nupolar or xperio or

Anyone have a spectral analysis of these polarized lenses? or other polar......I want to know if they have an infrared protection.

We know.... first we have to care about UV380, then UV400, UV Backside.... technology is improving, and now I want to select for costumer the best protection possible for the sun.

Specify what part of the IR spectrum you are talking about.

Hi Lelarep, I think IR 800-1400nm, I think many "ir protection sunlenses" like rayban, revo, serengeti etc cut this part, but I'm no sure.

I found this one about the danger of IR and High energy blue light on human eyes

https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documen...red-radiation/

What do you think?

Anyway I know some manufactor can do speciar ar or mirror coating for filter Ir.

Look into Coppertone from Vision Ease if you are looking for top protection in a polarized lens; including blue light protection.

https://visionease.com/coppertone-co...arized-lenses/

Between the original two, I would definitely recommend Nupolar. Younger has way better standards and quality control than KBCo (producer of Xperio)

Isn't it a mirror coating that blocks IR?

Thanks Quince and thanks to all.

@Robert you can block an % of IR with special ar coating or mirror coating, also some lens can have a filter inside the material.

As far as blocking IR, I just don't think its necessary. For IR, any damage would have to be thermal, since they are by nature thermal photons. If someone is exposed to enough IR radiation that they are literally baking their eyes and surrounding tissues, they have a much more serious problem than their choice of lenses. Human tissues are equipped with thermal sensors, if you are exposed to enough IR radiation for it to be a problem, you'll know about it from the literal burning sensation. The only use for IR-blocking lenses that I can think of is in industry or academia where they may deal with IR laser light sources.

* And the visors on space suits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lelarep

As far as blocking IR, I just don't think its necessary. For IR, any damage would have to be thermal, since they are by nature thermal photons. If someone is exposed to enough IR radiation that they are literally baking their eyes and surrounding tissues, they have a much more serious problem than their choice of lenses. Human tissues are equipped with thermal sensors, if you are exposed to enough IR radiation for it to be a problem, you'll know about it from the literal burning sensation. The only use for IR-blocking lenses that I can think of is in industry or academia where they may deal with IR laser light sources.

---

Maybe you are right (I think the same thing about blue light from smartphone vs the blue light from the sun) I think about some jobs like beach/lifeguard or outdoor job under the sun maybe in the years IR can make some damage, if we can improve technology... why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dima

Maybe you are right (I think the same thing about blue light from smartphone vs the blue light from the sun) I think about some jobs like beach/lifeguard or outdoor job under the sun maybe in the years IR can make some damage, if we can improve technology... why not?

---

That is an interesting point. Sub-threshold ocular thermal exposure over time. I honestly don't know if anyone has done any research on that. We do know that thermal exposure, even below the detectable sensory threshold, can cause damage to DNA and cellular proteins. The big question would be, is there any potential for cumulative effects or not. I guess it would depend on if the body can repair it faster than it occurs, and how well it does those repairs.