Paul, this sounds like someone doing a major PR job for what used to be called diffractive optics. Yes, going to titanium pillars is a slight modification, but folks have been researching such devices (especially using carbon nanotubes) for 10 - 15 years. Canon even sold a couple of lenses with diffractive elements for a few years. Certainly for the near future, the cost and reliability of manufacturing such devices will far exceed the cost of using conventional lens. Plus, it's not clear to me that there will be improved optical performance relative to conventional glass, at least in the early years. The reduced performance and increased manufacturing costs were part of why Canon's diffractive element lenses didn't sell very well but cost nearly as much as their conventional glass lenses.
Mark, thanks for your input here. It was something I was unaware of in overall general design. There is always someone trying to invent a better mouse trap. And, there is nothing wrong with that effort on any product. But in the end it does have to be better in one way or another. Either functionality or cost, and best of all if both can be achieved.
Anyway, just thought I'd share it after I stumbled upon the article.
Discussion
2 repliesLens Design
Anyway, just thought I'd share it after I stumbled upon the article.