Talk:Frazier lens

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

‹See TfM›

Glass

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

It is requested that an optical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

How does it work?

So, what's the trick behind the lens? I would solve the problem by projecting the image to a very small ground glass, and then filming the resulting image with the camera (somewhat similar to what a Depth-of-field adapter does, but just using it to enlarge DOF instead of limiting it). Is that the trick? Comments? Peter S. 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, this lens does not provide extraordinary depth of field. The massive impression of depth results from large DOF, due to small aperture, and due to low relative background blur, the latter because of the short focal length of the tip lens and some focal reduction in the optical relay. The small aperture results in considerable diffraction blur. The main trick is a long optical relay, which also allows for the bending of the optical axis with a prism. With a properly constructed optical relay (here in fact comprising two off-the-shelf Nikkor lenses), ground glass is not needed, there is just a virtual image at a certain position between the relay and the tip lens.

Name change?

Given the loss of the patent dispute, should this now be changed to the Roessel lens or similar seeing as Frazier didn't legally invent it?

(Answering my own question) No, the inequitable conduct result actually means he did invent it but essentially failed to file the patent fairly.

Of course Frazier has now invented a new lens that is his own creation. (Reference is the 19/7/2010 ABC TV Talking Heads.) Mark Hurd (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other similar contraptions. For example, bug's eye lens at Koheisha.jp. For macro use it is good to have a physically small tip lens, to avoid ambient light obstruction at wide angles.

Also his Australian Patent is still valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.202.237 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Recently

This article is in need of a revision.

Frazier invented the original lens. The effects that Frazier took advantage of was a well known anomoly in the development of optics, but he was the first to make it work. I understand this is now all documented, the original agreement with Panasonic has either ended or been revised and Frazier has since gone on to build more lenses, continuing the process. Whether this is under the original patent or another one is unclear. --Henry Tallboys (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Patent Office Says the Patent Expired Due to Lack of Renewal Fee

The Google Patent Search linked as an external link on this page says that the patent expired in 2006 because Citibank (representing Panovision) failed to pay a renewal fee.

None of the other claims about the patent being invalidated are supported by any citation. Pages elsewhere on the Web have a third story, that the patent was invalidated because a judge said it defied the laws of physics.

According to some sources, the patent was invalidated because the images were not produced using the patented contraption but rather using a different earlier prototype (maybe even by inserting an object at the position of a virtual image?).

This is all very confusing. Without other citations, I'm inclined to accept the US Patent Office version as reported by Google Patent Search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.202.237 (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example Video Link

I think it's worth adding a video example linked from the article to show people what the lens does, since that may be unclear to most people. But multimedia links are discouraged. So I'm asking here. This is my suggested link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06t8TGAffNA&t=0m28s 24.62.202.237 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]