Vard Opticoat, what is it?

[Helge]

Many have probably read about Gregg Tolands use of Vard Opticoat, for the lenses that filmed Citizen Kane, and I presume other contemporary pictures.

It’s supposed to have been a forerunner for regular coatings that became widespread after the Second World War.

My question now is: What actually was this substance, and how was it made, and from what?
Not only is it of historical interest, it could also be a neat thing to apply to various optical surfaces, as a kind of budget coating, that is, if it is actually possible to make it yourself.

 

[AgX]

I think you are on a wrong track. That "Vard Opticoat" I only find referred to in film-historic publications, but not in optics ones. I very much doubt there ever was an easy to apply potion to result in an AR-coating.

AR reflection layer first was achieved by etching glass, but later one went over to evaporation of anorganic substanced which then again condensed on the optical element put in such evaporation chamber.

 

[btaylor]

In the brief googling I did it sounds like Vard Opticoat was an industrial process that Toland had applied to the lenses he used. Like the fixed apertures he used I suspect these types of modifications were done by optical technicians at the time.

 

[Helge]

In the brief googling I did it sounds like Vard Opticoat was an industrial process that Toland had applied to the lenses he used. Like the fixed apertures he used I suspect these types of modifications were done by optical technicians at the time.

Yeah, that’s just the casual googling anyone casually interested will have done.
But it seems everyone is just quoting or paraphrasing the same source.

I’d like to know the details.
Who, how and when.

 

[Helge]

I think you are on a wrong track. That "Vard Opticoat" I only find referred to in film-historic publications, but not in optics ones. I very much doubt there ever was an easy to apply potion to result in an AR-coating.

AR reflection layer first was achieved by etching glass, but later one went over to evaporation of anorganic substanced which then again condensed on the optical element put in such evaporation chamber.

So, you are saying they are making the stuff up?
Seems unlikely.

The idea of AR coating is quite a bit older than the final popular implementation, and the variations on it since.

It would be weird if someone hadn’t made some attempts at it before.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Seems to me there were attempts to artificially coat glass to emulate the anti-flare effects of a light oxidation haze as early as the mid-1930s. The principal (impedance matching) was well known from before 1920, as an electronic desideratum that came out of early radio. Didn't become commercially viable until after the War, though, as far as I know.

 

[AgX]

So, you are saying they are making the stuff up?
Seems unlikely.

I am not saying that. But instead I mean the lens elemente were treated in one of the processes applied and accessible at that time. And for some reason that name found its way into the world of movie historics but seemingly not elsehere.
And there was a firm called Vard Inc. busy in that period with optics. Also you will find hints at US publications (even by Vard themselves) from that time on AR layers, you might study, in case you get acces to them.

But to my understanding you got the idea that there once was a certain treatment (just like a potion) that one just has to dig up again to treat oneself ones lenses with.
However you got no idea, as myself, what kind of technique was applied. But nevertheless I doubt that there ever was a process so easy to apply.
But you might investigate at the findings of Raleigh.

 

[Helge]

Ok, you are all probably right.
It just seems to me that the likelihood of it being a vacuum evaporative technique would be low considering the latency of it reaching the lower more price conscious parts of the market.

 

[AgX]

As btaylor above I assumed it was an industrial or at least optical-workshop treatment. The fact that there was an optical firm of the name Vard further hints at this. And I assume that after the war they gave their process a trade name, that later was related to the cine-lenses treated before the war, and more later taken up by historians, whereas otherweise seemingly it has not left traces.


and here the 2 publications I found:

No. 4852 and 4856

https://books.google.de/books?id=YJIrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=vard+optics&source=bl&ots=D9ugfJKcz6&sig=ACfU3U31UTsmZa5ih7-jjWB67pRtWgy8tA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic2bmxq8PqAhVJTcAKHXP7Cm8Q6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=vard optics&f=false

 

[reddesert]

Gregg Toland mentioned it in an article he wrote in Popular Photography, June 1941, "How I Broke the Rules in Citizen Kane." If you search for that title, you may find an uploaded copy of a reprint of the article.

