White lens with polarization

[Maksymilian]

Hi All,
I've got one question; does anybody know if , in Europe, is any lens producer who make white (read:"without any tint") polarized lens? And, eventually, where can I order it? Thanks for any information:)

[For-Life]

For polarization to actually work it needs x amount of tint. If it does not have the tint then the effect will not be there.

[Maksymilian]

Ok, thanks, but about two years ago I saw glases with white lenses, and it works on polarising test from Polariod. So how is it possible? I don't think that it was a photochromic lenses. Thanks a lot again:)

[chip anderson]

The only ones I have seen were filters for microscopes and I have enquired all over the world including most universities with Phd.'s in light, lenses, and optics. They all say it can't be done.

[Framebender]

is that Grey A is the lightest and color distorts the least!!

:cheers:

[Maksymilian]

Thanks for all Your replys:) It's very helpfull:):cheers:

[chip anderson]

Actually I think NuPolar Yellow is the lightest.

[AWTECH]

Polarization does require a tint. The lighter the tint the less efficient the polarization. With a Gray C you can achieve a 99%+ polarization effect.

My company ICE-TECH makes a true yellow polarized and a blue polarized as well as purple polarized lens. These light colors can not offer the same degree of polarization, but they do offer a partial polarization and therefore a reduction in glare compared to a non-polarized lens.

To accomplish this the polarized film is actually died the color rather than the lens material.

[drk]

Hey, think of those steroacuity test glasses. They're not clear. These would be if they could be.

Great note, A.W., about the fact that there has to be a "tint" molecule of some kind absorbing the incident light (regardless of it absorbing only in a single plane). How else would a (non-reflecting) lens block light transmission, if it did not absorb it? Ergo, "tintless" polarized lenses are an oxymoron!

I've never considered that the "wimpy" polarized Grey/Brown A or other specialty polarized tints are by definition LESS EFFICIENT polarizers! Less tint, less absorbtion. Is this right?


Actually, A.W., I think not. Maybe as a counter-argument on these lighter polarized lenses...

...Can we assume for the moment that there are polarizing filters that maximize the polarization property, but are overall more light transmitting, on average?

For example:

Maximally polarizing lens with X-axis very dark 20% transmission, Y-axis very clear 90% transmission, polarization effectiveness 70% (that is, 90-20), average transmission 55% [ i.e. (90 + 20)/2]...This could be a simple polarizing filter without any tint to the "sandwich".

...Vs.

Polarizing lens as above with X-axis very dark 20% transmission, Y-axis very clear 90% transmission. Polarization effectiveness still 70%, BUT a second layer of neutral 40% tint overlies both axes, decreasing average transmission to 95% [i.e. the polarizing filter's inheirent 55% transmission minus another 40% transmission]. This lens is overall darker, but the lighter one above is just as efficient a polarizer.


I guess the concept I am trying to grasp is whether polarization effectiveness is simply proportional to the differential absorbtion of the two axes of polarization in the polarization filter or not. I think so, in the lab.*

I think it's true that, then, the theoretically perfect polarizing filter's light transmission, by definition, would be 50% [(100% by axis X + 0% by axis Y)/2], and that "perfect filter" could be presented in various overall transmissions depending on tint in the sandwich lenses.

Notice the theoretical oddity or paradox, then, of the "perfect" polarizer's average transmission being exactly 50% [that is, (100% X-axis + 0% Y-axis)/2], and an "imperfect" polarizer's average transmission being lower [that is, (100% X-axis + 50% Y-axis)/2 = 75%] !!!! That means A LIGHTER POLARIZING FILTER COULD BE MORE EFFICIENT THAN A DARKER ONE!


(*As a practical note, I would think in the real world, that the ultimate effectiveness of the polarizing material would have to do with how "aligned" the molecules could be arranged in the film's manufacturing process, such that they would have their "polarizing act together" instead of working at slightly random angles. I guess there could be, as well, variously efficient polarizing molecules utilized by different companies. Do you have any insight on this?)

[Maksymilian]

Thank You so much for Your explanations Dear Optiboarder:)
I forgot drk that "perfect world" and "perfect filters" doesn't egsist, so white polarized lens doesn't too. Thanks so much again:cheers:

[jherman]

What lens color would you suggest to use for spotting Red Fish in shallow water?

Polarization does require a tint. The lighter the tint the less efficient the polarization. With a Gray C you can achieve a 99%+ polarization effect.

My company ICE-TECH makes a true yellow polarized and a blue polarized as well as purple polarized lens. These light colors can not offer the same degree of polarization, but they do offer a partial polarization and therefore a reduction in glare compared to a non-polarized lens.

