do you need AR coating for a beam splitter film?

For a polarizer beam splitter film, to be used in an imaging application, if it can be laminated on an already AR coated glass or acrylic sheet, do you also need to have the non-laminated side of the polarizer film also AR coated? I don't seem to find any company doing it.
I only found one company which has the adhesive layer on both sides of the polarizer film and laminates it between two AR coated acrylic sheets, but the cost was too high. Couldn't find any company at all in China that does this.

Also, for the glass or acrylic, does the laminated side need to be AR coated or only the other side?

For this specific use case I just need a linear polarizer sheet that can handle some flex so the AR coated glass polarizer sheets are not suitable.
Any answers or alternate solutions are welcome.

Take an lcd monitor apart. There is a nice sheet of polarizing film in there. Or just buy a sheet. No you polarized your light no splitter needed unless you are trying to collect the othe part too. Then use a polarizing beam splitter cube.

Hi.
Not sure what you are saying.
I need an AR coated polarizer beam splitter sheet. The ones I have found so far are not anti reflection coated as I explained.
Also I need a beam splitter, not a absorbtive polarizer and those exist in plate and sheet forms too, not just cube, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabrash

Hi.
Not sure what you are saying.
I need an AR coated polarizer beam splitter sheet. The ones I have found so far are not anti reflection coated as I explained.
Also I need a beam splitter, not a absorbtive polarizer and those exist in plate and sheet forms too, not just cube, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

---

This is how I usually split a beam with regards to polarization.

https://www.newport.com/f/broadband-...-beamsplitters

My point was if you only need one or the other polarizations then you can just use a regular polarization film and throw away the polarization. IF you want to keep both parts then this cube does a good job.

You can do it this way too but I'm sure there are cheaper options. https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/125mm...CABEgKM_PD_BwE

I like the cubes.

Cubes are good for smaller beams, I need a plate.
Yeah, you're right that wire grid polarizer will work, but sadly I've contacted EO and they said they don't have AR coated versions currently.
I could get them AR coated later by a 3rd party but no idea where to look and how much to expect to spend.

try without ar coating and see your loss. it might not be as bad as you think. then get it coated later if needed at all.

I already have non-AR coated polarizers. issue is not efficiency for me but the reflections on the other side of the non AR coated polarizer. very similar issue to non AR coated prescription glasses: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...comparison.jpg

Would love any leads to firms doing AR coating on 3rd party optical components.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabrash

I already have non-AR coated polarizers. issue is not efficiency for me but the reflections on the other side of the non AR coated polarizer. very similar issue to non AR coated prescription glasses: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...comparison.jpg

Would love any leads to firms doing AR coating on 3rd party optical components.

---

i find what you want but none of them are flexible and all are incident sensitive so if you do bend them they won’t uniformly pass the beam. Can you do the separation earlier in the light path before the beam is spread? This would eliminate the need for a flexible material. I’m assuming your starting with a laser. You never described what your doing.

Oh shoot, I forgot to post my diagram.
here, https://i.imgur.com/v6DQ5Gy.png
The idea is to extend the path of a video beam.
There's a slightly prettier diagram in an expired patent about this I have to dig up.
Since the user is looking from the beam splitter side any reflection on the beam splitter will degrade the image projected on a projection screen.
It's not that I need the beam splitter to be flexible, but to handle a bit of mechanical stress without cracking. Polymers and films are way better at that than glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabrash

Oh shoot, I forgot to post my diagram.
here, https://i.imgur.com/v6DQ5Gy.png
The idea is to extend the path of a video beam.
There's a slightly prettier diagram in an expired patent about this I have to dig up.
Since the user is looking from the beam splitter side any reflection on the beam splitter will degrade the image projected on a projection screen.
It's not that I need the beam splitter to be flexible, but to handle a bit of mechanical stress without cracking. Polymers and films are way better at that than glass.

---

Use a cube. It will eliminate the mirror, give the 90 turn and eliminate the ghosts unless the distance between the mirror and bounce is some kind if interferometer or such. If it is put a first surface mirror on the back side of the splitter to bounce off. i also see no reason to not just use a film polarizer. What is the beam splitter giving you? Use a standard polarizer and let the light go straight through. Bounce of the mirror to a second mirror to take the place of the 45 degree splitter. I believe there are first surface polarizers to so the reflected is only the polarized you select. Now you get all the benefits and no ghosts.