# I'm not sure what this means fr the future of optics



## e17paul (Jun 3, 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36438686 

But I'm sure that it will be a long while coming


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 3, 2016)

e17paul said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36438686
> 
> But I'm sure that it will be a long while coming



Don't expect Canon to rush out any produce any lenses with this technology. They would not want to obsolete the L product line up.
If anybody makes lenses based on this technology would be somebody that does not have any legacy products at risk.


----------



## RGF (Jun 3, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36438686
> ...



Basic Marketing 101. If someone is going to eat your lunch, better you than your competitor. So if you lenses will be made obsolete by this technology, better you own and stay in business than let your competitor acquire your market share.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 4, 2016)

It seems that it will be targeting those applications that require very small lenses. 
Performance is said to exceed that of glass but then it has to be seen in context.

I am not holding my breath for my 20-300 f 1.4.


----------



## Bdube (Jun 4, 2016)

Metamaterial lenses, at least those using Harvard's "1D" structures, will never revolutionize the imaging optics world. They are based on interference properties and, consequently, have very bad color properties. 2D metamaterial lenses are able to do significantly better color correction, but their transmission becomes poor; on the order of 70-80%.

The technologies most poised to start any sort of revolution are freeform optics for nonrotationally symmetric systems, and gradient index optics for axially symmetric ones. Diffractive Optical Elements may also see increased usage, but remain unpopular.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 4, 2016)

Bdube said:


> Metamaterial lenses, at least those using Harvard's "1D" structures, will never revolutionize the imaging optics world. They are based on interference properties and, consequently, have very bad color properties. 2D metamaterial lenses are able to do significantly better color correction, but their transmission becomes poor; on the order of 70-80%.
> 
> The technologies most poised to start any sort of revolution are freeform optics for nonrotationally symmetric systems, and gradient index optics for axially symmetric ones. Diffractive Optical Elements may also see increased usage, but remain unpopular.


+1
If ever it will take several years to decades until we see DSLR or MILC lenses made out of these. 
And in the beginning they surely will have at least if not more problems as DO tech had.

But if you're using monochromatic light - like laser - metamaterial lenses could become really interesting, 
thinking of optical data transfer and storage, optical computers etc.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2016)

Canon has lots of lens patents with similar DO technology, but so far, they have not been able to reliably produce it in production quantities. I am sure they are trying, based on the number of lenses they patented with their version. If this actually works better, I'd be surprised. 

Usually, we see this kind of announcement put out by a University needing to obtain a grant for more money to keep research going.


----------



## rcarca (Jun 4, 2016)

*About to buy a new lens? Don't...*

Along with other recent news about graphene that was discussed on the Forum, here is more news on new lens technologies that will make our cameras and lenses look a little obsolete - perhaps in 50 years... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36438686

Richard


----------



## Bdube (Jun 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has lots of lens patents with similar DO technology, but so far, they have not been able to reliably produce it in production quantities. I am sure they are trying, based on the number of lenses they patented with their version. If this actually works better, I'd be surprised.
> 
> Usually, we see this kind of announcement put out by a University needing to obtain a grant for more money to keep research going.



DOEs are extremely different to metamaterial lenses. Canon has never patented anything related to this technology.


----------



## pvalpha (Jun 4, 2016)

When I read the article the first thing I thought of was diffractive optics. What I think it would mean is that the weight of some of the internal optics could be drastically reduced along with their thickness. Not to mention a consistent shape of "flat". Anything that creates a uniformity in a system reduces cost to produce significantly. Which means that with all the competition out there, Lens manufacturers will have to really 

I think the first thing we'd see this on isn't a lens... but instead on the sensor itself - the microlenses that help gather light to the sensor pits. On that scale, if the meta material deposits can be precisely controlled, then that would mean being able to use a flat microlens over the sensor pit. I wonder if that would help prevent material buildup... or if there are any transparent materials that would be particle-phobic, allowing the sensor to finally remain clear of debris when a cleaning cycle is run? 

