[Raytrace] Raytrace List Origins (Long)

John D. Upton jd-upton@texas.net
Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:17:58 -0600


List Members,

     Welcome.

     As background material, I am posting excerpts from some of the 
off-line email conversations that lead to the generation of this list.  My 
cuts of non-pertinent material are denoted by "[snip]".

     Ken Lowther was the driving force behind getting the list started.  I 
didn't find out about being appointed list administrator until after the 
list was created.  Thanks Ken.  (...I think...)  To repay the honor(?), my 
first duty was to make Ken alternate administrator. :^)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

At 12:55 PM 11/27/01 -0500, Ken Lowther wrote on the ATM List:
>Please consider 'donating' your spec files to the atm site so that others 
>can use them for reference.  Having these files could be a useful starting 
>point for some of us that are less adept at these programs.


At 07:57 AM 11/28/01 -0600, John D. Upton wrote off-list:
>     I don't mind sending you the OSLO file I used, but I don't think it 
> would be of use to anyone.  There are already several OSLO and ZEMAX 
> files on the ATM Site.  They represent unusual or sometimes "complex" 
> designs that may be of use to others.  A file describing a single 
> paraboloidal mirror for a Newtonian seems of little use to me.
>
>     What *is* needed is a set of tutorials for each of OSLO, ZEMAX and 
> MODAS that explain how folks can get the information that was discussed 
> in this thread on the ATM List.  The useful data is not in the file -- it 
> is in which buttons you push (and commands you use) to try to get some 
> insight into the problem at hand.  [snip]


At 05:15 PM 11/28/01 -0500, Ken Lowther wrote off-list:
>[snip] When W=B put out the book on lens design with computers I bought it 
>and downloaded OSLO.  It was a very frustrating experience.  I put a lot 
>of time into it with very little in the way of results.  Maybe start with 
>the Newtonian and see how it goes?  If you want to collaborate I can set 
>up a quick email group.  I'm sure we could get a few people from the list 
>to offer input.  [snip]


At 04:56 PM 11/29/01 -0500, Ken Lowther wrote off-list:
>I could set up a list and see who is interested in learning a little OSLO 
>and seeing if we could turn the most common questions and problems into a 
>FAQ or tutorial.  If it works fine.  If there isn't enough interest, you 
>have saved yourself a lot of work. ;-)


At 06:32 PM 11/29/01 +1000, Peter John Smith wrote off-list:
>I have found the level of help provided with Raytracing software as 
>pathetic and I fully relate to Ken's comments.
>
>This includes Zemax.  [snip]  The instructions do tersely cover features 
>but one needs much more because one needs to understand how to use the 
>program before the terse comments make any sense............
>
>I eventually taught myself to use Zemax (well - a useful portion of its 
>features.  Doubt anyone could understand all) by using some demo files 
>which came with it and a real menagerie of mainly old optics books.  [snip]
>
>In my opinion you need
>
>1/  example files of a large range of types of optical instruments.  This 
>is especially true when the ray path inverts and rays pass some surfaces 
>more than once.
>
>2/  some optical background.  Preferably a lot.  But the ironic thing is 
>that a lot of good work can be done with a good modern optimising 
>raytracer with limited optics theory.
>
>3/  more specific info on the ways modern raytracers have 
>developed.  There is almost a set of jargon relating to them.  It is not 
>in the books to my knowledge and is probably best overcome by good tutorials.
>
>I found the most useful technique to work outwards from example 
>files.  Then substitute other specs for other example designs available to 
>me by modifying these files.  The two best books for this I had which gave 
>enough examples and some assessment of them were 'Telescope Optics - 
>Evaluation and Design' by Rutten and VenRooij and Warren J  Smith's 
>'Modern Lens Design - A Resource Manual'.  Also published designs in S&T 
>over the years often gave some assessment as well as specs and were 
>generally correct.  Smith's book is mainly a collection of Patent Specs 
>and some others.  It is not on modern design methods.  But it includes 
>examples of most types of optics designs WITH A SHORT RUNDOWN ON THEIR 
>ASSESSMENT which is really valuable. There is also an introduction to the 
>book which matched a lot of what I wanted to know.  It is not aimed at any 
>one raytracer which is a both a limitation and a strength.  Being general 
>sounds like a good idea but it is amazing how slight variations in the way 
>each raytracer presents and accepts info is such a block to a newcomer.
>
>The least useful books were on raytracing theory.
>
>One real trap was that many designs I had collected were simply wrong or 
>afflicted with typos.  When one has no confidence to recognize this it has 
>a huge negative impact.  You would be amazed at how many prescriptions are 
>bandied around that are simply wrong.
>
>Unfortunately I cannot see a way to solve this problem easily because -
>
>1/  Most top line raytracers with a nice user interface with any 
>reputation are expensive and need a dongle to run.  Thus there is little 
>point in their files being made readily available.  Vary few 'free' 
>programs include optimisation in a simple enough interface for it to be 
>useable.  With all of its limitations, OSLO still stands out here as being 
>useful. [snip]
>
>2/  Files for one program are not readily available to to others.  Despite 
>the fact that some will 'import' others files, I have found this of very 
>limited use.  As raytracers grow in sophistication features are added. 
>Unless everyones import features are all updated these now become 
>unreadable to many other programs.  This is the reason I have not placed 
>more files in the ATM space.  I have had many requests from people for 
>help because they could not import my files and have lately taken more 
>to   ------.txt   files of prescriptions for intercommunication. This is 
>pathetic but it always works.  Of course the recipient must have enough 
>experience to use them. One product I think should be more well known is 
>OPTIX which will translate raytracing file formats reasonably.  The writer 
>has a good simple product and seems to intend extending the freeware LT 
>version to a fully optimising program which will then cost a significant 
>amount.  It is a little like a Zemax lookalike. But, realistically, is 
>there room for another professional raytrace on the market. At the moment 
>the LT version is useful as a file viewer with some assessment capability 
>but unless kept up to date as other programs evolve will lose its usefulness.
>
>At one time I thought of placing files for every design on my web site in 
>the ATM space and am willing to do this  (partly done) but is it 
>worthwhile in Zemax format ? .  Every one of my web articles contains a 
>txt prescription.
>
>[snip]
>
>As a matter of interest, on the Zemax web site there are many files for 
>download.
>
>To download go to: http://www.focus-software.com/file_exchange/
>
>Many of these are of weird setups - things that would take you ages to 
>figure out how to set up in the lens editor.  In fact, some are people 
>showing off their expertise I think.  But many could be the basis for 
>other work.  One set of these files corresponds for all the examples in 
>Wilson's books on reflective telescope optics.  Maybe we should have links 
>to any sites like this in the ATM space..
>
>You can also download a demo version of Zemax which contains many many 
>useful examples.
>
>I think a few more 'Tutorials' like that done by John Upton may be useful 
>but that requires a huge amount of work.  [snip]  And all this work may 
>become void with changes  in the user interface or file structure of the 
>raytracing software.
>
>Articles on any design could include some discussion of evaluation 
>techniques and the evolution of the design.
>
>As a matter of interest, I have not started a new Zemax file in years.  I 
>always modify an existing file of something similar.  Has its good and bad 
>points.  Is very easy but sometimes contains an obscure artifact that 
>becomes a problem.  But it is a powerful approach which suits my lazy 
>inclination.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

John D. Upton
Georgetown, TX
<http://www.atm-workshop.com/>     "The ATM's Workshop"
<http://members.aol.com/RonWin20/> "Ronchi For Windows Home Page"