Multi-fields direct design approach in 3D: calculating a two-surface freeform lens with an entrance pupil for line imaging systems

Yunfeng Nie; Hugo Thienpont; Fabian Duerr

doi:10.1364/OE.23.034042

1. Introduction

Optical components with freeform surfaces have already demonstrated their superiority in various off-axis imaging applications, such as three-mirror systems [1,2] and head mounted display [3,4]. When it comes to on-axis imaging systems, rotationally symmetric components are typically considered to provide the best solutions. It is obvious that rotational symmetry eases the optical design procedures as the whole surface is determined after the calculation of one two-dimensional (2D) surface profile. In general, it is the optimal solution for those cases where the both the object and image space are close to rotationally symmetric with respect to the optical axis. However, in some cases the object and/or the sensor dimensions are far from being rotationally symmetric, for example in high aspect ratio or line imaging systems. Practical applications for such systems are the pushbroom hyperspectral cameras [5,6] and scanning systems [7].

In general, there are two main options to design freeform optical systems: a multi-parametric optimization based- and a direct calculation based design approach. The first option utilizes common freeform surface descriptions such as Zernike, Chebyshev or XY polynomials [8,9], or explores novel effective characterizations of freeform optical surfaces to describe the systems to be designed [10–12]. After the surfaces are accurately described by equations, the parameters (radii, distances, polynomial coefficients and so forth) of the optical systems are optimized by optical design programs to minimize a predefined merit function. The second option, those direct design methods, relies on solving geometrical or differential equations of the designed optical systems to achieve an optimal solution [13–16].

Most existing multiple-surface freeform design methods, such as the Simultaneous Multiple Surfaces (SMS) design method [17] and a related analytic design method [18], typically do not include an entrance pupil which is important for correcting off-axis aberrations [19] and the lenses are not always practical, as shown in Fig. 1 (a). These methods allow to perfectly focus two or three fields with two optical surfaces, as shown in Fig. 1(b) in terms of root mean square (RMS) spot radius. Such an imaging performance is not desired, instead, a well-balanced spot size distribution throughout the FOV as the dashed line indicates in Fig. 1(b) performs better in a wide field-of-view (FOV) imaging system. In a recent article [20], we have proposed a multi-fields 2D direct design method that enables partial coupling of multiple ray bundles with two rotationally symmetric aspheric lens surfaces to balance the performance from tangential rays. However, astigmatism and field curvature become the dominant aberrations when FOV increases [21], and the correction of these two aberrations requires for a 3D design method with control on both tangential and sagittal rays.

Fig. 1 The example of a direct design method for freeform optics that achieves two or three perfect image points, whereas what we actually want to obtain is a well-balanced performance throughout the FOV as the dashed line.

Download Full Size | PDF

In this paper, we present the generalization of this design approach. In Sec. 2, the procedures to calculate a two-surface freeform optical system including an entrance pupil are explained in detail. An exemplary design case is following to demonstrate the functionality of the proposed design method. The comparison between the multi-fields 2D and 3D design method is presented as well. In Sec. 3, we apply the multi-fields design method to design a barcode scanner and evaluate its imaging performance in terms of RMS spot diagram and aberration plots. In Sec. 4, the design of a practical wide field objective lens further shows the superiority of freeform lens to spherical/aspheric lens. Finally, in Sec. 5, conclusions are drawn and the outlook is given.

2. Generalized multi-fields direct design method with a pupil

The aim of coupling rays from multiple fields to calculate unknown optical surfaces is to balance the imaging performance over the whole FOV. In the case of 2D design methods, only meridional rays are considered and a RMS 2D function is used to evaluate its image quality accordingly [14], whereas the performance of sagittal rays is not included. To generalize the multi-field design method, skew rays are treated simultaneously in the design procedure in order to utilize more degrees of freedom and to improve the overall performance.