I think one of the first real-world macro-scale applications would be "flat" prescription optics. I say flat, but consistent thickness prescription optics would likely be the goal. Imagine a person with a -9 diopter lens now being able to have glass/plastic-TiO2-glass/plastic sandwich (if you want coatings such as photosensitive tints, scratch resistance, uv protection and such, or plastics as well... doesn't matter really, they can put this stuff on anything) no thicker than a standard pair of non-prescription sunglasses. And speaking of that, you could have prescription sunglasses in any shape you like - the pilar sizes determine the focal point of the prescription and thus you could make usable optics that focus well across a wide area and shape pattern. 

One thing's for sure, you'll be able to make a front element for wide angle lenses that doesn't need some nasty-massive bulbous curve to bring the image in properly. And its cheap and simple material. Depending on how efficient the process is and how much light can be kept, we might be able to see larger apertures without the corresponding weight/length nightmares. At the very least the reduction in element sizes would allow complex focusing and zooming elements to take up less physical space - I think having a more consistant shape and thickness (which means a more consistent weight) would mean a better standardized optical image stabilization system, and more internal room for non-lens components. 

Paint whitener... Good lord. And it makes so much sense - the material is simple. Simple means elegant. Elegant means efficient. Next thing you know they'll discover some hidden property of wheat protein that will allow us to build space elevators.


----------



## nineyards (Jun 5, 2016)

*Of Interest*

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36438686


----------



## d (Jun 5, 2016)

*Re: Of Interest*

To save others having to click through to know what this is about, it links to an article titled:

"Flat lens promises possible revolution in optics"
By Roland Pease
BBC Radio Science Unit
3 June 2016

Opening sentence:

"A flat lens made of paint whitener on a sliver of glass could revolutionise optics, according to its US inventors."


d.


----------



## nineyards (Jun 5, 2016)

*Re: Of Interest*

Ooops
My bad
Completely left out the subject matter


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 6, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > e17paul said:
> ...



But, but, but... I thought Zeiss and Sigma made Sony's lenses? Does Sony even manufacture a lens?


----------



## arcer (Jul 6, 2016)

Looks like Crêpe lens will be the new Pancake lens when this tech finally rolls out by 2040.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 6, 2016)

RGF said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > e17paul said:
> ...



Unfortunately it seems that this _excellent_ lesson is only taught in course Basic Marketing 1001, because successful companies in general don't pay attention to it. They're too busy improving the efficiency of churning out incremental improvements to their existing product line, serving their existing customers.

See Blockbuster vs Netflix and many other celebrated disasters.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jul 6, 2016)

Bdube said:


> Metamaterial lenses, at least those using Harvard's "1D" structures, will never revolutionize the imaging optics world. They are based on interference properties and, consequently, have very bad color properties. 2D metamaterial lenses are able to do significantly better color correction, but their transmission becomes poor; on the order of 70-80%.
> 
> The technologies most poised to start any sort of revolution are freeform optics for nonrotationally symmetric systems, and gradient index optics for axially symmetric ones. Diffractive Optical Elements may also see increased usage, but remain unpopular.



+1 Need to bump this response as it is mostly correct.

This technology is inherently monochromatic. It will likely make a very fine lens - at one wavelength - a boon to the B&W shooters out there. Can it be made broadband or designed to work at select R, G, & B wavelengths? Probably, but it will certainly lose any advantage it may have had over traditional optics in the process.


----------



## Bdube (Aug 6, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> Bdube said:
> 
> 
> > Metamaterial lenses, at least those using Harvard's "1D" structures, will never revolutionize the imaging optics world. They are based on interference properties and, consequently, have very bad color properties. 2D metamaterial lenses are able to do significantly better color correction, but their transmission becomes poor; on the order of 70-80%.
> ...



It is entirely correct. a 1D structure can be tuned to exactly one wavelength. The structure can be chosen in a way that its harmonic frequencies are at other useful wavelengths, but the overall efficiency will go down. A 2D structure can be tuned for 2 wavelengths, and through tessellation true broadband correction. The downside is monstrous complexity for the optimization algorithm used in the design, but that can be worked on.


----------

