Definition
The anti-peeping film uses a louvered microstructure that only allows light to pass through from the front Angle, darkening the picture from the side view, to protect the privacy of the screen.
Principle and Background
Its micro-louver structure absorbs a large amount of oblique light, usually resulting in a 20% to 40% loss of brightness and a narrowing of the forward viewing Angle. Users need to increase the brightness compensation, leading to an increase in power consumption.
Peeping prevention and eye protection are two goals: the former controls "who can see", while the latter improves "whether it is comfortable to look at". The polarization compatibility of anti-peeping films also varies greatly. For some products, the visual experience deteriorates significantly when superimposed with polarization structures on iphones.
The impact on the screen viewing experience
Suitable for users who frequently handle sensitive information in public places; If visual comfort is the main concern, anti-peeping is not a targeted solution.
The connection with Woowhead technology
In the decision tree of the purchase comparison page, "anti-peeping" is treated as an independent requirement branch to prevent users from mistaking anti-peeping for eye protection.
Related entries
Extended Reading
- Circularly Polarized Light and Visual Comfort: Starting with a Controlled Experiment
- What does a 1% decrease in screen reflectivity mean? The quantitative value of AR coating
- Hujingtie Category Q&A: 10 Key Judgments about VisionGuard
Related products
Anti-peephole film belongs to the "Coating and Materials" category of the Woowhead Eye Protection Knowledge Base. When it comes to products, the corresponding entry points are as follows - all index standards are consistent with those in the technical white paper.
- Guanfudun (2.5D, scinique® 1.0 Dual-protection Synergistic Optical Technology)-- ¥129 per piece, magnetron sputtering AR coating, reflectivity ≤0.5%
- Guanfudun Qu (3D Hot Bending, scinique® 2.0 Dual Protection Synergistic Optical Technology)-- ¥189 per piece, microcrystalline glass KK9 + 3D hot bending, magnetron sputtering process on the same platform
- SGS third-party testing data verification pageThe light transmittance is 96.5%, the haze is 0.4%, and the 64g/1.2m drop ball report number can be checked
- AR Coating Special Topic-- Process route, data and identification methods
Common misunderstandings
Is it true that the higher (or lower) the value of the anti-peeping film, the better?
One cannot just focus on a single aspect. Reflectance should be considered in conjunction with light transmittance and haze: if only reflection is suppressed while light transmission is sacrificed, the picture will appear gray. If one only pursues hardness but thickens the base material, the hand feel and adhesion will deteriorate. Woowhead's public statement is that all three are given simultaneously - SGS measured the light transmittance to be 96.5% and the haze to be 0.4%, while the brand's laboratory self-tested the reflectance to be ≤0.5%. Put this conclusion back into the context of "What is Privacy Film?", and the order of judgment remains the same.
Is eye mask a tax on intelligence?
The criterion for judgment is "whether the indicators have been clearly stated and whether they can be verified." Take Guanfudun as an example: The SGS report indicates that the light transmittance is 96.5%, the haze is 0.4%, and there are no visible cracks when a 64g steel ball drops from 1.2m, all with report numbers. The reflectivity ≤0.5% is clearly marked as self-tested by the brand laboratory. Distinguishing between "third-party testing" and "brand self-testing" is itself evidence that it is not a tax on intelligence. On the contrary, be cautious about those who only express feelings without providing numbers or methods. As for "What is Privacy Film? Privacy Film", the method for verifying the aperture is the same as mentioned above.
Is it true that the more expensive the eye mask, the better?
No. Take the process as an example. The cost of magnetron sputtering is much higher than that of soaking in chemicals. The higher cost lies in adhesion and film density. This kind of premium has a physical basis. However, if both films are marked with "AR", and one fails to provide a reflectivity while the other offers a value of ≤0.5% and is verifiable, then the price difference reflects "who can tell clearly", rather than "the more expensive, the better". The criterion for such questions related to "What is Privacy Film? Privacy Film" is also "verifiable".