2.1 Design procedure of multi-fields method in 3D

The two unknown surfaces being designed are calculated from the center, and multiple off-axis fields are constructed by sequence afterwards. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the initial setup includes an on-axis object $E_{0}$ (from infinity or finite distance), an entrance pupil $P$ and its center $P_{0}$ , vertex point $M_{0}$ on the front surface $M$ , vertex point $N_{0}$ on the rear surface $N$ and the on-axis image point $R_{0}$ . Generally, these parameters are deduced from the specifications of the optical system. Since the object can be from infinity, the origin of the coordinate is positioned in the center of the entrance pupil. The diameter of entrance pupil $P$ is defined to constrain the edge rays. The refractive index between the front and rear surface is $n_{1}$ , others are $n_{0}$ . The complete design procedure consists of four steps:

Fig. 2 The initial setup of multi-fields 3D design method

Download Full Size | PDF

(1) When the initial parameters are determined, the optical path length for on-axis field is calculated as
- $O P L_{0} = n_{0} E_{0} M_{0} + n_{1} M_{0} N_{0} + n_{0} N_{0} R_{0}$ (1)
  We define an initial segment $M P_{0}$ on surface $M$ to couple a small portion of paraxial rays, as illustrated in Fig. 3(a). The dimension of the initial segment is quite small when compared to the final full aperture. The surface sag can be represented by an even-order polynomial to satisfy the symmetry of on-axis field, for example, a 2nd order form
  $z (x, y) = a (x^{2} + y^{2}) + b$ (2)
  where, the variables on the first surface is sampled by a pattern of rings or rectangular arrays, $a$ is the shape factor, and $b$ is the offset value of the surface to the coordinate origin.
  We trace a ray that emits from $E_{0}$ passing through one specified point $M_{0} (x, y, z)$ on the first surface and an unknown point $N_{0}$ , finally gets to $R_{0}$ .
  The refracted ray vector at point $M_{0}$ is calculated based on Snell’s law
  $n_{0} (\vec{E_{0} M_{0}} \times \vec{n M_{0}}) = n_{1} (\vec{M_{0} N_{0}} \times \vec{n M_{0}})$ (3)
  where, $\vec{n M_{0}}$ is the surface normal vector at point $M_{0}$ and obtained by
  $\vec{n M_{0}} = (\partial z (x, y) / \partial x, \partial z (x, y) / \partial y, - 1)$ (4)
  According to Fermat’s principle, all the rays from one certain field to its ideal image point have constant optical path length (OPL) [22]. The point $N_{0}$ satisfies the constant OPL relation
  $n_{1} M_{0} N_{0} + n_{0} N_{0} R_{0} = O P L_{0} - n_{0} E_{0} M_{0}$ (5)
  In addition, unknown point $N_{0}$ is determined by
  $N_{0} = M_{0} + M_{0} N_{0} . \vec{v}$ (6)
  where, $\vec{v}$ is the normalized vector of $\vec{M_{0} N_{0}}$ . Solving the Eqs. (5) and (6) we can get the exact position data of $N_{0}$ and its surface normal.
  Therefore, the initial segment (or more precisely points cloud) $N P_{0}$ on the second surface is calculated by tracing sampled paraxial rays from $E_{0}$ passing through a small portion of entrance pupil within its diameter $D_{0}$ .
(2) In the second step, one new off-axis fields $E_{1}$ is constructed by adding an increment angle $θ$ to the chief ray along the axis $x$ . The value of $θ$ is chosen to be small enough to make sure the chief ray pass through already known segments ( $M P_{0}$ and $N P_{0}$ ) on both surfaces, as shown in Fig. 3(b). By calculating the trajectories of the chief ray, its image points $R_{10}$ and $O P L_{10}$ are both determined. More rays from $E_{1}$ are traced within the range of already known segments on both surfaces. The new image point $R_{1}$ and $O P L_{1}$ are the mean values of all sampled rays
$R_{i} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j = 1}^{N} R_{i j} O P L_{i} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j = 1}^{N} O P L_{i j}$ (7)
