Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

I started by hand at 400 grit and went up to 12000 grit by increments of 200 and a set of micro-mesh polishing pads. This process took about 5-6 hours per lens and a lot of elbow grease. Not really sure that qualifies as 3d printing.

However, I like the fact this was not one of those 3D print a case, insert bit's that do all the work. Well beyond film.

View on HN

But those remarks are just the lens. The lens came out out the 3D printer with a frosty surface. Of course that needs polishing. No 3D printer is going to crank out working optics.

What is surprising here is that the object has the internal clarity, so that all it needs is a surface polish. I imagine it must be relatively free of voids and inclusions.

Actually, there are a number of companies making printers that can print high-quality optics. For example LuxExcel: https://www.luxexcel.com/

This was a big surprise for me as well. OK, he used a different printer, but the fact that the 3D-printed lens seems optically OK is very impressive.

I have used 3d printed molds to help me create lenses, but the idea of actually printing a lens is pretty gnarly. I think it definitely qualifies as 3d printing - most models require some touchups after printing from consumer printers anyway.

He is using an SLA based printer, assuming the resin is bubble free, there should be practically no inclusions in the printed objects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com