"Rand E. Tomcala" <rtomcala@xxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and
spake thusly:
> 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 ?
But the light that is NOT on a certain plane is GONE! You filter out
the "bad" light (leaving polarized "good" light) then you "depolarize"
the good light to avoid breaking the autoexposure system.
If it wasn't for the beam-splitters in the AE (and some AF) we would
only need linear polarizers.
cjb.
--
chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, when he visits the Real World, is Christopher J. Biggs
Stallion Technologies, Australia. Ph. +61-7-3270-4266 Fax. +61-7-3270-4245
I dig PGP, MIME and Rush. Send mail with "Subject: sendpgpkey" for my pubkey
------------------ Power grows out of the barrel of a GNU ------------------
< 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 >
|