Hi,
On 22 Apr 2002 at 18:18, Mishka wrote:
playing devil's advocate, according to
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/coatings.html
there's no significant improvement in flare resistance between single- and
multicoated optics, in lab tests at least. granted, it talks mostly about
primes, but
On Monday, April 22, 2002, at 06:18 PM, Mishka wrote:
playing devil's advocate, according to
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/coatings.html
there's no significant improvement in flare resistance between single-
and
multicoated optics, in lab tests at least. granted, it talks mostly
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 08:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is more to lens flare than lens coatings. There
are aspects to lens constuction that also have great
effect. Some of the things are internal baffling,
blackening the edges of the lens elements covering all
the internal
Bob Blakely wrote:
So, if they bought the rights to a commercial process, who did they buy
these rights from?
OCLI evidently developed the coating techniques with its own money.
From The unofficial Asahi Pentax Spotmatic Home Page
http://212.187.14.19/lenses.htm :
The first of the SMC
Hi,
Tuesday, April 23, 2002, 2:21:16 PM, you wrote:
Still, Zeiss 80mm on a 'blad vs. Pentax SMC 105mm on a 67...the 105mm is
a lot cheaper and definitely harder to flare. You'd think that Zeiss
would know what they were doing with internal baffling etc.
Now, I'm not saying that the Zeiss
R. Monaghan's page is very nice, but that one about coatings is quite
bad IMNSHO.
An easy test will show that various MC and SC have much different
effects...
put a filter on your lens.
1) non-coated filter - BAAAD unless shooting without black coal in
black tunnel...
2) single coated filter
http://www.photozone.de/canonFAQ.htm#3Q4c
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
http://www.photozone.de/canonFAQ.htm#3Q4c
And that makes me wondering, is good coating so difficult or expensive to
develop that even big player like Canon could not do it?
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Join the worlds largest e-mail
As I understand it, the concept of multicoating was originally developed by
NASA. Their process for generating an even coat of the desired angstroms
thickness was unbelievably difficult and costly, but it did demonstrate the
effectiveness of multiple coatings to match the impedance of free space
?
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: SMC vs C-n-n Coatings (from C-n-n FAQ)
http://www.photozone.de/canonFAQ.htm#3Q4c
And that makes me wondering, is good coating so difficult or expensive to
develop
Bob Blakely wrote:
As I understand it, the concept of multicoating was originally developed by
NASA.
Yes, it was developed by OCLI (Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. at
http://www.ocli.com/ in California.
...it was Asahi Optical that developed and patented the current process that makes
such
I recently saw a spectral response diagram of the standard SMC and the
gostless coatings. The response was very even over the visible spectrum
with the exception that the gostless has a sharper UV cut-off than the SMC.
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
Found, the link for spectral response. From the gang at AOHC.
http://digilander.iol.it/aohc/images/ghost01.gif
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at
playing devil's advocate, according to
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/coatings.html
there's no significant improvement in flare resistance between single- and
multicoated optics, in lab tests at least. granted, it talks mostly about
primes, but still, is it that big of a deal, really?
If
As I understand it (could be
wrong), it was Asahi Optical that developed and patented the current
process
that makes such accurate coatings mass producible. I further understand
that
(at least for some time), companies that desired to produce accurate
multicoatings paid a royalty to Asahi
I recently saw a spectral response diagram of the standard SMC and the
gostless coatings. The response was very even over the visible spectrum
with the exception that the gostless has a sharper UV cut-off than the SMC.
Does that mean with ghostless coating, SMC lenses would be even more flare
could be many things. bad design. no hood (or front element sticking up).
were they zooms 25 element/24 groups zooms?
dunno.
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: SMC vs C-n-n Coatings (from C-n-n
US Government thinks so. Photo reconissance folks think so. I think so.
Transmission increases with with multicoating over single coating, so
physics says flair has to decrease.
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
playing devil's advocate, according to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Blakely wrote:
...it was Asahi Optical that developed and patented the current process
that makes such accurate coatings mass producible.
Well, I'm under the impression--from the Contax or Zeiss list, I
think--that Pentax didn't really improve upon it all that
19 matches
Mail list logo