To accomplish this the polarized film is actually died the color rather than the lens material.

[drk]

I'm guessing greenish-yellow.

[chip anderson]

The pro fishermen that I know say the lightest tint polarized lenses they can get are best for finding fish. Don't know how they stand it in the Gulf, where I want the darkest gray polarized I can get. Pro fishermen seem to prefer yellows and ambers.


Chip

[jherman]

I too like grey C for open water.

I see Brown and Amber as the same lens, and my go to color for the flats.
Always looking for an edge.

Dr K
Do you think green might help project coppery, orange colors?

[drk]

Yeah, I think so.

I think that you want to go "opposite" of what you're looking at on the color wheel. (Nice insertion of picture, NOT.) I have a neat K-B Co sampler that has a freshwater fishing tint that is very much like the yellow-green color above.

Water is typically blue, so you need the yellow-orange, but if the fishies are orangy, that would tend to make them invisible, so you have to go on the other side of yellow.

[jherman]

I'l be on the flats Sunday. Hopefully I can aquire a blue green polirized lens before then.

thanks for the feedback:cheers:

[dbracer]

Hey, think of those steroacuity test glasses. They're not clear. These would be if they could be.

Great note, A.W., about the fact that there has to be a "tint" molecule of some kind absorbing the incident light (regardless of it absorbing only in a single plane). How else would a (non-reflecting) lens block light transmission, if it did not absorb it? Ergo, "tintless" polarized lenses are an oxymoron!

I've never considered that the "wimpy" polarized Grey/Brown A or other specialty polarized tints are by definition LESS EFFICIENT polarizers! Less tint, less absorbtion. Is this right?


Actually, A.W., I think not. Maybe as a counter-argument on these lighter polarized lenses...

...Can we assume for the moment that there are polarizing filters that maximize the polarization property, but are overall more light transmitting, on average?

For example:

Maximally polarizing lens with X-axis very dark 20% transmission, Y-axis very clear 90% transmission, polarization effectiveness 70% (that is, 90-20), average transmission 55% [ i.e. (90 + 20)/2]...This could be a simple polarizing filter without any tint to the "sandwich".

...Vs.

Polarizing lens as above with X-axis very dark 20% transmission, Y-axis very clear 90% transmission. Polarization effectiveness still 70%, BUT a second layer of neutral 40% tint overlies both axes, decreasing average transmission to 95% [i.e. the polarizing filter's inheirent 55% transmission minus another 40% transmission]. This lens is overall darker, but the lighter one above is just as efficient a polarizer.


I guess the concept I am trying to grasp is whether polarization effectiveness is simply proportional to the differential absorbtion of the two axes of polarization in the polarization filter or not. I think so, in the lab.*

I think it's true that, then, the theoretically perfect polarizing filter's light transmission, by definition, would be 50% [(100% by axis X + 0% by axis Y)/2], and that "perfect filter" could be presented in various overall transmissions depending on tint in the sandwich lenses.

Notice the theoretical oddity or paradox, then, of the "perfect" polarizer's average transmission being exactly 50% [that is, (100% X-axis + 0% Y-axis)/2], and an "imperfect" polarizer's average transmission being lower [that is, (100% X-axis + 50% Y-axis)/2 = 75%] !!!! That means A LIGHTER POLARIZING FILTER COULD BE MORE EFFICIENT THAN A DARKER ONE!


(*As a practical note, I would think in the real world, that the ultimate effectiveness of the polarizing material would have to do with how "aligned" the molecules could be arranged in the film's manufacturing process, such that they would have their "polarizing act together" instead of working at slightly random angles. I guess there could be, as well, variously efficient polarizing molecules utilized by different companies. Do you have any insight on this?)

Drk,

This is an over simplification. You are assuming that X and Y are the only axes, and you are forgetting the specificity of polarization; and you are forgetting partial polarization either side of said polarization angle (Brewster's Angle).

Every other meridian between x and Y has some partial polarization depending on "Brewster's angle" which is dependent of the material itself. What I'm saying is that every surface has a different polarization angle and there is partial polarization either side of that angle, and as a result, there is further partial polarization in the various other meridians.

For some materials the polarization of angle may be along the "y" axis depending on Brewster's Angle -- although this is probably more a theoretical probability than an actual possibility. Still the concept reigns true.

Light is polarized by reflection, TV cameras etc., but that polarization is only for one exact angle , or in the case of a camera one exact meridian. Anything other than that one specific degree is only partial polarization.

Geees, I'm starting to confuse even myself!

Respectfully,
dbracer