where $N$ is the number of the sampled rays, $R_{i j}$ and $O P L_{i j}$ are the image point and optical path length of certain ray from field i respectively. After the optimal image point $R_{1}$ and $O P L_{1}$ for current field are determined, it is feasible to calculate more new points on both surfaces by conducting a 3D SMS algorithm between two adjacent fields [23].
A new ray is then traced from object $E_{1}$ to one edge point $M_{1}$ on known segment $M P_{0}$ , passing by an unknown point $N_{1}$ on the second surface, finally reaching its image point $R_{1}$ . The rays from field $E_{0}$ and $E_{1}$ have different incident angles at point $M_{1}$ , and the angle difference leads to new points on the second surface. Since both $O P L_{1}$ and $R_{1}$ are known, new point $N_{1}$ can be determined based on constant OPL condition, similar to the calculation of point $N_{0}$ .
If more such rays are traced from object $E_{1}$ to other edge points of segment $M P_{0}$ , we can get one set of new points cloud $N R_{1}$ (or rib from the SMS method) as well as their corresponding normal vectors, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
(3) The iterative ray tracing process begins with tracing rays backwards from image point $R_{0}$ propagating already existing points cloud $N R_{1}$ to object point $E_{0}$ . A new set of points cloud $M R_{1}$ on the front surface is calculated accordingly by using the constant $O P L_{0}$ condition for the specified field, as shown in Fig. 3(c). Next, another new set of points cloud $N R_{2}$ on the second surface is calculated based on known $M R_{1}$ , by tracing the rays from object point $E_{1}$ to image point $R_{1}$ with the value of $O P L_{1}$ constant. The iteration between field $E_{0}$ and $E_{1}$ is repeated until new sampling rays from $R_{0}$ to $E_{0}$ exceed current entrance pupil boundary $D_{1}$ .
The entrance pupil diameter is not the full diameter from the beginning but adjustable for each field to make a balanced entire performance. We define a virtual aperture diameter $D_{i}$ for each field
$D_{i} = W_{i} D$ (8)
where $W_{i}$ is the weighting factor for each field, $D$ is the full entrance pupil aperture. The distribution function of $W_{i}$ is chosen based on classical optical design strategy that the entrance pupil fractions are generated for equal areas [24] and slightly optimized in every design. For example, the calculated segment area for normalized 0.707 field is about one half of the final surface area.
(4) When the ray tracing for field $E_{0}$ is finished, we can introduce a new field $E_{i}$ in analogy to step (2), calculating new image point and OPL. The existence of image points and OPLs for current field $E_{i}$ and pervious field $E_{i - 1}$ allows the repetition of the design process for new sets of points cloud on both surfaces, similar to the procedures in step (3).
Steps (2) and (3) are repeated between two adjacent fields until the maximum field is reached. In each loop, the field data ( $E_{i}, O P L_{i}, R_{i}$ ) is calculated based on known segments of both surfaces, then new sets of points cloud are created to extend the surfaces. To finalize the last patches for the maximum field $E_{\max}$ , we collect all the calculated points of the front surface and fit them into a XY polynomial surface, then extend the first surface region to allow all sampled rays from $E_{\max}$ covering the full aperture of entrance pupil D. Finally, the last patch of the rear surface is calculated by using the constant OPL condition. The illustrative design result is displayed in Fig. 3(d).
The flow chart to calculate two surfaces with the multi-fields design method is shown in Fig. 4. The resulting data for each surface can be fitted by typical freeform surface expressions to import into an optical design program, where the imaging performance will be evaluated.

