Karl Guttag | KGOnTech: Why does optimizing micro lenses on microLEDs individually fail to improve overall system efficiency, and how can we fix it?
02:14 - 04:40
Other snippets from this talk
Summary of the clip:
Why does optimizing micro lenses on microLEDs individually fail to improve overall system efficiency, and how can we fix it?
The message from Lumus is that the microLED engine must be considered part of a system, not optimized in isolation. Putting micro lenses on top of a microLED may improve the microLED's efficiency or produce more nits, but it may not optimize the system. Uniform illumination will not result. Illumination is less effective than when micro lenses are designed in conjunction with the entire optical system.
If telecentric optics are absent, you may think you have done well by putting micro lenses over your LED, but particularly towards the periphery you will get very dark images. You will not get the coupling efficiency you expect. The whole micro lens and optics and everything must be designed as a complete unit, instead of doing them individually and then slapping them together.
As photons emerge from a panel with micro lenses, their translation matters, and the micro lenses may need to vary. At the periphery, varying their shape slightly aims light differently. Simulations show shifting, centering, and omitting the micro lens array. Doing it right could yield 6x more efficiency, or 600% better efficiency. Micro lenses help couple out more light, but the array should be designed in conjunction with the whole system.
In this short video, you can learn:
* Micro lenses on microLEDs can improve LED efficiency or nits but may not optimize the full optical system.
* Without telecentric optics, peripheral images become very dark and expected coupling efficiency is lost.
* Designing the micro lens array with the entire optical system can yield 6x or 600% better efficiency, while varying lens shape toward the periphery aims light differently.
📋 **Clip Abstract** Lumus argues that microLED engines must be designed as complete optical systems, not optimized piece by piece. The clip shows that micro lenses over microLEDs can help couple out more light, but without telecentric optics and periphery-varying lens shapes, uniform illumination and expected coupling efficiency are lost, with correct co-design potentially giving 6x or 600% better efficiency.
About the speaker:
* Speaker: Karl Guttag
* Company: KGOnTech
* Event: Eindhoven 2026
* Location: High Tech Campus, Eindhoven
#MicroLensArray, #TelecentricOptics, #CouplingEfficiency, #PeripheryDarkImages, #AROptics, #MicroLEDDisplays
This is a highlight of the presentation:
Overview of emerging waveguide technologies
More Highlights from the same talk.
00:56 - 02:04
How do 1D and 2D reflective waveguides compare to diffractive waveguides in efficiency and color uniformity?
How do 1D and 2D reflective waveguides compare to diffractive waveguides in efficiency and color uniformity?
One notable trend from Lumus: OLEDs are coupling into 1D waveguides more than expected. With 1D pupil expansion handled by conventional refractive optics, the architecture can be fairly efficient. Lumus reported roughly 8% efficiency — nits in to nits out — and that figure holds at about a 50-degree field of view. Compared with typical waveguides, that is described as very efficient, which is why this combination is drawing attention.
For 2D waveguides, the same source reported about 1% efficiency, nits in to nits out. That is several times better than what is typically achieved with diffractive waveguides. The gap matters because pupil expansion architecture and combiner type determine how much light reaches the eye. The source framed the reflective approach as holding a real advantage here, with 1D designs using refractive optics and 2D designs still beating typical diffractive results on throughput.
Color uniformity is the other differentiator. Reflective waveguides are described as having fairly good color uniformity — not perfect, but much, much better than what is typically seen with diffractive waveguides. That combination of efficiency and color performance is the core argument for reflective architectures. The transcript notes agreement in the room on this point, with no correction offered, so the comparison stands as presented: 8% for 1D with refractive optics, about 1% for 2D, both ahead of diffractive alternatives.
In this short video, you can learn:
* The cited source reports roughly 8% nits-in-to-nits-out efficiency for 1D waveguides with 1D pupil expansion and conventional refractive optics at about a 50-degree field of view.
* Their 2D waveguides are said to deliver about 1% efficiency, several times better than typical diffractive waveguides.
* Reflective waveguides' color uniformity is not perfect but is much better than what is typically seen with diffractive waveguides.
📋 **Clip Abstract** The source describes OLEDs coupling into 1D waveguides at a higher rate than expected, with 1D pupil expansion plus conventional refractive optics reaching about 8% nits-in-to-nits-out efficiency at roughly 50-degree field of view. Their 2D waveguides are reported at about 1% efficiency, several times better than typical diffractive waveguides, while reflective waveguides also offer fairly good color uniformity that, though not perfect, is much better than diffractive alternatives.
