News

In the field of aspherical surface inspection, the capabilities of the CGH (Constant Highlighter) are well-known—it can generate a reference wavefront that perfectly matches the sample being measured, making complex curved surfaces "measurable." However, there is a prerequisite problem, more fundamental than surface accuracy, that is often overlooked by beginners: before starting the measurement, how do you confirm that the orientation of the mirror being measured and the CGH is in the theoretically designed state? If the mirror is slightly tilted, off-center, too far away, or too close, the interference fringes will change. These changes are easily misinterpreted as surface errors—you think there's a problem with the mirror surface, but it's actually because the orientation is incorrect. The cat's eye structure is precisely designed in the CGH inspection system to solve this problem.

Grinding the surface shape to the nanometer level, only to produce a terrible image after assembly. The problem might not lie in the grinding itself, but in the gap between "seeing" and "assembling." In aspherical lens manufacturing workshops, this scenario is not uncommon: the inspection report clearly states that the surface shape (PV) perfectly meets the standards, and the RMS is controlled within the nanometer range. But after the lens is installed, the image quality is simply off—distortion, astigmatism, image plane tilt, and various other problems arise. Many people's first reaction is: inaccurate inspection data? Assembly problems? Environmental disturbances? But there is a possibility, more subtle and easier to overlook—the reference transmission has broken down.

"The CGH test is reporting an error again," "The interference fringes are unstable," "Why is the repeatability so poor?"... If you and your team deal with aspherical and freeform surfaces every day, these complaints are certainly familiar. Many people's first reaction is: there's something wrong with the CGH itself. Is there a design flaw? Insufficient manufacturing precision? But in reality, in the numerous field cases we've encountered, the real culprit is often not the CGH, but some easily overlooked "invisible killers" lurking in every aspect of daily work. Today, we'll expose them one by one.

The four-day team building trip to Xi'an by Zhixing Optics has come to a successful conclusion! From the sea of ​​clouds and morning light atop Mount Hua to the hot springs and evening breeze at the foot of Mount Taibai, from the serene Zen of ancient temples to the vibrant atmosphere of Chang'an streets, we measured the mountains and rivers with our footsteps and gathered warmth with our companionship, leaving behind unique memories of Zhixing Optics in this ancient capital.

Since entering the industry in 2018, I've often been asked the same question: Why do domestic optical companies, despite having world-class hardware, still struggle to deliver high-end products? The answer often lies in the overlooked "talent gap." The following three real-world cases reveal the "hidden costs" the precision optics industry pays every day:

In precision optical assembly and adjustment, we often encounter this "awkward" situation: the subsystem under test itself does not possess independent imaging capabilities, the emitted wavefront is extremely cluttered, and the interferometer simply cannot identify valid data. If your work is in the following scenario, you may be familiar with the frustration of this "blind testing."