Atomic Venom ARC mask: Initial impressions

[msinc]

.........To me, that is not a proper ARC. I don't think an ARC should have any kind of tint. If you can see that it is changing the color of the light, then that means it is reducing the amount of transmitted light, at least in some part of the spectrum. If the outside is reflecting some color back to the outside viewer, then that is visible light that is reflecting instead of letting it pass through to your eye. I.e. reduced transmission of light to the diver.

I would not want a tint that is reducing the visible light transmitted through the lens and into my eyes................

I get what you are saying here and I agree, except that sometimes, depending on the coating and I have to say it don't make sense and I don't know how it works, but you can actually see what seems like brighter colors and more light. Consider the TUSA Paragon mask, it has a sort of dark blue reflective coating on the outside of the lenses, which by all accounts should really cut down the amount of light coming thru, just as you say....but the glass inside has a amber, that is to say looking thru it from the inside, almost bright yellowish tint that makes things appear way brighter to your eye than they are in the ambient light.....if all that makes sense.
Someone else remarked on this thread about how tint {of any kind} has to cut down the amount of light that gets thru, but I am saying that when you put on the Paragon mask and go under the surface, everything appears brighter.
The bad part is that while under water you cant just swap masks fast enough to see the difference quickly like you can for example with sunglasses out of the water. Having both masks I can say that the Paragon definitely makes things appear brighter and clearer as opposed to clear masks. Here is me and my son Jack last month in the Keys...Molasses reef:

 

[stuartv]

I get what you are saying here and I agree, except that sometimes, depending on the coating and I have to say it don't make sense and I don't know how it works, but you can actually see what seems like brighter colors and more light.

I think DGX is kind of explaining what you're saying here:

DGX Ultra View Anti-Reflective Mask

My interpretation is that it's kind of like in audio where you can cut, for example, some low frequency bands (to eliminate what we call, in technical terms, "mud" LOL) and the result is that you can hear the music better. You didn't turn anything else up. You just eliminated "noise". Yet you can still hear it "better".

With this coating you're talking about, and based on the explanation on the DGX page, it seems like maybe the coating is eliminating frequencies of light that, essentially, bounce around inside your eyeball and create what we might call "internal glare"? Making it easier to see what is left.

I still have to wonder if the result doesn't involve having your pupil dilated just slightly more to compensate. So, you can pick out details better, but only up to a certain point. I.e. the point where the overall light available is just too dim. At that point, your pupil can't dilate any more. You're taking in as much light as you can. So, does a coating that filters out a visible frequency still help at that point? Or does it hurt? Or make no difference either way?

And it's still not what I would call "anti-reflective".

 

[msinc]

I think DGX is kind of explaining what you're saying here:

DGX Ultra View Anti-Reflective Mask

My interpretation is that it's kind of like in audio where you can cut, for example, some low frequency bands (to eliminate what we call, in technical terms, "mud" LOL) and the result is that you can hear the music better. You didn't turn anything else up. You just eliminated "noise". Yet you can still hear it "better".

With this coating you're talking about, and based on the explanation on the DGX page, it seems like maybe the coating is eliminating frequencies of light that, essentially, bounce around inside your eyeball and create what we might call "internal glare"? Making it easier to see what is left.

I still have to wonder if the result doesn't involve having your pupil dilated just slightly more to compensate. So, you can pick out details better, but only up to a certain point. I.e. the point where the overall light available is just too dim. At that point, your pupil can't dilate any more. You're taking in as much light as you can. So, does a coating that filters out a visible frequency still help at that point? Or does it hurt? Or make no difference either way?

And it's still not what I would call "anti-reflective".

"so does the coating still help at that point???" yeah. I understand completely and I have to say yes it does, or at least yes it can, if it's the right coating and up to a point of course. You will reach a point where there is just not enough ambient light to see anymore, but that will be way past the time to turn on a dive light.
I say this because of my use of rifle scopes in poor ambient light. To explain, many game animals begin to move and get active during the last half hour of daylight or immediately after sun up. Rifle scopes used for hunting have the same coatings and they cause ambient light to appear brighter and in this scenario you would be surprised at what they allow you to see. In example, the best German optics will not only allow you to see a deer that you otherwise could not, but you can most likely count how many points on his antlers!
Not surprisingly, the "best" most advanced rifle scope optics are also made with Schott glass, just like the Venom mask. Forgive me if you already know all this stuff, but optical grade glass is chemically no different than the clear glass you might drink out of or the window panes in your house, it has just had all or at least as much of the impurities removed. The coatings further cause your eye to "perceive" more light or enhanced light thru the scope. Coatings on your mask do the same thing.
I have seen it written that each lens in a given optic will allow only 96.4% light to pass thru, the rest is lost in the glass or reflected out. Coatings allow your eye to see more and "trick" so to speak your eyes into seeing what appears to be actually more light that what is available to the naked eye. It is no different with a special coated and optical grade glass dive mask. Hope I haven't confused you too much!!