Fig. 3 Illustration of the design procedures to calculate two freeform surfaces partially coupling N(N>3) ray bundles: (a) define initial segments (b) one new field is constructed by sampling multiple rays to calculate its OPL and image point (c) The points clouds on both surfaces are extended by the addition of new points from iterative calculations between two adjacent fields (d) The lens surfaces are finalized by interpolating known points and extending into full aperture.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 4 The flow chart to calculate two surfaces with multi-fields design method.

Download Full Size | PDF

2.2 Validation of the method in an exemplary design

To evaluate the effectiveness of the multi-fields 3D design method, we design a monochromatic f/4 single lens for line imaging. The effective focal length is 16mm, focusing the object from infinity. The thickness of the lens is 3mm, and the distance from the entrance pupil to the lens is 3mm. The refractive index of the glass material is set to be 1.5. There is an initial segment on the first surface which we defined as $z (x, y) = - 0.01 (x^{2} + y^{2}) + 3$ . The full field of view is 80 degree, covering a diagonal image height of 23mm. The full 80 degree FOV is divided into 81 fields by a 1 degree chief ray increment during the design process. By initializing the program as in Sec. 2.1 with those parameters, it finally exports two sets of points to describe the freeform surfaces. Each set of points cloud is fitted by a series of $x^{m} y^{n}$ polynomial terms added to a spherical base. The general expression for the freeform surface is

z (x, y) = \frac{c (x^{2} + y^{2})}{1 + \sqrt{1 - c^{2} (x^{2} + y^{2})}} + \sum_{i} A_{i} x^{m} y^{n}

where, is the paraxial curvature of the surface,

A_{i}

is the coefficient of the polynomial terms, and

m + n \leq 10

. Given the quadrant symmetry of the imaging system, only even terms of each surface are not zero. Therefore, 20 even terms of XY polynomial coefficients are obtained from the surface fitting program and all imported into Zemax to evaluate the imaging performance of the freeform lens [25]. A cross section of the single lens system in x-z plane is shown in Fig. 5(a). To distinguish the deviation of the freeform lens from its spherical base, the best fitting sphere is subtracted from each surface to show the contour plots of the remaining part, as shown in Fig. 5(b), which clearly demonstrates a non-rotationally symmetric structure. The curvature radii of the best fitting sphere on the first surface and the second surface are −33.878mm and −6.940mm respectively.

Fig. 5 (a) The 2D lens profile shows a good converging performance over the whole field when all the coefficients are imported into Zemax. (b) The contour plots of the first and second lens surface where the best fitting sphere is subtracted from each of the calculated surfaces.

Download Full Size | PDF

The same specifications have been used to design a rotationally symmetric reference lens using the multi-fields 2D design method presented in [20]. The performance of both designs are then compared from the perspective of RMS spot radius for the selected fields (0, 10, 14, 20, 28 and 40 degree) on the same scale level, as shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b).

Fig. 6 The direct comparison in terms of spot radius for (a) the multi-fields 3D design method and (b) the multi-fields 2D design method clearly shows a better imaging performance for the 3D design method.

Download Full Size | PDF

We can see that as the FOV increases, the influence of astigmatism and field curvature outreaches other aberrations in the 2D design, which makes the good performance of tangential rays less meaningful as shown in Fig. 6(a). The multi-fields 3D design method achieves a much better performance due to additional control of its sagittal rays as shown in Fig. 6(b). As a result, the RMS spot radius values range from 0.05 to 0.12mm in multi-fields 3D design, compared with 0.08 to 0.16mm in case of the rotationally symmetric 2D design. In terms of MTF values, the multi-fields 3D method also demonstrates a better performance in the sagittal dimension than its 2D counterpart does.

3. Application of multi-fields 3D design method in a scanning lens

A bar code scanner is a typical high aspect ratio system. It has a built-in illumination system, the emit light is then reflected at the bar code which is imaged on the light sensor by a lens. As such a reference lens system, we have identified and chosen U.S. Patent 56004934 assigned to Katsuma and Toshiaki [26], where both line imaging and scanner application are explicitly mentioned. A monochromatic rotationally symmetric f/8, 52 degree line imaging scanner system is reported in this patent, consisting of a line object, a spherical front lens, an aspheric rear lens and a line sensor, as shown in Fig. 7(a). The effective focal length is 25mm, with respect to its total diagonal image height 24.2mm. The image evaluation is shown in terms of spherical aberration, astigmatic/field curve and distortion originating from the patent file, as shown in Fig. 7(b).

Fig. 7 The aberration comparison between (a-b) a spherical/aspheric barcode scanner from U.S. Patent 56004934 and (c-d) a freeform lens designed by multi-fields 3D method shows comparable performance except distortion.