Toland says: "The Vard "Opticoating" system developed at the California Institute of Technology, proved to be one factor in the eventual solution of our lighting problem. Being essentially a method of treating lens surfaces, Opticoating eliminates refraction, permits light to penetrate instead of scattering, and thus increases lens speed by as much as a full stop. Our coated lenses also permitted us to shoot directly into lights without anything like the dire results usually encountered."

It's undoubtedly a process like deposition, not a substance you paint on a lens.

The name "Vard" is not one I know associated with the optical scientists, astronomers, etc, at Caltech at the time, but it could be anybody, or perhaps not a person's name. There would certainly have been a lot of interest in coating optics from the astronomy side as well as cinematography, defense industry, etc.

 

[MattKing]

Note number 4858:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=YJ...3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=v a r d coating&f=false

 

[AgX]

All in the early 40's as technical successful described AR-techniques were of the coating type and to my understanding moreover of the vapour-condensation type.
This makes it likely that the Opticoat process was of this kind too.

 

[Helge]

Gregg Toland mentioned it in an article he wrote in Popular Photography, June 1941, "How I Broke the Rules in Citizen Kane." If you search for that title, you may find an uploaded copy of a reprint of the article.

Toland says: "The Vard "Opticoating" system developed at the California Institute of Technology, proved to be one factor in the eventual solution of our lighting problem. Being essentially a method of treating lens surfaces, Opticoating eliminates refraction, permits light to penetrate instead of scattering, and thus increases lens speed by as much as a full stop. Our coated lenses also permitted us to shoot directly into lights without anything like the dire results usually encountered."

It's undoubtedly a process like deposition, not a substance you paint on a lens.

The name "Vard" is not one I know associated with the optical scientists, astronomers, etc, at Caltech at the time, but it could be anybody, or perhaps not a person's name. There would certainly have been a lot of interest in coating optics from the astronomy side as well as cinematography, defense industry, etc.

What a wonderful article.
Seems to be the stem of most of unresearched braindead quotes on the subject.
One of the ending paragraphs is especially interesting:

“Style too often becomes deadly sameness. In my opinion, the day of highly stylized cinematography is passing, and is being superseded by a candid, realistic technique and an individual approach to each new film subject.”
​

Reminds me of Ansel Adams at about the same time speaking out vehemently against pictorialism, while at the same time doing something that can only be described as a version of pictorialism.
Gregg Tolands work is highly stylized and atmospheric too whether it’s B&W or colour.

Of course what they are really speaking out against, as Toland also mentions is not stylization as such, while advocation “realism” (whatever that is).
But rather objecting to cookie cutter stylization, forced on everything.
Stemming from the easy and convenient commercial notion that style is something to be lifted and reused.
Pretending style and technique is a separate entity to “content”.

Thanks goes out to you who wrote here.
While no definitive answers where given, you all gave some valuable clues to the answer.
That’s more than I could have hoped for.

Should anyone in the future find further stuff to add, don’t hesitate.

 

[guangong]

What a wonderful article.
Seems to be the stem of most of unresearched braindead quotes on the subject.
One of the ending paragraphs is interesting:

“Style too often becomes deadly sameness. In my opinion, the day of highly stylized cinematography is passing, and is being superseded by a candid, realistic technique and an individual approach to each new film subject.”
​

Reminds me of Ansel Adams at about the same time speaking out vehemently against pictorialism, while at the same time doing something that can only be described as a version of pictorialism.
Gregg Tolands work is highly stylized and atmospheric whether it’s B&W or colour.

Of course what they are really speaking out against, as Toland also mentions is not stylization as such, while advocation “realism” (whatever that is).
But rather protesting to cookie cutter stylization, forced on everything.
Stemming from the easy and convenient commercial notion that style is something to be lifted and reused.
Pretending style and technique is a separate entity to “content”.