About the speaker:
* Speaker: Karl Guttag
* Company: KGOnTech
* Event: Eindhoven 2026
* Location: High Tech Campus, Eindhoven
#PupilExpansion, #ReflectiveWaveguides, #ColorUniformity, #NitsInNitsOut, #ARWaveguides, #NearEyeDisplays
16:42 - 18:41
Why do geometric reflective waveguides deliver three to seven times more nits to the eye than diffractive alternatives when using microLEDs?
Why do geometric reflective waveguides deliver three to seven times more nits to the eye than diffractive alternatives when using microLEDs?
Geometric waveguide combiners differ from diffractive or holographic combiners. In holographic combiners, one polarization predominates; P polarization is way more efficient than S. Diffractive combiners show the same polarization imbalance, but not as much. With a geometric waveguide, especially using dichroic reflectors, S and P can be balanced to have about the same efficiency. That balance matters when the light source is unpolarized.
MicroLED panels are unpolarized, while LCOS and LBS are polarized. Fitting a microLED panel to a holographic combiner loses a lot of the S polarization. Fitting it to a surface relief grating also loses a lot of S, though not as much as with a holographic combiner. Fitting it to a geometric reflective waveguide might be the best fit. This polarization loss explains efficiency differences.
For the same field of view, reflective waveguides can get three to seven times more nits to the eye versus diffractive waveguides. That is a huge lift. The question is why isn't everyone using reflective. The comment given is they are always too expensive. Lumos' response is that they keep showing small, lesser expensive, and easier to make reflective waveguides. So it remains to be seen if that happens.
In this short video, you can learn:
* Geometric reflective waveguides with dichroic reflectors can balance S and P polarization, unlike holographic combiners where P is much more efficient than S.
* MicroLED panels are unpolarized, so holographic and surface relief grating combiners lose a lot of S polarization, while geometric reflective waveguides may be the best fit.
* Reflective waveguides can deliver three to seven times more nits to the eye than diffractive for the same field of view, but the stated barrier is cost.
📋 **Clip Abstract** Geometric reflective waveguide combiners can balance S and P polarization, especially with dichroic reflectors, unlike diffractive or holographic combiners where P polarization is more efficient than S. Because microLEDs are unpolarized, they lose much less with geometric reflective combiners and can deliver three to seven times more nits to the eye than diffractive alternatives, though cost remains the stated objection.
About the speaker:
* Speaker: Karl Guttag
* Company: KGOnTech
* Event: Eindhoven 2026
* Location: High Tech Campus, Eindhoven
#GeometricReflectiveWaveguide, #DichroicReflector, #MicroLEDPolarization, #NitsToEye, #ARWaveguides, #NearEyeDisplays
07:36 - 09:49
How can a two-way combiner solve the blue bleed issue in quantum dot microLEDs while simplifying optical alignment?
How can a two-way combiner solve the blue bleed issue in quantum dot microLEDs while simplifying optical alignment?
The usual combiner is an X-cube or another route for red, green and blue. A two-way approach instead pairs a blue LED with a second panel carrying pumped red and green. Blue pumps both red and green, and because that panel contains no blue, a blue filter can block it hard. This matters because blue-pumped quantum-dot microLEDs consistently show blue bleed, and UV quantum-dot examples remain unseen.
The alternative uses a blue pump but keeps green direct, then uses that green to pump red. According to Hyoke, pumping red from green is almost as efficient as blue pumping; the wavelength difference is not large, so efficiency stays fairly good. This yields direct green, pumped red and a direct blue LED. A simple two-way cube replaces the complex X-cube arrangement.
He thinks that, at a theoretical level, this looks like a potentially good way to go as opposed to an X-cube. It is much simpler and should have very good efficiency. The alignment job is simpler as well: only one panel has to be aligned, not three. Those are the efficiency advantages he highlights for the two-way combiner.
In this short video, you can learn:
* Blue-pumped quantum-dot microLEDs have consistently shown blue bleed, and UV quantum-dot examples were not yet seen.
* A blue-pumped red/green panel can receive a solid blue block because it contains no blue to leak.
* Green-pumping red is almost as efficient as blue-pumping red, so direct green, pumped red and direct blue become possible.
📋 **Clip Abstract** A two-way combiner can separate a blue LED from a red/green pumped panel, allowing a solid blue block where no blue exists. The clip contrasts that with green-pumped red and argues a simple two-way cube may be simpler to align and more efficient than an X-cube.
About the speaker:
* Speaker: Karl Guttag
* Company: KGOnTech
* Event: Eindhoven 2026
* Location: High Tech Campus, Eindhoven
#TwoWayCombiner, #BlueBleed, #QuantumDotMicroLEDs, #XCube, #MicroLEDDisplays, #DisplayOptics