34 ms·

I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements, which are harder to manufactur

I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements, which are harder to manufacture in a precise way and are thus more costly. > Their findings were published in the article General Formula for Bi-Aspheric Singlet Lens Design Free of Spherical Aberration, in the journal Applied Optics. I’m no expert in optics, but that does not sound like the kind of advancement that cheapens lenses, even if the math work is mathematically relevant

kennyadam 7y ago
Haven't read the paper, not an expert... but you still feel qualified to dismiss it?
- xondono 7y ago
  I have not read the original paper, I'm not an expert in optics, but the article clearly makes an argument that seems contradictory: - Current solution is expensive because it uses aspherical elements. - New solution promises cost reduction. - New solution uses aspherical elements as well. Either there's some hidden detail that the article fails to mention, or it's claims are overstated. If you actually know about optics, I'd be glad to know which is the true or if I'm missing anything here, otherwise I would appreciate to keep your snarkiness to yourself.
TheRealPomax 7y ago
It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article? These people solved optical abberation. Even if their work leads to lenses that are twice as expensive as they are today, people whose research, or jobs, rely on perfect optics will be more than happy to pay what it costs to work with those. Anyone else can wait until one or more companies figures out how to make the manufacturing process cost effective at scale.
- russdill 7y ago
  Currently abberation is dealt with by including multiple lenses. Even if the lens costs twice as much, it's still a wine from a price point. But yes, only for applications that care about abberation.
- xondono 7y ago
  > It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article? How is it not? The article actually makes that claim: It would help make better and cheaper to manufacture optical systems in all areas, be it telescopes, microscopes, and everything in between.
topspin 7y ago
Aspheric lenses are frequently molded and these molds are used to make vast quantities of precision lenses. We've been molding lenses in quantity since Kodak perfected the process in the 70's. Yes, grinding aspherical lenses is more costly (yet still possible,) but there are numerous applications for which molded lenses are entirely sufficient.
foobar1962 7y ago
Something like this could be an advance for optical systems where plastic moulded lenses are suitable. One lens could replace several elements in systems with monochromatic light. Think optical drives

kennyadam 7y ago

Haven't read the paper, not an expert... but you still feel qualified to dismiss it?

xondono 7y ago
I have not read the original paper, I'm not an expert in optics, but the article clearly makes an argument that seems contradictory: - Current solution is expensive because it uses aspherical elements. - New solution promises cost reduction. - New solution uses aspherical elements as well. Either there's some hidden detail that the article fails to mention, or it's claims are overstated. If you actually know about optics, I'd be glad to know which is the true or if I'm missing anything here, otherwise I would appreciate to keep your snarkiness to yourself.

TheRealPomax 7y ago

It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article? These people solved optical abberation. Even if their work leads to lenses that are twice as expensive as they are today, people whose research, or jobs, rely on perfect optics will be more than happy to pay what it costs to work with those. Anyone else can wait until one or more companies figures out how to make the manufacturing process cost effective at scale.

russdill 7y ago
Currently abberation is dealt with by including multiple lenses. Even if the lens costs twice as much, it's still a wine from a price point. But yes, only for applications that care about abberation.
xondono 7y ago
> It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article? How is it not? The article actually makes that claim: It would help make better and cheaper to manufacture optical systems in all areas, be it telescopes, microscopes, and everything in between.

topspin 7y ago

Aspheric lenses are frequently molded and these molds are used to make vast quantities of precision lenses. We've been molding lenses in quantity since Kodak perfected the process in the 70's. Yes, grinding aspherical lenses is more costly (yet still possible,) but there are numerous applications for which molded lenses are entirely sufficient.

foobar1962 7y ago

Something like this could be an advance for optical systems where plastic moulded lenses are suitable. One lens could replace several elements in systems with monochromatic light. Think optical drives