While digging through my Edmund Optics catalog I came across this tidbit:
"Fresnel lenses are a compromise between efficiency and image quality: Low groove density allows HIGHER quality images, while high groove density yields better efficiency- (such as LIGHT GATHERING applications)"
Very interesting. It seems the forum's consensus is backwards. Shame we cant use a high groove count under the LCD for max light gathering and a low groove count above the LCD for best image. But that would make rings and funny moire patterns, wouldn't it?
No guts, no glory...I'll have to try it.
WTH..it worked on the split fresnels!
"Fresnel lenses are a compromise between efficiency and image quality: Low groove density allows HIGHER quality images, while high groove density yields better efficiency- (such as LIGHT GATHERING applications)"
Very interesting. It seems the forum's consensus is backwards. Shame we cant use a high groove count under the LCD for max light gathering and a low groove count above the LCD for best image. But that would make rings and funny moire patterns, wouldn't it?
No guts, no glory...I'll have to try it.
WTH..it worked on the split fresnels!
bad info
Sorry guys...after checking Edmunds web site and finding the exact OPPOSITE paragraph, I decided to call Fresnel Tech and ask which was correct. The tech said high groove count = better image, and low groove count = better efficiency. He also said that you can mix hi-low groove counts as long as the fresnels are separated. I'll have to try that.
Sorry guys...after checking Edmunds web site and finding the exact OPPOSITE paragraph, I decided to call Fresnel Tech and ask which was correct. The tech said high groove count = better image, and low groove count = better efficiency. He also said that you can mix hi-low groove counts as long as the fresnels are separated. I'll have to try that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.