Thanks goes out to you who wrote here.
While no definitive answers where given, you all gave some valuable clues to the answer.
That’s more than I could have hoped for.

Should anyone in the future find further stuff to add, don’t hesitate.

Helge, thanks for starting this thread. Very interesting and informative. Enjoyed everyone’s contribution. Great collection of knowledgeable folks.

 

[David Lindquist]

Gregg Toland mentioned it in an article he wrote in Popular Photography, June 1941, "How I Broke the Rules in Citizen Kane." If you search for that title, you may find an uploaded copy of a reprint of the article.

Toland says: "The Vard "Opticoating" system developed at the California Institute of Technology, proved to be one factor in the eventual solution of our lighting problem. Being essentially a method of treating lens surfaces, Opticoating eliminates refraction, permits light to penetrate instead of scattering, and thus increases lens speed by as much as a full stop. Our coated lenses also permitted us to shoot directly into lights without anything like the dire results usually encountered."

It's undoubtedly a process like deposition, not a substance you paint on a lens.

The name "Vard" is not one I know associated with the optical scientists, astronomers, etc, at Caltech at the time, but it could be anybody, or perhaps not a person's name. There would certainly have been a lot of interest in coating optics from the astronomy side as well as cinematography, defense industry, etc.

Thank you very much for this.

I wonder if "Opticoating eliminates refraction..." is mis-speaking/mis-typing and what was meant was "Opticoating eliminates reflection,,,"
David

 

[AgX]

Yes, of course. Either typo or... ignorance.

 

[Helge]

Yes, of course. Either typo or... ignorance.

I really doubt he was ignorant about the difference between refraction and reflection, esp. considering all else he knows.

When you get down to the murky detailed physics I doubt there really is a difference anyway.
But of course that is not what’s discussed here.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I really doubt he was ignorant about the difference between refraction and reflection, esp. considering all else he knows.

Very high likelihood, however, that someone transcribing the interview, editing the copy, or proofreading the article was just knowledgeable enough to know that "refraction" applies to lenses, but "reflection" normally doesn't -- but not knowledgeable enough to realize that in this case, "reflection" was in fact what was meant (and/or too pressed for time to confirm an uncertain word with the interviewee).

 

[reddesert]

It could be an editing error - coatings and the phrase "anti-reflection coating" were not common yet, so maybe someone at Popular Photography was unfamiliar. Or, it could have been a mental misphrasing. The way a (dielectric) coating works is that it has an index of refraction that is intermediate between the indexes of air and glass, so refraction is an integral part of the process.

Glad you all liked the article. It is certainly a good insight into Toland's process. They way I dug it up is that several of the academic papers about Citizen Kane, which you can find by searching on Toland, reference this article in the end-notes (yay for citations!). Google Books has scanned many back issues of Popular Photography, so I looked there, but they have very few issues from this far back. However, searching directly for the article found that it has been reprinted and someone uploaded it as reading for a class. I think the original article has pictures, which would be nice to see - someone could probably find it in a large city or research library collection.

 

[AgX]

Glad you all liked the article.

Which article ???

Do you mean this one?
http://faculty.sacredheart.edu/castonguayj/ms101reader/carringer.htm

 

[reddesert]

Gregg Toland mentioned it in an article he wrote in Popular Photography, June 1941, "How I Broke the Rules in Citizen Kane." If you search for that title, you may find an uploaded copy of a reprint of the article.

Which article ???

Do you mean this one?
http://faculty.sacredheart.edu/castonguayj/ms101reader/carringer.htm

No, as I said, if you search for "How I Broke the Rules in Citizen Kane," you should find a PDF copy of a reprint of the original Popular Photography article by Toland himself. I didn't post the link because it's obviously something that was uploaded for a class to read - it's a long complex link into a course management system, and Google makes it hard to copy the original link, plus I don't want to bring some obscure copyright police down on the teacher.

 

[AgX]

Did find it, I guess. At my last attempt with same phrase Google presented me a vast different listing....