You can't look at a bulb and determine what type of filtering the blue on the bulbs are doing
You evidently can't, and the average Joe can't, but anyone with the right amount and kind of knowledge and expertise can do exactly that.
I dabbled for a short while in ophthalmology
I dabbled for a short while in cooking. That does not prepare me to hand down judgments on the subject. You and I are the same in that regard.
I wouldnt ever call myself an expert
That is good, because...well...you're very apparently not one. Which is fine, that's not intended as a put-down even though it might feel like one. There are many subjects on which I am not an expert. Most of them, in fact! I realize that and accept that in the manner of a mature adult: when I need to deal with a subject I'm not an expert in, I get advice from people who are. Real ones, mind you; I don't take my advice from those whose primary interest is to sell me something, even if they phrase themselves in an authoritative or science-y ways.
Especially not when they phrase themselves that way, because then it's obvious they're trying to manipulate me.
but maybe a bit more knowledgeable then the regular joe.
Not from anything you've shown in this thread so far. This isn't a debate about opinions; you've gotten pretty much everything wrong on the facts.
Most high quality bulbs use that blue as an interference style filter
No, the coatings on the bulbs we're discussing here are
absorption filters, not interference filters. That term "interference filter" actually means something specific; your statement "using blue as an interference style filter" doesn't mean anything. It's pretty much a jumble of barely-related words. If you want to understand the difference between the two kinds of filter as applied to headlight lamps,
this is pretty much the gold standard in explanatory texts.
as to actually remove the blue wavelengths thus making the bulb "brighter" by only projecting desirable wavelengths.
Oh, Lulu...no. That's not how this works, not even close. It's so far off from reality that I can't tell if you're utterly misinformed and just trying to regurgitate some piece of promotional drabble or uninformed discussion you saw somewhere, or you're just making it up as you type. Or maybe a mix of both.
In actual fact, out here in reality, there is no such thing as making a lamp's output brighter (with or without the quote marks) by removing a portion of the light. It's just not a thing. That would be like replacing the 1.1 gph aerator on your kitchen faucet with a 0.7 gph aerator and saying now you can fill up your sink faster because the new aerator's blue, so it only allows the desirable water through. Total nonsense, whether we're talking gallons or lumens. Also, your notion of "desirable wavelengths" is not grounded in any kind of fact; where did you pick it up? What criteria are you considering "desirable"?
If you would like to get educated on what
really happens to seeing and glare with blue-tinted headlight lamps, read
this (spoiler alert: more glare without any better seeing).
If what you're saying is true, than the light would be perfectly white, which it's not.
Okay, so this is a Triple Cash Bingo-level non sequitur right here, number one. Number two, there's no such thing as "perfectly white" light. The boundaries of white light are large, and any point within the white box is, by definition, just as white as any other point within the white box.
Considering the lawsuit Sylvania just went through, I doubt OSRAM would be doing something similar with false advertising or purposely hindering their bulbs performances.
The technical specifications for each kind of headlight lamp give a range of acceptable output. For the 9003 bulb type, the spec is 1500/910 lumens (high/low beam, at 12.8 volts), with an allowable range of +/- 10%. That means the limits are 1350 to 1650 for the high beam, and 819 to 1001 for the low beam. Luminous flux anywhere within those boundaries is just as legal as luminous flux anywhere else within those boundaries, but the basic fact is, if you're trying to see while driving at night, you'd best have the 1650/1001 lumen bulb instead of the 1500/910 or the 1350/819.
hope that OSRAM replies to me emails
Do you imagine that they're going to do anything other than restate their promotional messaging? Let me ask you a question: can you think of a reason why they list the nominal flux values, copied straight out of the regulation, instead of the actual output from their many varieties of any given type of headlight lamp? Look in the back of the Osram master catalog (they're not alone in this, but since we're talking about Osram that's the example I'll use) and for flux you'll see the same 1500/910 for all the different 9003 bulbs. Put the various types in an integrating sphere and the actual measurements are very different. All within the allowable range, but not all the same. Now why do you think Osram would answer "They meet the spec" instead of "Well, this kind puts out 1600/980; that kind puts out 1360/840; this other kind puts out 1500/900..."? I bet you are smart enough to figure it out.
Since the goal of any corporation is to maximize revenue, profit and thus shareholder value, the tendency is to use effective sales pitches to advertise high-profit products. Marketing a styling-based, shorter-life bulb by tinting the light toward blue and promoting it with marketing verbiage claiming the bulb puts out "whiter" light, along with miscellaneous claims about driver comfort and such, has been an effective sales pitch to get people to spend extra money on bulbs for about a hundred years (search
this page for
blue-wite). Sylvania got into legal trouble because they pushed it too far by making pretty much the same claims you're trying to put forward here, about the blue filtration increasing the effective output. The court, rightly, said that amounted to false, misleading and fraudulent advertising. Soon after, they changed to the current design where there's an untinted area of glass around the low beam filament. The rest of the capsule is tinted, reducing the high beam output (but not so low that it's below the legal limit), and they simply say nothing about high beam performance; the implication is that it's within the legal limits. Which it probably is, but again, if you're trying to see at night what you need is the most possible light at the relevant locations. More light is better for seeing than less light, and there is no kind of color filter that reduces or reverses this simple fact.
Not to mention one company owns the other so that would just be plain stupid in my opinion.
Your opinion, such as it is, looks to be based on credulous assumptions, misunderstandings, and perhaps some wishful thinking (which means you're exactly the kind of consumer being targeted with these promotional claims you're swallowing whole)...and yet you're completely certain that you're right. You're bringing three names to mind:
Dunning and Kruger and
Asimov
