was such a shape, but I did
it in wood, not glass, on a 30MHz Amiga. :)
> The lenses in eyeglasses tend to be more complicated than that. Most
> eyeglass prescriptions have a spherical and a cylindrical component, and
> some (like those for my mother who has one eye that doesn't point in
> quite the right direction due to a mild stroke) have a prism component.
A lens with spherical & cylindrical components is called a toric lens,
because it can be thought of as a section from the surface of a torus.
Many people require a toric prescription to correct for astigmatism, but I
wouldn't say it was a majority. I take orders for contact lenses for one of
the world-leading manufacturers, and we sell a lot of toric lenses
(especially after recent improvements in the technology), but most of the
orders are spheric lenses to correct for short-sightedness. Of course, the
story for spectacles could be different, but severe astigmatism is pretty
rare.
Why do spheric lenses work? Because sin(x) ~= x for small x.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> > > Why not give an url to the original article, which has the images etc.
> > > intact and not raped like in that site?
>
> > You really take the biscuit, Warp. I just hope you are not as rude and
> > pretentious to your students as you are to people on these newsgroups.
>
> Exactly which part of my sentence was rude?
>
> And I don't have any students. (Not that it matters.)
>
> --
> - Warp
Dear Warp,
I thought that you were being deliberately rude. I see that you were not and
I apologise. I jumped to a wrong conclusion. The URL I posted was not the
one that I meant to post or thought I had posted.
Since you ask what I part of your sentence I found rude I will tell you
privately via your tag email if you still want to know.
Regretfully
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> I thought that you were being deliberately rude. I see that you were not and
> I apologise. I jumped to a wrong conclusion.
My style of writing in the internet is often quite direct. This often
makes me sound rude even though it's not at all my intention.
At one point, many years ago, I simply got tired of overusing smileys
everywhere and trying to think of "soft" ways of writing my opinions in
order to try to avoid anyone get offended. I thought something along the
lines of "heck, why am I going through all this trouble to try to avoid
someone getting offended by something I am not trying to say in an
offensive way?"
Granted, it's not a very smart way to behave, but after interacting in
the internet so actively for so long as I have, you just get tired at
some point and stop caring. I just say what is in my mind.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PM 2Ring wrote:
> Many people require a toric prescription to correct for astigmatism, but I
> wouldn't say it was a majority. I take orders for contact lenses for one of
> the world-leading manufacturers, and we sell a lot of toric lenses
> (especially after recent improvements in the technology), but most of the
> orders are spheric lenses to correct for short-sightedness. Of course, the
> story for spectacles could be different, but severe astigmatism is pretty
> rare.
I don't know how rare it is, but I am one who needs astigmatism
correction as well as for myopia (near-sightedness). But a few years
back, I dropped my glasses (standard glasses, not contacts) and one of
the lenses cracked, so I went to my optomitrist for a replacement. Took
about a week to have it made. In that time I was still using this
cracked lens -- a minor annoyance but no big deal. When I got the
replacement lens, my first look through it seemed very odd. The doctor
re-checked the prescription and said the yes, it was the right
prescription -- but rotated 90 degrees! I had to use that offset lens
for the next week while a proper replacement could be made. Boy! what a
strange sensation -- when I walked it felt like I was leaning over at an
angle. :-) All turned out okay eventually, of course, but it was sure
a strange feeling during that time.
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Hudson <org### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> PM 2Ring wrote:
> > Many people require a toric prescription to correct for astigmatism, but I
> > wouldn't say it was a majority. I take orders for contact lenses for one of
> > the world-leading manufacturers, and we sell a lot of toric lenses
> > (especially after recent improvements in the technology), but most of the
> > orders are spheric lenses to correct for short-sightedness. Of course, the
> > story for spectacles could be different, but severe astigmatism is pretty
> > rare.
>
> I don't know how rare it is, but I am one who needs astigmatism
> correction as well as for myopia (near-sightedness).
Same here. Astigmatism seems more common with those of us of European origin
than with Chinese people, who often have severe myopia.
> But a few years
> back, I dropped my glasses (standard glasses, not contacts) and one of
> the lenses cracked, so I went to my optomitrist for a replacement. Took
> about a week to have it made. In that time I was still using this
> cracked lens -- a minor annoyance but no big deal. When I got the
> replacement lens, my first look through it seemed very odd. The doctor
> re-checked the prescription and said the yes, it was the right
> prescription -- but rotated 90 degrees!
Yes, that can happen sometimes... usually mistakes like that are picked up
before the lens gets to the patient, but not always.
> I had to use that offset lens
> for the next week while a proper replacement could be made. Boy! what a
> strange sensation -- when I walked it felt like I was leaning over at an
> angle. :-) All turned out okay eventually, of course, but it was sure
> a strange feeling during that time.
I bet! If that happened to me, I'd get motion sickness. :)
FWIW, I've taken quite a few toric lens orders today.
<Lame attempt to get back on topic>
I just had an idea: I could use POV to illustrate what the world looks like
through my eye, by fitting the POV camera with a lens which is the inverse
to my prescription.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
