MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012904734 · doi:10.1117/12.2062418

Consumer electronic optics: how small can a lens be: the case of panomorph lenses

2014· article· en· W2012904734 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsImmerVision (Canada)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)Gradient-index opticsOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsRefractive index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, miniature camera modules are applied to a variety of applications such as webcam, mobile phone, automotive, endoscope, tablets, portable computers and many other products. Mobile phone cameras are probably one of the most challenging parts due to the need for smaller and smaller total track length (TTL) and optimized embedded image processing algorithms. As the technology is developing, higher resolution and higher image quality, new capabilities are required to fulfil the market needs. Consequently, the lens system becomes more complex and requires more optical elements and/or new optical elements. What is the limit? How small an injection molded lens can be? We will discuss those questions by comparing two wide angle lenses for consumer electronic market. The first lens is a 6.56 mm (TTL) panoramic (180° FOV) lens built in 2012. The second is a more recent (2014) panoramic lens (180° FOV) with a TTL of 3.80 mm for mobile phone camera. Both optics are panomorph lenses used with megapixel sensors. Between 2012 and 2014, the development in design and plastic injection molding allowed a reduction of the TTL by more than 40%. This TTL reduction has been achieved by pushing the lens design to the extreme (edge/central air and material thicknesses as well as lens shape). This was also possible due to a better control of the injection molding process and material (low birefringence, haze and thermal stability). These aspects will be presented and discussed. During the next few years, we don’t know if new material will come or new process but we will still need innovative people and industries to push again the limits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it