Received: by netcom.com (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id PAA18752; Wed, 27 Jul 1994 15:36:42 -0700
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by netcom.com (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id PAA18690; Wed, 27 Jul 1994 15:36:33 -0700
From: DrGandalf@cup.portal.com
Received: from hobo.corp.portal.com (hobo.corp.portal.com [156.151.1.14]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.7/8.6.4) with ESMTP id PAA07588 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 1994 15:32:03 -0700
Received: from localhost (pccop@localhost) by hobo.corp.portal.com (8.6.4/1.54) id PAA06963 for lightwave-l@netcom.com; Wed, 27 Jul 1994 15:32:02 -0700
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Magnifying glass
Lines: 23
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 15:32:00 PDT
Message-ID: <9407271532.1.2740@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
>Physics states that thickness does matter for lenses. (hence, different
>thickness eyeglasses). Refraction is a property that doesn't depend on
>thickness, true, but in a lens, thickness matters. Fresnel lenses work
>on a different principal then refraction -- I think fresnel lenses uses
>diffraction. I don't think any renderer supports diffraction because
>diffraction depends on a different model of light than what traditional
>rendering techniques employ... hence the difficulty in making a CD
>object. Has anybody successfully made a fresnel lens?
Thickness does matter to some extent, but the greater part of the look
of a refractive object is due to what happens at the surface interfaces,
where two media of unequal index of refraction meet. Thickness mostly
contributes by causing distortion, mostly sperical aberration.
Fresnel lenses are *not* diffractive. They are simple refractors with
some of the bulk removed. Imagine a plano-convex lens. Cut it into
concentric rings. Take these rings, and remove enough of the flat bottom so
that the rings are all the same height, and reassemble them. This gives a