Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined Original text follows ---------------------------------------------- Received: from gatekeeper5.un.org by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) ; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:06:59 EST Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Received: by gatekeeper5.un.org; id AA285288421; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:53:41 -0400 Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper5.un.org via smap (V3.1) id xma028324; Thu, 12 Jun 97 02:52:26 -0400 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA06217; Wed, 11 Jun 97 22:43:50 -0700 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA06211; Wed, 11 Jun 97 22:43:47 -0700 Received: from default (mpb233.axionet.com [207.102.221.233]) by axionet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA29261 for <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199706120543.WAA29261@axionet.com> From: "Jacques Bilinski" <jbilin@axionet.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Subject: Re: Noncoated filter Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:42:31 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Precedence: bulk Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > >uncoated. Is it less important for a filter to > >be coated than for a lens? > > Take it back. It will be the first surface to greet the incoming light > rays. If it's uncoated, a lot of scattering, reflecting, and other ugly > phenomenon will take place. > It seems to me that any light reflected from the first surface of the filter will simply be reflected back to the subject and therefore not degrade the picture. I can understand why the surface of the filter closest to the lens benefits from coating. Am I missing something?