PTB >> What's Next for Optical Design Software?

Two dominant forces are driving today’s market for optical design software: a shift in the academic and professional background of its user base and the emergence of the nonimaging segment. This is, of course, aided by a positive upswing in the economy. “It’s not showing in jobs, but we are seeing people who were afraid to spend money the last few years suddenly willing to invest in tools, like software, to help them develop their products,” said Dr. Edward Freniere, president of Lambda Research Corp. in Littleton, MA.

Despite the significant variance in the cost of optical design software packages, general consensus is that perceived value is more of an issue than pricing alone. Ease-of-use, or usability, is also an influencing factor, partially because the user base consists largely of people inexperienced in optical design.

End Users
The industry experts we talked to agree that developers of optical design programs cannot depend on their users having formal training or a substantial amount of experience in the optics discipline — a notable difference between this market and electrical or mechanical engineering. “In optics it is different because there are very few schools of optics compared to the number of people who are needed to do optical engineering,” explained Bob Hilbert, president and CEO of Optical Research Associates, Pasadena, CA. “We have gotten used to the idea that a lot of the best optical engineers don’t have an optical degree. They are engineers or physicists who have learned optics in their own time, in special courses, and through their own experience.” Hilbert also points out that this trend is even more pronounced for the engineers doing non-imaging work rather than imaging projects.

Many experts stressed that today’s offerings typically have the capability to solve all but the most advanced user problems; inexperienced users, however, don’t always know how to access the capability. “The people who write these programs have put in enormously powerful technology. The problem isn’t that the software needs to move forward. What needs to be done is for engineers that are out there to develop skills through training, and perhaps by better user interfaces, to use the tools that are there,” asserted Ken Moore, president of San Diego-based ZEMAX Development Corp. “The bottleneck at the moment is really not the code. It is people learning how to use the software tools that already exist.”

Usability, therefore, remains at the top of developers’ “to do” list, with specific tasks including more intuitive GUIs and a greater degree of automation. Visualization, CAD interoperability, and the capability to address new and innovative technologies are interrelated issues that will also continue to be dealt with in the next generation of offerings.

“Twenty years ago people were happy just to have software to do the calculation. Now users want interface,” pointed out Rich Pfisterer, president of Photon Engineering in Tucson, AZ. “They want visualization, buttons to press, and dialogues to put numbers in. As customers change, we have to change our software. Also, as technology changes — if someone comes out with a new light source or widget or type of glass — we have to write new software that takes that into account.”

There is some debate on the value of visualization and to what degree it is necessary for optical design software packages. Some believe that visualization is often requested because users trained in mechanical and electrical engineering are comfortable with CAD software and its reliance on imagery during design. “Optical design is a very different kind of discipline as the numerical tolerances in optics are much tighter than they are for most mechanical design problems,” said Moore. “You simply can’t define things visually until it looks right. You’d be off so far that the optical system would never even come close to working.

“The first thing people coming in from other disciplines have to learn,” continued Moore, “is that optical tolerances are five or six orders smaller than they are used to using, which implies a much higher level of precision required in not only the optical model, but also how the program deals with describing optical components. That’s why we have a rather different sort of numerical view of optical systems rather than a visual, human-perception type view of the system.”

Regardless of the degree of visualization pursued by a particular vendor, most expect it to have a greater impact in some application areas than in others.
“It doesn’t appeal to all markets,” stressed Freniere. “It appeals to more commercial markets and those markets that are worried about aesthetics as well as meeting a specification. It’s not a very large part of the market but it is significant.”

Non-imaging applications, such as illumination, are likely to recognize the most benefit as visualization progresses. Hilbert, who believes illustration will have to move toward 3D for specific applications, supports this view. “It is our belief that in illumination you really do need a 3D solid modeling engine inside the program, and that’s the approach we’ve taken with LightTools.” He goes on to clarify that while a friendly, interactive, Windows GUI is necessary for imaging and non-imaging, you don’t necessarily need a 3D solid modeling engine inside an imaging package. “It can slow down a calculation without having a big payoff. For illumination, it has a very big payoff and it’s essential.”

While not all share the same view on visualization, most are in sync regarding CAD interoperability and the need to address advancing technology. “We find that the optical design itself needs to be done in the optical paradigm for maximum performance. Once the optical system is done, you can export that data into a CAD program and wrap your mechanical mounts and other structures around the optics,” stated Moore.

The New Frontier
None of our experts identified one specific application area as dominant. “At the moment there is no ‘killer app’,” confirmed Moore. “I see optics as something that is creeping into many industries in parallel. For us as a software vendor, we try to keep our tools as general as possible so that customers can apply them to where they see the emerging applications.”

This being said, display and illumination applications were referred to frequently. “One of the most interesting fields is the display industry,” added Freniere. Display manufacturers deal with rapidly evolving and complicated technology aimed at an enormous market. “Based on the number of large-screen televisions sold annually, and the different technologies (LCD, plasma, and projection) with various kinds of lighting systems in them, it is fiercely competitive. [These manufacturers] are after a multi-billion-dollar market,” said Freniere.

User and technology needs are not the only issues capturing the attention of our experts, who recognize that the non-imaging segment faces threats that are not applicable to the more mature imaging segment. “The non-imaging side is more volatile. We have new players entering the field, new concepts being developed, competitors copying each other, etc.,” explained Freniere. “There are some stronger players in that field. Some older competitors are losing market share, and some newer, smaller, and more agile companies are winning
market share.”

Despite the fact that it is the new frontier, most aren’t expecting the revenue from the non-imaging segment to soar as a percentage of their business overnight. “I don’t see the non-imaging market expanding very rapidly,” said Moore. He attributes this to the large number of competitors. “It’s not a huge market to begin with, and there are at least four or five players in the non-imaging market that are battling it out.” In the long-term, he expects two or three to come out on top.