$6 Diffusing Tape vs. $100 Veil Reflection/Night Shot Images

Come on!

As an example, I asked for the spectral response of Veil. You do not publish this information, but IMO you should. And, you didn't answer.

Now I'm just a newbie who wants technical specs. RD manufacturers list the frequency range of their detection.

Veil is doing something SIMPLE: "blocking IR at 904nm" We can compare products easily if we have their spectral response. It's not like a RD that has algorithms, processing, etc. so sensitivity alone can't be used.

This is not bashing your product. I have seen the spectral response of quite a few 3M Tints, and I want to compare Veil with it. This is unbiased comparison.

FWIW, the new 3M Prestige ceramic tints claim 69% visible light transmission, and 97% IR rejection. Prestige is much better than their previous tints in this regard. I haven't seen the spectral response though, to see how is the performance at 904nm.

thanks stealth, I have taken care of the problem.....doh :(

Anyways, the only reason I think veil works is because it acts as a black body diffusing IR, while I had access to the IR camera Veil was dark when the red IR was turned on but my guess is that its because the Veil is so dark it acts like a black body, if u paint it with brown paint u would get the same affect.

The only reason I did some photos with the diffusing tape was because I had Veil adhesion problems with the glass headlights, it was a fluke that the tape had other benefits.

I have looked at the other tints, Formula One Pinnacle, Huper Optik and of course 3m Prestige all these tints claim good light transmission but the pictures say otherwise, it would be too noticible.......I am looking for a clear solution period.

Here arepics with the ceramic tints, they all are similar, Formula One Pinnacle 35% (source:Bimmer Boards user-praiecurvo)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...z/P1030219.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...z/P1030218.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...z/P1030217.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...z/P1030214.jpg

I couldn't get away with putting that film on the license plate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onefastzx9r

Anyways, the only reason I think veil works is because it acts as a black body diffusing IR, while I had access to the IR camera Veil was dark when the red IR was turned on but my guess is that its because the Veil is so dark it acts like a black body, if u paint it with brown paint u would get the same affect.

---

Well, we all know that laser shield is just a piece of matte plastic. However, it does it's job very well.

I am not sure of veil, so I wanted to see their spectral response.

VG, actually I don't have much doubt at all, and will be betting my money on it soon. But I never believe just opinion in forums (where mass ignorance often leads opinon the wrong way), and especially out of a manufacturer or retailer's mouth (where it is of course in their best interest to show their product better). So I collect all information, try to form my own objective information, and if I decide to purchase the product, find a way to test it to prove to myself if it is worth it. I then recycle that testing info to the public so they can include that in their own objective decisions.

And as for the V1 bars, I had first thought of doing similar and did buy the needed LEDs for it, howevermy eyes are already used to ignoring red (for X, and mode) so that should only be used in the lowest of bars. If you really think about it, it's more the 3rd or 4th bar that makes the signal more important, and that is where it should change to a more noticable color..but as it still hits that often shouldn't overpower the blue or white of the band indication. Maybe orange, but that might not be very descernable from read. There's a lot to think about with that stuff! :) It IS too bad that V1 hasn't done that, but thankfully it is realtively easy to do yourself and you are only gambling with a $40 accessory.

ahmadr, I too would liek to see the spectral response, but there are always reasons why a company might want to keep those details secret. And then...do you trust it coming from a manufacturer anyway? I do wish the GOL did more in-depth technical testing with veil.
And as for that tint, perhaps it is easy to block 10x more IR when you are blocking 67% of visible light. But veil goes over headlights and it would be detrimental if it blocked that much visible light. For all we know blocking 10x IR might be much hard when you are only allowing youself to block say 20% visible.

I wish I had a lab to measure all this stuff :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmadr

Come on!

As an example, I asked for the spectral response of Veil. You do not publish this information, but IMO you should. And, you didn't answer.

Now I'm just a newbie who wants technical specs. RD manufacturers list the frequency range of their detection.

Veil is doing something SIMPLE: "blocking IR at 904nm" We can compare products easily if we have their spectral response. It's not like a RD that has algorithms, processing, etc. so sensitivity alone can't be used.

This is not bashing your product. I have seen the spectral response of quite a few 3M Tints, and I want to compare Veil with it. This is unbiased comparison.

FWIW, the new 3M Prestige ceramic tints claim 69% visible light transmission, and 97% IR rejection. This is a 10:1 IR vs. visible light blocking ratio. Prestige is much better than their previous tints in this regard. I haven't seen the spectral response though, to see how is the performance at 904nm.

---

Just exactly what are you a newbie to?? The RD NET board??
You are not asking "newbie" questions.

The Veil guy is a great guy, who is very responsive to any "reasonable" question. If you have a problem he is more than happy to help.

I don't expect him to give away trade secrets. There are too many wolves in sheeps clothing crusing around this board in general.

onefastzx9r has in my opinion started this thread as a passive aggressive attempt to discredit Veil. This is not constructive.

