> I was wondering since the AR lenses is supposed to allow more light to
> come thru. On a website that had a before & after effect of AR, I felt
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I need to trackdown that website as it could have been my old monitor; but
> if I can see more things with glare than without, glare is the way to go.
I read your post twice and still have some trouble understanding what
you are trying to say. For ordinary glass and typical plastic, about 4%
of incident light is reflected and lost from each surface or 8% from the
front and back of the lens combined. That is not really very much. The
problem often created is that the reflections cause unwanted images and
confusion. In photography where there can easily be six to eight
glass-air interfaces in a lens, that can be a lot of light loss and
degradation of the image on the film or sensor. In photography, that is
called flare. Certainly a bright light behind you can reflect off of
your lens surfaces into your eye.
There are many different kinds of AR coatings. I am not very familiar
with those use on eyeglass lenses. The simplest ones will reduce
reflectivity to about 1% per surface. Many more tricks at greater
expense can be performed using multilayer AR coatings. Is it worth it? I
think that is highly subjective.
By the way, multilayer coatings can be used to color glasses,
particularly sunglasses. That usually ends up reducing transmission
through the lens be increasing reflectivity at some wavelengths.
Bill
nobody - 02 Sep 2008 03:43 GMT
>> I was wondering since the AR lenses is supposed to allow more light to
>> come thru. On a website that had a before & after effect of AR, I felt
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Bill
The website had 2 pictures displayed to show how much more one can see
with AR coated eyeglasses; a thread a few years back said that there was
more light getting thru a pair eyeglasses using AR coatings.
Now, the website's pics was a headon shot of a car at night with the
headlights on & a person standing back by the door. With AR coating,
the area around the headlights do show up clearer BUT, from my perspective,
more of the person was visible in the pic without the AR coating.
So, I'm just guessing that flare is making the more of the person visible
when not AR is applied if all else was equal. Don't really understand
why that is so; could be psycological that when objects are "brighter", it
appears that one can see more. My AR coated lenses seem to make objects
less "bright" so that it seems that the objects are "dimmer" than when
glare/flare is present.
Salmon Egg - 02 Sep 2008 06:05 GMT
> The website had 2 pictures displayed to show how much more one can see
> with AR coated eyeglasses; a thread a few years back said that there was
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> less "bright" so that it seems that the objects are "dimmer" than when
> glare/flare is present.
You are probably attributing too more capability to the practice of
photography than is justified. For example, in viewing a computer screen
in a subdued light environment, AR coatings have little to offer. The 8%
loss in transmitted light signal is virtually insignificant. On the
other hand, scattering and multiple reflection from lens surfaces can
give a noisy background that makes it very difficult to see what is near
a headlight pointing at you.
Bill