1-day shipping on stock items3-year warranty minimumFree expert support from licensed P.E.sVolume discountsNet 30 for businesses
Configure a system
EN
EnglishDeutschFrançaisEspañolItalianoPortuguêsNederlandsSvenska日本語한국어简体中文
Quote
Home / Case studies / Polarizer-film defects in reflected stripes
Application study · Display and optical films

Polarizer-film defects: sharper reflected stripes reveal local distortion

Small surface changes are hard to see in a glossy, nearly featureless film. A striped light provides a pattern to inspect: local bends and interruptions in its reflection reveal where the surface changes.

Give a featureless surface a pattern to reflect.

  • Light-to-part (as tested)100 mm
  • Exposure (as tested)8,000 µs / 8 ms
  • ComparisonEarlier vs revised striped light
  • Housing (spec)140 × 140 × 11.5 mm
3D view of the inspection set-up: camera, lens, light and partDrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
3D illustration · real CAD where available

Camera and CAD lens geometry are published models where available. Light housings use printed dimensions; fixtures, parts, beam shapes and spacing illustrate the inspection principle. This is not an optical simulation or a dimensioned installation drawing.

Lighting application-lab image sheet

Evidence you can inspect

Visible in the images

The supplied comparison shows stronger stripe separation and local pattern distortion.

What the source reports

100 mm light-to-part distance and 8,000 µs exposure are printed on the test sheet.

How to use this evidence

The sheet does not report defect depth or a calibrated measurement capability.

What the camera saw

Cropped from the source test sheet; original test annotations are retained. Captures are not generated or enhanced. Drag the comparison slider or use the image buttons.

Earlier striped light: lower stripe contrast in this supplied capture; red boxes are the original test annotations.White LS-2LFM100: sharper reflected stripes and clearer local disturbances; red boxes are the original test annotations.Earlier striped lightRevised striped light
Earlier striped light: Earlier striped light: lower stripe contrast in this supplied capture; red boxes are the original test annotations.
Revised striped light: White LS-2LFM100: sharper reflected stripes and clearer local disturbances; red boxes are the original test annotations.
Polarizer film shown in the application sheet.
Polarizer film shown in the application sheet.

The challenge

A smooth polarizer film offers little natural texture. A crease or local surface change can remain subtle under an even white field.

An inspection based on reflected stripes needs the stripes themselves to be sharp and stable; blurred patterns make the surface harder to interpret.

How it was solved

The application sheet compares an earlier striped light with the white LS-2LFM100 at a light-to-part distance of 100 mm and an exposure of 8,000 µs. The revised image has clearer black-to-white stripe separation in the marked areas.

Use the reflected pattern as a reference. Local distortion is a candidate defect signal; confirm it using known good and known defective films before setting an acceptance threshold.

Why it works

  1. 1

    A smooth reflective region returns an orderly stripe pattern. A local change in slope shifts or bends that pattern.

  2. 2

    Sharper stripes make small changes easier to locate in the image. This is reflected-pattern inspection, rather than a direct height measurement.

  3. 3

    The two supplied captures demonstrate a lighting comparison. No calibrated depth, smallest defect size or production yield is stated.

From image contrast to a production decision

What to validate on your part

A useful sample image is the starting point. These are the checks that turn the concept into a defensible inspection.

  1. 01

    Stabilize the film

    Control tension, tilt and flutter so normal motion does not look like a defect.

  2. 02

    Keep the stripes resolved

    Test aperture, focus and sampling so adjacent stripes remain separate.

  3. 03

    Check the smallest reject

    Compare known creases and surface defects against acceptable film variation.

The set-up and the parts

Test lightLS-2LFM100, white
Light-to-part distance (test)100 mm
Exposure (test)8,000 µs (8 ms)
Camera and lensNot identified; proposed starting points below

"Tested" identifies the part named in the source. "Our pick" is a proposed alternative or supporting part. The quote includes only cards marked "In proposed setup", with the quantities shown; other test arrangements are separate. Confirm colour, optics, controllers, power supplies, cables and mounting before ordering.

About this case study: the photos and camera images come from the application laboratory of the maker of the lighting and optics we sell, imaged on the parts shown; your results depend on your part, camera and set-up. This is an application-lab study, not a LumaSpec customer deployment. Source figures are reported results; proposed components require a fresh trial. The 3D scene illustrates the arrangement and does not simulate imaging performance.

More case studies

Start with your inspection requirement

Make the next trial specific.

Tell us the part size, smallest defect or tolerance, available working distance, material and line speed. Include what a good part and a reject look like.

Discuss your applicationConfigure a system