tinkering with polarization

[Oha]

This was a great thread - Im glad I got to read all the replies.

But it seems that no one could answer the problem of the clear camera polarizing filter.

I remember (way back) in high school, where I took pictures for the paper and yearbook, and some local newspapers too, that there WAS a polarizing lens which was clear, or virtually clear. And I remember that it worked very well for an assignment I had which involved shooting a picture of something inside a window.

I know it worked well. But HOW ?????

[Jeff Trail]

Gee, people go back and read some of our ranting and wondering posts? Yikes this might scare some people :) I never did really figure out how if my original posted questions that started this thread had any basic provable theoretical answer..(oh well) I came at it from a few angles but never got any one in a strong chemistry background to jump on the thread to tell me if I was on or way off base.. BUT to possibly explain your question we might have to consider that a polarized filter for a cam is and looks like fresnal, but the difference in image transmission and "end" perception might be the key to your answer, in photography we are dealing with an "instant" image that is captured so loss of transmission due to contrast or density or even clarity can be technically altered by use of focal length, F-stop, film speed, flash etc., etc. (photography was one thing I never really got into) ..while in our visual system we are dealing with constantly moving images multiple focal lengthes and corrected accuity, we are a walking constant three D imaging process using two visual pathways that are combining visual images but even though we may see something in focus (say corrected accuity "BVA") does not always mean we have good vision, take for instance our corrective lens we wear, the lens is correcting a focal problem (hyperopia, myopia etc., etc.) but that same lens is also reducing light transmission which can have a direct effect on our "perception" of what we see.. take for instance 1.60 material, you actually lose 10% light transmission due to the actual material its-self due to internal/external reflection and deviation (which is one of the reasons we should push AR BTW :)) Most people notice when removing thier glasses even though things become blurred it seems or appears "brighter" :) ..
BTW since someone has brought this thread back to life how about any new idea's on how crazy we were? Any new posters feel like tossing out idea's (if you stay awake through our rambling that is) I still am looking for an "answer"

Jeff"still tinkering, guess it's in my blood" Trail

[chip anderson]

Lee:

Glare under surgical lights, wanting more light without glare for color recognition (like when I paint prosthetic eyes) to name a couple.

Chip

[Lee Prewitt]

Chip,

Have you tried some of the A polarized lenses? Or how about taking a camera polarized filter and cutting the glass down? Would that work?

[chip anderson]

No, Lee I haven't but thanks for the tought.

Chip

[edKENdance]

Apparently the people on the general board think this is crazy. I just think it's a really cool example of polarization that I had never thought of before.
I recently saw an ad for light pastel coloured gradient polarised lenses. How do you have a gradient polarized lens?
Someones' been tinkerin'