If 3M tape works, then that's great. This thread belongs in the "other counter measures" section of RD.Net, not here.

At this point this thread should be locked or deleted :!:
Please feel free to disagree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jwardell

And as for that tint, perhaps it is easy to block 10x more IR when you are blocking 67% of visible light. But veil goes over headlights and it would be detrimental if it blocked that much visible light. For all we know blocking 10x IR might be much hard when you are only allowing youself to block say 20% visible.

I wish I had a lab to measure all this stuff :)

---

3m prestige 70 only passes 69% of visible light. Only a 31% reduction in visible light. And only 3% IR energy passes!

I wouldn't be pleased with a 30% reduction though, so it's a no-no for me. But from pictures, Veil is doing similar. If veil blocked 90% of IR but only 10% of visible light, I would go for it!

http://www.3m.com/us/arch_construct/.../products.html

Also, I would more easily believe a spectral response, even if it is just for average visible spectrum and 904nm, than general claims that can be achieved (to an *unknown* extent) with black paint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mthman30

onefastzx9r has in my opinion started this thread as a passive aggressive attempt to discredit Veil. This is not constructive.

---

^ This I disagree with - it looks as if his posts do prove that VEIL does indeed work as-advertised...he's not hiding anything at all.

If that's a way to try to discredit VEIL, then it's a funny (and self-defeating) way to go about doing so.....

If memory serves, he started this thread only as VEIL wouldn't properly stick to his headlamp lens, and he tried then to apply VEIL to the tape - and later branched-out on this independent set of thoughts.

And quite frankly, he'd PM'ed me about purchasing my as-yet un-used canister of VEIL quite a few weeks ago - and when I told him that I was keeping mine to apply on a selective basis (i.e. when I head out on long trips, as I will be doing to my rental SUV this coming week), he readily and rapidly placed an order, through Roy, if I recall correctly, to get his own can.

If anything, he was really looking forward to his VEIL.

Quote:

---

If 3M tape works, then that's great. This thread belongs in the "other counter measures" section of RD.Net, not here.

At this point this thread should be locked or deleted :!:
Please feel free to disagree with me.

---

^ I do agree that this thread should indeed be moved.

It definitely should not be deleted, though.

I really think that the diffusing tape, even if it is less effective than either VEIL or LaserShield, should remain a viable piece of our passive-protection arsenal.

There are many here who, like onefastzx9r, may choose to VEIL his headlights but not his plates - nor are able to use LaserShield - due to the extent of local laws and the knowledge of local enforcers.

The key to passive protection, as The Veil Guy has repeatedly pointed out, is the synergy of its various components - both with other passive measures as well as, when possible, active countermeasures.

VEIL is a valid and proven effective part of this arsenal, but just as no active jammer is perfect ( well, at least not at the moment :lol: ), VEIL, too, has its compromises, and I think that this thread points out effective means by which us, the common hobbyist/enthusiast, can use to supplement not only VEIL, but even our active protection measures.

I quickly removed my claim of 10:1 rejection ratio, but not quick enough. I deleted it because I didn't want to fall into the game of numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jwardell

And as for that tint, perhaps it is easy to block 10x more IR when you are blocking 67% of visible light. But veil goes over headlights and it would be detrimental if it blocked that much visible light. For all we know blocking 10x IR might be much hard when you are only allowing youself to block say 20% visible.

---

True. That's why you have to look at the Log of the passed through light.

.69 visible light passed -> -1.6 dB
.03 IR passed -> -15.2 db

15.2 / 9.6 = 9.5 (:1)

Now, for example if you had 2 layers, you would have

.69^2 (= .48 ) visible light passed -> 2x-1.6 = -3.2dB
.03^2 (= .0009) IR passed -> 2x-15.2 = -30.4db

still, 30.4 / 19.2 = 9.5 (:1)

Quote:

---

Just exactly what are you a newbie to?? The RD NET board??
You are not asking "newbie" questions.

The Veil guy is a great guy, who is very responsive to any "reasonable" question. If you have a problem he is more than happy to help.

I don't expect him to give away trade secrets. There are too many wolves in sheeps clothing crusing around this board in general.

onefastzx9r has in my opinion started this thread as a passive aggressive attempt to discredit Veil. This is not constructive.

If 3M tape works, then that's great. This thread belongs in the "other counter measures" section of RD.Net, not here.

At this point this thread should be locked or deleted :!:
Please feel free to disagree with me.

---

I disagree, I am only looking at a solution for the plates, I have Veil on my headlights over the diffusing tape because it wouldn't take to aged glass, I needed a quick solution for the adhesion problems and I found it, hopefully my thread will motivate Veil guys to produce a clear version.

Someone give me a quick lesson on what we're trying to accomplish here, when the laser gun beam hits an object it reflects back? what kind of materials would be used for it to not reflect back? I've done a few searches and what I've learned if polyester film should do that which is what the clear duct tape is made of, perhaps a different grade.

Are we trying to reject long wavelengths (IR) but transmit short wavelengths (visible)?

sorry I was never good at optics