Download Full Size | PDF

Following the same specification, we have designed an f/8, 25mm focal length, 52 degree field of view lens with the multi-fields 3D design method. The lens thickness has been set to 3mm to imitate a practical thickness, and the distance from the entrance pupil to the vertex of the first surface is also 3mm. The refractive index of the first and second element in the patent is 1.8 and 1.5 respectively. We chose a refractive index in between which is 1.6. After the initialization parameters are determined, the surfaces are calculated step by step as in Sec. 2.2, then the data are fitted with two XY polynomial surfaces. In this design, only one freeform lens is used as shown in Fig. 7(c), compared to the components of one spherical front lens and one aspheric rear lens in its counterpart.

We have evaluated the aberration curves for the freeform lens using the same scale as published in the patent figures. Comparing Figs. 7(b) and 7(d), it is clear that the imaging performance is comparable from the perspective of spherical aberration and astigmatic/field curve for the identical image height. Distortion is worse for the single freeform lens design, but this could be directly corrected in the image processing. Furthermore, in the code bar scanning system, two lens elements are positioned on opposite side of the stop, forming a substantially symmetrical lens arrangement superior in distortion correction. With one more front lens for the single freeform lens design, we will show in the next section the distortion is well corrected as well.

4. A wide-field line imaging objective designed with a hybrid method

The multi-fields 3D design method, as similar to other freeform direct design methods, is limited to no more than 2 surfaces at the moment. Nevertheless, we can utilize some classic optical design strategy to enhance the effect of single freeform lens, for example, adding a negative front lens to bend rays outward is beneficial for a wide-field lens [27]. A wide-angle line imaging objective is designed to demonstrate this hybrid design strategy.

We have chosen an all-spherical wide FOV objective from US patent 2518719 as a reference system which includes four lenses [28], as shown in Fig. 8(a). The whole system has an effective focal length of 16mm, and the f-number is 5. The field of view is 80 degree. The imaging performance is optimized for single wavelength 587.6nm by making all the surface curvature radii and the back focal length into variables. The glass materials are keeping the same as stated in the patent. 6 fields are defined and normalized as rectangular. The merit function is built by using the Zemax default setting: choosing the chief ray and RMS spot radius as reference and rectangular array 10 × 10 as pupil integration method. One additional operand is added to control the effective focal length.

Fig. 8 (a) A wide-angle objective from U.S. Patent 2518719 modified for single wavelength application and (b) a hybrid design by combining multi-fields 3D method and classical design strategy

Download Full Size | PDF

The hybrid design consists of a spherical front lens and a freeform rear lens, as shown in Fig. 8(b). The freeform rear lens is firstly designed by the multi-field 3D design method, complying with the same specification of the whole system and following the procedures in Sec. 2.1. The initialization parameters for the single freeform lens are 3mm lens thickness and 1.5 refractive index for monochromatic design; the distance from pupil stop to the first surface is 3mm in the beginning; the object is from infinity and the image plane is 16mm offset from the rear surface. After calculating the two surfaces directly, we have obtained a single freeform lens similar to the configuration in Fig. 5. The front lens is added afterwards with zero power and 3mm thickness so as to not affect the fair performance of the calculated freeform lens. The distance of the rear flat surface to the stop is also set to be 3mm to make the lens arrangement symmetrical, which is helpful for correcting distortion. The hybrid system is then optimized in Zemax by using the default merit function as what have been done for the all spherical design. All the surface radii and the coefficients for the freeform lens, the distances between the pupil stop and the two lens elements as well as the back focal length are made to be variables. Some additional operands are added to control the effective focal length, overall length and distortion.

The line imaging performance is evaluated from the perspective of RMS spot radius in 6 selected fields (0, 10, 14, 20, 28 and 40 degree), as shown in Fig. 9. In terms of maximum spot radius, the hybrid design is 5.3µm, about half of the all-spherical design’s 9.5 µm. The values of field curvature are both within the range of ± 0.5mm, as given in Fig. 10. The maximum distortion of the hybrid design is about 1% while the all-spherical design is −2%. The average MTF of the proposed design example is about 0.75 at 30lp/mm, compared with its counterpart’s 0.68, as shown in Fig. 11. The comparisons clearly demonstrates a better image quality of the hybrid two-lens design than the all-spherical four-lens design.

