3d printed LENSES---WHUMP THERE IT IS
it is here.
the future looks clear and bright
As usual as at all science magazines , they cooked a frozen 30 years old chicken meat again and again.
Yes but 30 year chicken has beef of two hovercrafts what are now scratched.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
Eight hundred leaf-tables and no chairs? You can't sell leaf-tables and no chairs. Chairs, you got a dinette set. No chairs, you got dick!
- Nathan Arizona Sr.
I understand how one could print a level surface by this method but not, as described in that article, how to make a spherical surface.
I could imagine though printing a terraces-like surface and then heating it (when thermoplasts are used) to gain smoothness. Though I doubt that one could gain a the appropriate curvature. The less with that immediate curing process.
But seemingly that is the way to go. But would that not yield a surface made up by flattened droplets? With distinctive circumferences?
Last edited by AgX; 09-04-2013 at 11:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
No, the future does not look clear and bright. Wherever did you get that? Been reading the news lately (meaning the last 100 years)? You cannot, nor probably ever will, make a high quality optical lens from 3-D printing. Come on. The Jetsons is a cartoon.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That 3d printing is a walking patent law suit. That being said, I'll let lomo make cameras out of plastic as they actually have experience with it.
Get it right in the camera, the first time...
If you print one droplet and besides it three droplets stacked, and a third on both stacks, the third might form a curvature. But even if that curvature would be perfect, how to blend all this curvatures into one smooth plane?
I don't know. This technology is in its infancy from a consumer perspective. So saying it will never happen is like watching the Wright brothers' flight in their piece-o-crap and saying "this will never be any good".
Originally Posted by momus
It doesn't go into detail, but I can imagine some approaches. Rotating platforms like potter's wheels, turning on the UV "fixer" in different areas at different times, things like that.
Originally Posted by AgX
The article is careful to say that they're only doing "non-imaging" optics, but as anyone knows who's ever mounted a plastic magnifying glass on a Speed Graphic, imaging quality is very much in the eye of the beholder. I think it'd be interesting to see what could be done with a simple meniscus lens formed by this approach.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
The argument in this thread reminds me of a lunchtime discussion my Dad passed on to me from a couple of decades ago.
It took place in the lunchroom at the Kodak Canada lab and office in North Vancouver, BC Canada.
The first snippets of information about Kodak research into sensors for digital still cameras had recently been made public, and Dad expressed concern about the possible effect on Kodak's film business.
Most of the rest of those at the table (engineers, business managers, lab people) were of the opinion that there was nothing to worry about .
Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2