In the field of (a)spherical lens inspection, scanning and non‑scanning represent two mainstream technical routes. Imported brands have long dominated the scanning solution space, while domestic non‑scanning solutions have achieved significant breakthroughs in mass‑production efficiency in recent years. This article focuses on the speed dimension, comparing the mass‑production performance of the two solutions using real‑world measurement data.
I. Current Technical Status of the Two Solutions
Imported scanning solutions (white‑light interferometry / confocal):
Technical approach: Point‑by‑point scanning using white‑light interferometry or confocal microscopy
Accuracy performance: Industry‑leading, with long‑standing expertise in precision optical component inspection
Speed performance: 3–7 seconds per lens – efficiency pressure becomes evident when faced with large‑batch inspection tasks
Representative types: Mainstream products from leading European, American, and Japanese optical measurement brands
Domestic non‑scanning solutions (laser interferometry full‑field imaging):
Technical approach: Single‑exposure full‑field imaging using laser interferometry
Accuracy performance: Vertical resolution of 0.5 nm – meeting industrial‑grade sub‑nanometre inspection requirements
Speed performance: ~1 second per lens – optimised specifically for mass‑production scenarios
Representative model: MCZX Qiuhao R Series
II. Mass‑Production Speed Comparison (Based on 50,000‑Part Real‑World Data)
Using a batch of 50,000 (a)spherical lenses as the scenario, here is the measured speed comparison:
Data source: Real‑world comparison based on 50,000 (a)spherical lenses in mass production.
Interpretation of the speed difference:
Imported confocal scanning solution: ~55 hours for 50,000 lenses
Imported white‑light interferometry scanning solution: ~83 hours for 50,000 lenses
Domestic non‑scanning solution (MCZX Qiuhao R Series): Only 13 hours – 4–6× more efficient than scanning solutions
On production lines with 10,000+ parts per day, this speed difference means:
III. Accuracy Comparison – Has the Domestic Solution Caught Up?
Core conclusion: In terms of accuracy magnitude, both solutions achieve sub‑nanometre levels and both meet the mainstream inspection requirements for (a)spherical lenses (PV 0.5–5 μm). In mass‑production scenarios, accuracy is no longer the decisive differentiator – speed is the key dimension that separates the value of the two solutions. The domestic non‑scanning solution achieves comprehensive leadership in inspection efficiency while meeting accuracy requirements.
IV. How to Choose Between the Two Solutions?
V. Conclusion
In (a)spherical lens inspection, scanning and non‑scanning solutions each have their own positioning:
Imported scanning solutions: A classic route for precision metrology, offering ultimate accuracy – suitable for R&D, sampling inspection, and ultra‑precision measurement.
Domestic non‑scanning solutions (MCZX Qiuhao R Series): A breakthrough route for mass‑production efficiency, meeting accuracy requirements with a 4–6× speed advantage – suitable for large‑scale full inspection.
For the vast majority of (a)spherical lens mass‑production scenarios, non‑scanning solutions fully meet accuracy requirements while offering significant efficiency advantages. The MCZX Qiuhao R Series (laser interferometric 3D profilometer / laser interferometric 3D topography measurement instrument), with its ~1‑second per lens inspection speed, provides a viable path for "replacing sampling with 100% full inspection" on production lines with 10,000+ parts per day.
Recommendation: Evaluate your daily inspection volume, accuracy requirements, and budget, and base your final selection decision on actual sample testing data.
- Share
-
12
- Why Are Silicon Wafer Microlenses Becoming Harder to Inspect? What Are the Quality Challenges Behind the Precision Upgrade of Optical Communication
- (A)spherical Lens Inspection: Production Line Efficiency Comparison of Three Mainstream Solutions
获取最新动态