Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Polarizers

Subject: Re: [OM] Polarizers
From: "Wiese" <wiese@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:02:10 +1000
Rand,

I hope someone jumps in with a better explanation, as I am far from having
the technical mind or know-how to answer this properly, BUT...

I try to think of these things in practical terms - if an image of a
reflection on water hits a circular polarizer, the first operative layer
excludes (in theory) all the reflected (polarized) light, i.e. that light is
no longer a factor.  Then, the 'wave disrupter' re-scrambles the light so it
doesn't affect the operation of the mirror, but the original reflected light
does not make it into the camera body to the mirror or the film plane,
meaning it's done more than a UV filter would...  :)

That works for me, anyway <g>

Cheers
Andy

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 06:54:45 -0700
From: "Rand E. Tomcala" <rtomcala@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Polarizers

Christopher Biggs wrote:
BTW, it does not sound like a dumb question at all.

If the circular polarizer only passes light on a certain plane and then
a 1/4 wave disrupter rescrambles the light, it kind of sounds like an
expensive UV filter.  You still end up with scrambled light like you
started with minus the UV.  Enlighten me, where am I missing the boat
with this definition ?



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz