Would this film work against LIDAR?

[kl]

While looking for window tint material, I came across this 3M Crystalline film Automotive

The 70% version of the film is almost clear, very lttle hint it is tinted.

Noticed the spec for the film says 97% IR rejection in the 900-1,000 nanometer range, isn't LIDAR typically at 950 nm if memory serves me correct?

I'm curious if applying this film to the backside of a Lexan licence pate protection shield would help reducing the LIDAR signature by not allowing the LIDAR beam to hit the (often) retroreflective paint on the plate thereby minimizing the return signature?

As well, if the plate is also angled downward somewhat, then the refection from the tint will direct the energy towards the ground, potentially further reducing the IR return.

Any thoughts?

[v1user]

While looking for window tint material, I came across this 3M Crystalline film Automotive

The 70% version of the film is almost clear, very lttle hint it is tinted.

Noticed the spec for the film says 97% IR rejection in the 900-1,000 nanometer range, isn't LIDAR typically at 950 nm if memory serves me correct?

I'm curious if applying this film to the backside of a Lexan licence pate protection shield would help reducing the LIDAR signature by not allowing the LIDAR beam to hit the (often) retroreflective paint on the plate thereby minimizing the return signature?

As well, if the plate is also angled downward somewhat, then the refection from the tint will direct the energy towards the ground, potentially further reducing the IR return.

Any thoughts?

I think if you have a jammer it would help a lot, but the general consensus on here is: if you don't have a jammer passive counter measures don't do much for lidar. BTW lidar is 904 nm +-1. I don't think the film would hurt it though.

I have seen in other threads where the angle of the plate has no effect on of the direction the light reflects.

[Stealth Stalker]

^ Agreed on all points. Without a jammer, even having no plate at all doesn't make a difference. And with a good jammer, it isn't necessary. If you have a jammer that gives up ≈ 500 foot punchthroughs, suppressing your front plate can help, but even then you're still left with a headlight vulnerability.

It would certainly be interesting to test this out alongside the Laser Shield, Veiled plate cover, CrapPlt, and paper plate for some perspective. Options are good. And it might come out a little cheaper than a Laser Shield, at twenty-bucks a pop.

[Zapple]

I think it would make it worse for LIDAR. It rejects IR light (to keep it out of your car) which means it will bounce off and reflect off of it.

[v1user]

I think it would make it worse for LIDAR. It rejects IR light (to keep it out of your car) which means it will bounce off and reflect off of it.

I think Zapple has a good point, but it will protect your plate from getting skin cancer.

[Eloi]

'' I think it would make it worse for LIDAR. It rejects IR light (to keep it out of your car) which means it will bounce off and reflect off of it. ''


Very logic ....

[Won Hunglo]

Only one thing to do. Buy some & test it.

[Zapple]

Only one thing to do. Buy some & test it.

But it doesn't absorb it it reflects it!

[Stealth Stalker]

But it doesn't absorb it it reflects it!

I'm not sure that "reflects" and "rejects" are technically the same thing.

[Zapple]

But it doesn't absorb it it reflects it!

I'm not sure that "reflects" and "rejects" are technically the same thing.

Well it is tint for cars, so if it rejects the light and it doesn't go into the car either I have no idea where the light goes.

I don't have experience with the stuff, just saying what I think.