Fig. 9 The direct comparison in terms of RMS spot radius for (a) the all-spherical four lenses design and (b) the hybrid two lenses design

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 10 The comparison of field curvature and distortion for (a) the all-spherical four lenses design and (b) the hybrid two lenses design

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 11 The comparison of MTF for (a) the all-spherical four lenses design and (b) the hybrid two lenses design

Download Full Size | PDF

The performance of one single freeform lens is comparable to its counterpart of one spherical and one aspheric lens except for the distortion; after applying a hybrid method to add a front spherical lens, the performance of one freeform and one spherical lens is even better than the four-spherical lenses design in terms of RMS spot radius, field curvature, distortion and MTF.

5. Conclusion

In this work, we generalized the previously presented two-dimensional multi-fields direct design method to three dimensions. The developed direct freeform design method allows to simultaneously control both tangential and sagittal rays that is crucial to calculate well-balanced solutions. So far, this method allows the simultaneous calculation of two x-z and y-z plane symmetric freeform surfaces with an entrance pupil included, but it has the potential to calculate freeform optical surfaces without symmetries (e.g. in off-axis configurations). The new method does not need a priori information about optical path lengths and image points, largely reducing the dependence on initial parameters. Ray bundles from multiple fields are considered during the procedures to balance the entire image, in contrast that most current direct design methods obtain two or three perfect image points with two surfaces.

Both a faster f/4 lens and a slower f/8 barcode scanner have been designed with this method, achieving a very well-balanced image performance over the full field of view. Another wide-field line imaging objective has been designed by combining a classic optical design strategy with the multi-fields design method. It could be a very general idea to design with hybrid methods, especially given the fact that none of current direct design tool is capable of calculating more than two freeform surfaces. As an example, the wide field design with this hybrid strategy shows a better result when compared with its all-spherical four-lens counterpart.

All shown examples clearly highlight the potential to use less optical elements in case freeform surfaces are used. As a rule of thumb: two freeform lens surfaces could perform as well as six spherical lens surfaces, or less than four rotationally symmetric aspheres (due to undercorrected distortion) in monochromatic performance.

Future work will focus on this design method applied to off-axis imaging systems.

Acknowledgments

The work reported in this paper is supported in part by the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA Grant Agreement no. PITN-GA-2013-608082 (ADOPSYS)), by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen) that provides a post-doctoral grant to Fabian Duerr, and in part by the IAPBELSPO grant IAP P7-35 photonics@be, the Industrial Research Funding (IOF), Methusalem, and the OZR of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

References and links

1. J. P. Rolland, K. Fuerschbach, G. E. Davis, and K. P. Thompson, “Pamplemousse: The optical design, fabrication, and assembly of a three-mirror freeform imaging telescope,” Proc. SPIE 9293, 92930L (2014). [CrossRef]

2. B. Narasimhan, P. Benitez, J. C. Miñano, J. Chaves, D. Grabovickic, M. Nikolic, and J. Infante, “Design of three freeform mirror aplanat,” Proc. SPIE 9579, 95790K (2015).

3. D. Cheng, Y. Wang, H. Hua, and M. M. Talha, “Design of an optical see-through head-mounted display with a low f-number and large field of view using a freeform prism,” Appl. Opt. 48(14), 2655–2668 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. H. Hua, X. Hu, and C. Gao, “A high-resolution optical see-through head-mounted display with eyetracking capability,” Opt. Express 21(25), 30993–30998 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. P. Mouroulis, R. O. Green, and T. G. Chrien, “Design of pushbroom imaging spectrometers for optimum recovery of spectroscopic and spatial information,” Appl. Opt. 39(13), 2210–2220 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. R. G. Sellar and G. D. Boreman, “Classification of imaging spectrometers for remote sensing applications,” Opt. Eng. 44(1), 013602 (2005). [CrossRef]

