Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Merits of vision in presence of light scattering using Tiffen ProMist filters

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference paperResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Light scattering caused by Tiffen ProMist photographic filters of various grades at different laser radiation 640 nm, 532 nm and 405 nm was objectively studied and compared. The lack of removal of speckles from the scene of laser radiation scattering did not allow an accurate assessment of the effect of scattering on the decrease in image contrast. Subjective deterioration in visual acuity using various contrast optotypes and contrast sensitivity was assessed by scattering induction using filters up to grade #5. Vision contrast sensitivity diminishes within all studied spatial frequency range 0.5-18 cpd. The degradation of the impact factor to visual acuity without scattering filters when the contrast of the optotype was reduced from 100% to 12.5% for optotypes with black-white letters was up to 30%, which was similar to the level of degradation (25% for a #5 degree filter) from scattering caused by filters modeling cataracts.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationOptics in Health Care and Biomedical Optics X, 11-16 October 2020 Online Only, China
EditorsQingming Luo, Xingde Li, Ying Gu, Dan Zhu
Place of PublicationBellingham
PublisherSPIE
ISBN (Print)9781510639218
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Publication series

NameProceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
Volume11553
ISSN (Print)0277-786X
ISSN (Electronic)1996-756X

Keywords

  • Cataract
  • Contrast sensitivity
  • Image formation
  • Laser radiation scattering
  • Ocular scattering
  • Point spread function
  • ProMist filters
  • Visual acuity

OECD Field of Science

  • 1.3 Physical Sciences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Merits of vision in presence of light scattering using Tiffen ProMist filters'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this