| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 125019 | 2012-06-02 01:59:00 | Prescription Glasses | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1279150 | 2012-06-05 01:09:00 | I have been with my optometrist for 23 years and although I pay a lot for their services (almost $100 for a consult now) I have always been very happy with her professionalism and quality of service. | DeSade (984) | ||
| 1279151 | 2012-06-05 06:26:00 | 63 and only needed 1.5 reading glasses a year ago, the suffered a bad retinal detachment that needed a scleral buckle and oil virectomy. My "good" eye was also checked and given laser treatment to prevent a retinal detachment in that eye. 5 months later had an oil change and cataract treatment. Was told that the new lens would give me good distance vision and need glasses for reading - which was no different from normal. The new lens never gave the planned result and have close up vision but fuzzy over 2 metres. Even my good eye's vision has changed to the point where I am marginal to pass the driving test without glasses. Got progressive glasses from Specsaver and electrical safety glasses from OPSM. Also got 2 pairs from Zenni - one a dedicated computer pair and the other with snap-on polarised lenses. My vision when wearing glasses is really good but the eye that had the detached retina is no where near as good as the other one, but grateful that it's still of good use to me. My treatment at Waikato Hospital was awesome. |
Fishb8 (484) | ||
| 1279152 | 2012-06-05 10:16:00 | PCTek, this is a bit late seeing as you have ordered the specs, but I too have asymmetrical lens thicknesses - much thicker on the right. I've never been particularly conscious of the difference, either while looking through them or AFAIK from other people noticing them. I have metal thin-rimmed frames, so the extra thickness is obvious if you are looking, but as I said, I've never seen it (ha ha) as a problem in all the 60-odd years I've been wearing specs. I have huge differences in vision between each of my eyes and many years ago the left lense was so thick and heavy that they were always tilted sidways and literally fell off if I looked down at my feet. However, for at least the last 15+ years I have had lenses of effectively identical thickness and weight on both sides. That includes a brief foray into rimless glasses (as prodded by Mrs T) but they were far too light and lacked adequate area to be effective as progressives. I am now on my fourth of fifth set of progressives and these too are the same thickness on both sides and fit in a thin-rimmed metal frame, so lensemakers clearly have improved their ability to make variable refractive factors within the same thickness of glass. The current pair are magic! Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1279153 | 2012-06-05 10:32:00 | Also got 2 pairs from Zenni - one a dedicated computer pair and the other with snap-on polarised lenses Can you add more Fish? Specifically a "dedicated computer pair?" I have a 2 prescriptions: 1 pair that gives me good focus on the screen at about 420mm, good for reading print as well, and a distance pair that gives me focus at about +1.75 for most things past 420mm. Last week I was out and about driving without either glasses, and I picked up a $10 pair of +1.75 that almost fitted the bill for reading print, but also gave me the ability to focus on my GPS and driving instruments as well as distance - that neither prescription pair would allow. At the moment, I use the $10 for driving. Any comments please? I guess what I'm asking, it is possible to specify the (what I would call) depth of field? In other words, the $10 pair enable me to focus on a greater focal distance than either the prescription reading or distance pair .. can I specify the new prescription lenses for the same versatility? |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1279154 | 2012-06-05 10:38:00 | I have huge differences in vision between each of my eyes and many years ago the left lense was so thick and heavy that they were always tilted sidways and literally fell off if I looked down at my feet. However, for at least the last 15+ years I have had lenses of effectively identical thickness and weight on both sides. That includes a brief foray into rimless glasses (as prodded by Mrs T) but they were far too light and lacked adequate area to be effective as progressives. I am now on my fourth of fifth set of progressives and these too are the same thickness on both sides and fit in a thin-rimmed metal frame, so lensemakers clearly have improved their ability to make variable refractive factors within the same thickness of glass. The current pair are magic! Cheers Billy 8-{) Lens these days are made of plastic. My 2 pair of presciption glasses have plastic lens. You have got to be careful how you clean them as you could scratch them. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1279155 | 2012-06-05 10:50:00 | Left eye extra image: Down 1.5mm, Right 0.5mm, Strength (in audio terms!) -3dB (ie, strong) A strong image almost on top of the original. I can't read figures with a 7mm height Right eye extra image: Down 3mm, Right 6mm, Strength -15dB (ie, weak) A weak image almost completely displaced. I can just read figures with a 6mm height Subjectively the Left eye is significantly worse than the Right eye. If I had to rely on my Left eye, there would be annoyance reading the ticker on Fox (hack, hack... choke) It puzzles me that this situation - which causes a genuine problem in everyday life - was not tested for. (and probably never is?? given that it requires white on black) Sounds like you've got a cortical cataract. They're notorious for causing unilateral dounble images. Uncorrected astigmatism can cause a smudge that might be interpretted as doubling. Either way, there are really only 3 solutions, being: 1) Glasses. They may not eliminate the problem, but will decrease those decibels in the double image. 2) Strong room lighting. Achieving a smaller pupil may eliminate the abberration. 3) Cataract surgery - which can correct the astigmatism as well if it's of great enough significance. Cortical cataract of this significance doesn't usually happen until age 70+ Bear in mind, I'm having to make some assumptions, based entirely on what you describe. If you have some other issue like keratoconus (distorted cornea) then it's a whole other kettle of fish. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1279156 | 2012-06-05 11:24:00 | I have a question for you Paul.Cov, how come different types of frames are so expensive? Are the more expensive frame better than the cheaper ones? | QW. (15883) | ||
| 1279157 | 2012-06-05 21:49:00 | Thank you Paul. I will go for another (standard) test and glasses. It will be interesting to see if the figures I posted change when I get glasses. Your suggestion about room lighting is something I could have thought of! it appeals to the physics in me. I tried binoculars, and they worked, but they didn't quite focus close enough and I broke the mechanism trying Other reasons to get glasses (progressives): - to combine my "computer screen" glasses (1.0) with my reading glasses (2.5) - to read the trip km counter in the car while driving (it's at my "computer screen" focus) - to read labels on plant pots at garden centres (same) (gardening is Mrs Micro's hobby) - to wear shirts without pockets (glasses always on head) - to reduce damage to glasses (caused when "off-head") |
BBCmicro (15761) | ||
| 1279158 | 2012-06-05 22:11:00 | I have a question for you Paul.Cov, how come different types of frames are so expensive? Are the more expensive frame better than the cheaper ones? Yes why do a pair of titanium frames from the optician cost say $300 when you can buy titanium frames with lens from the warehouse for $20. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1279159 | 2012-06-05 22:18:00 | Yes why do a pair of titanium frames from the optician cost say $300 when you can buy titanium frames with lens from the warehouse for $20. :) Might I suggest that one is REAL Titanium ... and the other only looks like Titanium ... I'll l;et you have a guess at which one is real ... :D |
SP8's (9836) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||