7. J. Zhu, T. Yang, and G. Jin, “Design method of surface contour for a freeform lens with wide linear field-of-view,” Opt. Express 21(22), 26080–26092 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8. L. Li and A. Y. Yi, “Design and fabrication of a freeform microlens array for a compact large-field-of-view compound-eye camera,” Appl. Opt. 51(12), 1843–1852 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9. Y. Zhong, H. Gross, A. Broemel, S. Kirschstein, P. Petruck, and A. Tuennermann, “Investigation of TMA systems with different freeform surfaces,” Proc. SPIE 9626, 96260X (2015).

10. O. Cakmakci, B. Moore, H. Foroosh, and J. P. Rolland, “Optimal local shape description for rotationally non-symmetric optical surface design and analysis,” Opt. Express 16(3), 1583–1589 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. K. Fuerschbach, J. P. Rolland, and K. P. Thompson, “A new family of optical systems employing φ-polynomial surfaces,” Opt. Express 19(22), 21919–21928 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12. G. W. Forbes, “Characterizing the shape of freeform optics,” Opt. Express 20(3), 2483–2499 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. R. A. Hicks, “Direct methods for freeform surface design,” Proc. SPIE 6668, 666802 (2007). [CrossRef]

14. W. Lin, P. Benítez, J. C. Miñano, J. M. Infante, G. Biot, and M. de la Fuente, “SMS-based optimization strategy for ultra-compact SWIR telephoto lens design,” Opt. Express 20(9), 9726–9735 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. J. Liu, P. Benítez, and J. C. Miñano, “Single freeform surface imaging design with unconstrained object to image mapping,” Opt. Express 22(25), 30538–30546 (2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16. T. Yang, J. Zhu, W. Hou, and G. Jin, “Design method of freeform off-axis reflective imaging systems with a direct construction process,” Opt. Express 22(8), 9193–9205 (2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17. J. C. Miñano, P. Benítez, W. Lin, J. Infante, F. Muñoz, and A. Santamaría, “An application of the SMS method for imaging designs,” Opt. Express 17(26), 24036–24044 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

18. F. Duerr, Y. Meuret, and H. Thienpont, “Potential benefits of free-form optics in on-axis imaging applications with high aspect ratio,” Opt. Express 21(25), 31072–31081 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19. R. R. Shannon, The Art and Science of Optical Design (Cambridge University, 1997).

20. Y. Nie, F. Duerr, and H. Thienpont, “Direct design approach to calculate a two-surface lens with an entrance pupil for application in wide field-of- view imaging,” Opt. Eng. 54(1), 015102 (2015). [CrossRef]

21. W. J. Smith, Modern Optical Engineering (McGraw-Hill, 2000).

22. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge University, 1999).

23. P. Benitez, J. C. Minano, J. Blen, R. Mohedano, J. Chaves, O. Dross, M. Hernandez, J. L. Alvarez, and W. Falicoff, “SMS design method in 3D geometry: examples and applications,” Proc. SPIE 5185, 518518 (2004). [CrossRef]

24. M. Laikin, Lens Design (CRC, 2006).

25. Z. Manual, Zemax LLC, Kirkland, Washington, USA. http://www.zemax.com/ (2014).

26. T. Katsuma, “Finite conjugate lens system,” United States Patent 5600493 (Feb. 1997).

27. R. E. Fischer, B. Tadic-Galeb, P. R. Yoder, and R. Galeb, Optical System Design (McGraw Hill, 2000).

28. M. Reiss, “Wide-angle camera objective,” United States Patent 2518719 (Aug. 1950).

Multi-fields direct design approach in 3D: calculating a two-surface freeform lens with an entrance pupil for line imaging systems

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Generalized multi-fields direct design method with a pupil

2.1 Design procedure of multi-fields method in 3D

2.2 Validation of the method in an exemplary design

3. Application of multi-fields 3D design method in a scanning lens

4. A wide-field line imaging objective designed with a hybrid method

5. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References and links

Cited By

Figures (11)

Equations (1)

Optics Express