Edit: some folks might suggest that it's the magnification of a rifle scope that allows you to see better, but this is not the case. Magnification always degrades or costs resolution, so while we might need to see up closer, magnification is the nemesis of resolution.
As far as impurities are concerned, we've all seen the edges of plain old glass when broken...it appears green. Break the glass in a Venom with the highest grade optical Schott glass and you will see no green tint. It appears as clear as water...distilled water, because it has had all the impurities removed.

 

[Graeme Fraser]

I have had a Venom coming up on 3 years now. I cleaned it a lot to get it to stop fogging, It was pretty bad at first. In fact, I had to keep a little water in the mask so I could slosh it around to get rid of the fog. The one thing I have found with this mask, and I don't know if it is "by design" or a "by product" of very soft skirt silicon masks...but this one is very picky about how you adjust the strap. It has to be dead on just right or the mask leaks. Nothing bad, but it is there. If I have it the slightest bit too tight or very slightly loose at all it will leak. Nothing bad, but enough that you know it. Also, I cant wear a snorkel attached or it will leak. That's how picky about adjustment this thing is. Maybe it's just me.
Once adjusted, it's like you are not even wearing a mask. The problem comes in when you get it dead on and go from, for example, a shore dive or anytime you are getting in the water easy, no problem. Go to a boat dive where you are doing a giant stride and dropping 3-4 feet into the water and it gets unseated some, even if you hold on. Not a big deal, you just have to readjust seat and clear once under.
My son and I both have one as well as the TUSA Paragon and we have no trouble communicating underwater. As far as the coatings, not an issue, they seem to make things brighter underwater, but I can take it or leave it. We had zero problems with the Paragon leaking, but I know others that did to the point they abandoned it. I will say that if the Venom fits your face you will be hard pressed to find a more comfortable mask to dive in.

I've had exactly the same persistent fogging and occasional leaking issues with my Venom. If it wasn't so bl**dy expensive I probably would have ditched it by now. That said, it is very comfortable and offers good clarity as long as I shampoo it before every dive.

 

[jgttrey]

Yup. This thread motivated me to try my Venom, again, in the pool the other day while my daughter was taking a class. No better than I had recalled.

It just kills me that it doesn't fit well, particularly since I really don't have a "challenging" face. The quality is great but while many masks work for 75% of folks, this one is more like 25%. I haven't figured out what it is about their faces that makes it okay for them, but it does seem like Atomic has built a very nice mask, but one that fits a smaller subset of divers than its competition.

I do find the ARC helps a bit in certain environments -- sunny shallow reef dives in particular. Good where it's bright with glare and reflections. Not huge, but something.

For me, that's the only time I'll use it and only OC. It's a complete non-starter for any rebreather dive since I loose enough gas through it that it messes with my loop volume. So, yes, it is a very expensive paperweight most of the time.

 

[scrane]

It seems we have two very different definitions of ARC being thrown around here. One as ARC preventing reflections and improving transmittance, and another as filtering certain wavelengths and thus decreasing transmittance and giving a color cast.

 

[stuartv]

It seems we have two very different definitions of ARC being thrown around here. One as ARC preventing reflections and improving transmittance, and another as filtering certain wavelengths and thus decreasing transmittance and giving a color cast.

Yes. But what do you think Anti Reflective Coating *should* mean?

 

[Diver below 83]

Here’s a link that describes the Seadive Arc system and explains how it lets in near 100% of light

SeaDive Masks

I have specifically the ray blocker version

“
RayBlocker-HD
RayBlocker-HD coatings allow almost 100% light passage which provides higher definition (HD) vision underwater.

Light entering the lens is refined by Sharper Image Technology, a RayBlocker exclusive, for a brighter, sharper image.

Reduces harmful UV rays and glare.

Inside coating is a blue tint that reduces eye strain for very comfortable viewing.”

 

[scrane]

Yes. But what do you think Anti Reflective Coating *should* mean?

In this instance as the acronym would indicate and Atomic describes it: minimum reflection and maximum transmittance across the visible spectrum. Minimal color cast.