Novo to produce filter range using sapphire crystal and Gorilla Glass

[xps]

Found at Dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0589968182/novo-to-produce-filter-range-using-sapphire-crystal-and-gorilla-glass

Could be interesting.

 

[AvTvM]

yes, it does sound interesting. However, I do not really understand why all these manufacturers insist on producing UV-filters. For prtoection purposes "clear protect filters" are "clearly preferable".

Also, this Korean company has not even managed to get their website up ... http://www.novofilters.com/ - so the advertorial on dpr might have come a bit premature.

I'll definitely lean back and wait a while until some early adopters have ordered and received such filters and report back on whether they are any good or not.

 

[mackguyver]

If the Endura Circular PL really has 99.5% transmittance, it will be a crazy huge hit. No light loss for a polarizer??? I think something may be lost in translation on that one. Also, good job sending out a press release before the website is finished...

I think it's a cool idea, but they've stumbled out of the gate a bit.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I will be very interested in reading some tests/reviews of this.

 

[bereninga]

I agree. A company that has its **** together and wants to make a big splash doesn't come out w/ a site that's not ready/incomplete. It's just not a good look and doesn't portray that they're organized.

Anyway, we'll see if their product will perform but so far I will prob stick w/ B+W who are tried-and-true.

 

[ahsanford]

If the Endura Circular PL really has 99.5% transmittance, it will be a crazy huge hit. No light loss for a polarizer???

Imagine a world where people would leave their CPL on all the time, even indoors. Sorry, I'm not seeing / believing it.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

If the Endura Circular PL really has 99.5% transmittance, it will be a crazy huge hit. No light loss for a polarizer???

Imagine a world where people would leave their CPL on all the time, even indoors. Sorry, I'm not seeing / believing it.

- A

I think they meant that the glass in the CPL has 99.5% transmittance, but I don't think they've beat physics. If they had, that would be the headline and the sapphire and Gorilla Glass would be an afterthought.

 

[ahsanford]

Anyway, we'll see if their product will perform but so far I will prob stick w/ B+W who are tried-and-true.

Agree. My B+W are reliable, exceptionally well-built, and do not induce any weird color shifts. That's all I use for my threaded filters. Lee's got my business for the 4x4 / 4x6 ones.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Anyway, we'll see if their product will perform but so far I will prob stick w/ B+W who are tried-and-true.

Agree. My B+W are reliable, exceptionally well-built, and do not induce any weird color shifts. That's all I use for my threaded filters. Lee's got my business for the 4x4 / 4x6 ones.

+1 (although Singh-Ray also for the rectangular format)

 

[Maximilian]

Sounds promissing. Let's see what they're able to deliver...

 

[davidcl0nel]

No light loss for a polarizer???

Well, maybe if you send polarized light trough the exactly polarized filter, there will be not much loss.
But of course you will filter out much other (unpolarized) light.... thats why you use it.

Useless figure... but good for marketing.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I must have 24 or more filters in my parts box, probably more. Many are B&W, but I seldom use them any more. The thought of a new UV filter doesn't get me horribly interested.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the Endura Circular PL really has 99.5% transmittance, it will be a crazy huge hit. No light loss for a polarizer???

Imagine a world where people would leave their CPL on all the time, even indoors. Sorry, I'm not seeing / believing it.

- A

I think they meant that the glass in the CPL has 99.5% transmittance, but I don't think they've beat physics. If they had, that would be the headline and the sapphire and Gorilla Glass would be an afterthought.

exactly

It's literally not possible for it to let 99.5% of incoming light through and still be doing anything beyond what a clear filter would ;D (and yes you could put it in a scenario where the only light existing was polarized so it would go right through how the filter was set and placed, but again, that would do nothing more than a clear filter would so the fact it that it wouldn't ever be able to do anything more than a clear filter would). I'm sure they mean just that the glass in it has 99.5% transmittance, ignoring all the polarizing effect part of it.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

to block out glare (look up Brewster's angle), this can make, for instance, leaves/fall foliage look more rich

to make the sky a deeper blue and make clouds pop out more

to cut through reflections and see through water and glass without as much surface reflection

the first and last above you can't make up for in post-processing and the second would be tricky and cause some damage to image quality and you still couldn't really quite match it anyway

 

[LarryC]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

to block out glare (look up Brewster's angle), this can make, for instance, leaves/fall foliage look more rich

to make the sky a deeper blue and make clouds pop out more

to cut through reflections and see through water and glass without as much surface reflection

the first and last above you can't make up for in post-processing and the second would be tricky and cause some damage to image quality and you still couldn't really quite match it anyway

Are you sure you're not referring to CLP and not UV filters? I've not heard of UV filters making the sky bluer and I've tested my lenses with and without the UV filter to confirm the manufacturers' claims, and cannot detect a difference?

 

[Joe M]

You'll have to do something truly unheard of to pry my B&W filters off of my lenses. I think having affordable quality options for various products great for consumers but they will be a little late out of the gate for me. And with so many quality options already out there, this company will have to do some serious promotion to gather up some sales.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I've seen various completely wrong statements about the 'filter factor' for polarising filters, from much more established manufacturers who you would think would know better. Presumably it's due to marketing/creative people not referring back to the technical people.

Great marketing idea to use Gorilla glass and sapphire glass. Now the filter you don't need will at least last longer.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

to block out glare (look up Brewster's angle), this can make, for instance, leaves/fall foliage look more rich

to make the sky a deeper blue and make clouds pop out more

to cut through reflections and see through water and glass without as much surface reflection

the first and last above you can't make up for in post-processing and the second would be tricky and cause some damage to image quality and you still couldn't really quite match it anyway

Aren't you talking about CPLs and not UV filters?

 

[Yeayea]

Thanks but I think I'll stick with my Lee filters. Tried and true.