Matt hayes did an article this week in AT and was saying he was using this red mist line, because of the unseeable qualities it possesed, then in the next paragraph of the same article he said he was using a carpet of red maggots because they were the best visable bait for tench, I think he was after, and I wondered what the hell is this contradiction,if they cant see the line how can they see the maggots,or come to that, red sweetcorn, or boilies,red lures, red flags for pike fishing,red coloured ground bait etc...They have me beat on this one.
Not 100% though chris, otherwise we wouldnt be able to sit it at all.
Light is refracted by all line to a certain degree, so does it really matter what colour it is? I believe it does and prefer to go for a line that matches up with as many different backgrounds as possible, and for me thats a grey colour. Definately not red.
They say that red is the first colour to turn grey at depth, but then, why not just use grey in the first place?
The science that I've found on this marketing claim isn't sound IMHO. Red may not be very visible to fish, or may become invisible at distance, but does the fish see nothing or is it supposed to see straight through a red object? My take on this is that red may not appear to be red to fish, but that this probable fact is irrelevant since a red line is probably replaced by a dark line. Translucent is as close as we can get to invisible, it doesn't matter if a fish or a human is looking. Thin clear line will remain my preference, and if someone wants to make it harder for a fish to see then matching the refractive index of water would be a good start.
This reminds me of Maxima Chameleon being advertised as being invisible because it absorbs all visible wavelengths (colours = wavelengths) of light. Complete tosh, black is what we call something that absorbs all wavelengths & when did you last think a black car (or anything else) was invisible?