• Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content!

    Register Today

    Join the largest Oakley Forum on the web!

Shallow water polarized?

I thought I was going get some in Rx Flak 2.0 xl but they don’t make them yet. I settled for the Jade Prizm Rx.
 
Isn’t it amazing that when you first put on a pair of Oakley’s with crazy tints that your eyes adjust and it seem normal after a while?
Doesn't seem that crazy when you consider how our eyes adjust to a crazy variety of lighting from absolutely horrible old style street lighting (some kind of deep 2000K halogen?) to the greens and such of fluorescents, to other mixes of lighting conditions. Plus how we perceive times of the day such as golden hour versus middle of a cloudless day to the deep blue dusk just after sunset. Once we see an environment and can perceive something white, we just kind of figure it out.

I do love how prizm works though, in making things "pop" it's actually just reducing the transmission of wavelengths not to be popped, and the colors that have emphasis to allow more of it in. And our eyes/brain just pops it from there.

PS: I have SWP in some Holbrook XL as well as Prizm Trail in another Holbrook XL. If I'm driving (the windows on my car already adds a slight green I didn't notice until wearing sunglasses), and I switch from the Trail lens after a while to the SWP, it'll seem like it's much greener.

Though I am curious about Tungsten if it's the same base. Like is it the base that makes the tint/color perception, and is the front coating just reflecting light for effect (darkening, reflective color) without any change on color perception? Since I would love to know if something like the new Rose Gold is going to give me the same visual behind the lens as say the Tungsten or SWP.


Btw if desired, I could use my higher end camera to take some test shots, without a filter, then behind the lens, shot in RAW format so it can be adjusted for white balance for a comparison... if I only I had Prizm Tungsten to compare to.
 
here's a list I put together the last couple weeks to answer some of these questions I've had of my own. w light transmission and base lens color

oakley shades.JPG
 
Btw if desired, I could use my higher end camera to take some test shots, without a filter, then behind the lens, shot in RAW format so it can be adjusted for white balance for a comparison... if I only I had Prizm Tungsten to compare to.
If you can take these shots and fix the white balance please do. I’ve tried a few times to take photos through the lens with my smartphone but somehow the colors don’t appear accurate on the photos. I couldn’t figure out what caused this but it could be that my phone messes with the white balance. If you can fix the white balance with your high end camera this is a great idea to create photos with accurate prizm colors👍
 
If you can take these shots and fix the white balance please do. I’ve tried a few times to take photos through the lens with my smartphone but somehow the colors don’t appear accurate on the photos. I couldn’t figure out what caused this but it could be that my phone messes with the white balance. If you can fix the white balance with your high end camera this is a great idea to create photos with accurate prizm colors👍
Btw today is a rainy day, and outside of my window is mostly just green and a beige apartment building, so an example of that wouldn't do any real justice.

So as a compromise for now, I've gathered some various color items particularly of brighter reds, orange, blues, greens, etc such as my fountain pens, some product packaging, etc. So that may show better the difference in color between lens.

Camera setting remains at 1/250, f/5.6, ISO 200, Focus locked on the center pen, and remains unchanged from base shot, camera remained on a tripod.

The only adjustments between shots are :
  • White Balance (pulled off the top left of the Paczki box for each photo)
  • Exposure (by adjusting flash output for identical exposure, camera settings remain the same)
  • +15 contrast to just the Prizm lens to bring them up to same as base/CPL since we want to compare color change, not contrast change. Any contrast difference between SWP and Trail will still be visible.
Considering that focus was not readjusted, the Prizm lens do very well optically speaking and there is reduction in resolution with the Prizm lens held in front, but it's extremely minor and very good considering they're not glass optics.

In order to avoid back glare, I popped the lens out of my Holbrook and held it close to the front of my camera lens, using my hand to help cup light from getting in from the side.

There is an exposure difference between lens of course. 1 EV is 1 stop of light or exposure value, if it's -1EV that's half the brightness, +1 twice the amount of light getting in, likewise +2 would be four times as much light, and -2 being a quarter of the light getting in.

The shot order :
  • Base (no filter at all in front of the lens) 0 EV
  • With a Breakthrough Photography X4 Circular Polarizer (for polarized reference) -1 EV (half the light)
  • With the SWP thru the back (as we see them) and in the same orientation as mounted in the frames. -3 EV from base (8 times less light)
  • With the Trail thru the back. -2.3 EV from base (~4 to 5 times less light)

What you may find interesting, is that the red of the Paczki box and memo pad eventually looks like the same orange as the Reese's Pieces box, just darker. This isn't particularly surprising considering that both the SWP and Trail lens are designed to let in more red/brown light to make those stand out more. In person this causes a heavy pop of things like hunter orange, red stop signs (and cherry red trucks), and fluorescent pink really pops too. But blues, greens, etc get muted. It looks weirder in a photo, but oddly gets adjusted in person.

The color tweaks that their dyes do also seems to be pretty narrow to specific wavelengths. As mentioned before, it's not altering every broad hue of what we would perceive as red or orange, but mainly just in particular areas. Likewise it's not reducing the light reduction of a broad swatch of colors, but just in peaks of certain wavelengths. This is probably what helps give it that 'pop' without making the entire scene itself seem weird.

Regarding the measured white balance. Base and CPL usage are at 5500K +8 Tint (The Breakthrough X4 is designed to be as neutral as possible), SWP ended up being 2400K -16 Tint, and Trail at 2100K -32 Tint. To give you an idea of what our eyes get use to, between 5200K to 6500K is roughly warm to cool daylight, 2600K to 3200K is your typical 'warm white' light bulb. But our light bulbs don't typically target specific color wavelengths like Prizm does (GE Reveal bulbs are the closest thing I can think of that attempts to do something similar, while the base appears to stay at a warm white).

When it's a decent day out, I'll go out and re-do it in more real-world settings.

It'd be nice if Oakley had a set of Prizm lens cut into like maybe a set of 37mm or 52mm camera filters, just to get a look at that effect.

Pens_Base.jpg


Pens_CPL.jpg


Pens_SWP.jpg


Pens_Trail.jpg
 
Yeah I agree. They said that they'll eventually release the Prizm Daily Polarized lenses in Rx, but I have yet to see those...
I wonder when ‘eventually’ will be? Prizm daily polarized has been around for 6 years now.
 
Yeah I agree. They said that they'll eventually release the Prizm Daily Polarized lenses in Rx, but I have yet to see those...
I’m already in the process of trying to get all Rx in the Prizm available. so another 6 years…. Does Oakley really understand there are those of us who would go crazy if they would allow us to get Rx in all Prizms.
 
Back
Top