With the inability to advise a PAL for snooker due the still head and peripheral blur, I can only think of dropping the sides low to the specs up and perhaps reversing the pantoscopic tilt? Can anybody please advise?
With the inability to advise a PAL for snooker due the still head and peripheral blur, I can only think of dropping the sides low to the specs up and perhaps reversing the pantoscopic tilt? Can anybody please advise?
In the past I have fit the Sola Access, UPSIDEDOWN.
It gives "near" through the top, to see Cue and cue ball with the lower portion of the lens intermed for the rest of the table.
I have done this half a dozen times and 4 have replaced with updated rx's, the other two were only about 1.5 yrs ago.
Good Luck.........
Lensguy, When you fit them where do you place the MRP? Center pupil, lower or top of the pupil. Which seems to work best? These really work well? Do you use a special frame to eliminate the player looking through the top rim? Like a shooting frame? Thanks,Terry
I wonder if you couldn't get by with single vision lenses with an extra +0.50 D of plus power? This would allow you to keep most of the table relatively in focus at the distances you would normally be looking, and wouldn't over-plus you to the point that you couldn't walk around the room.
Best regards,
Darryl
Seems like an upside-down NVF lens is a good idea, but like Darryl said, it would be good to have the distance portion (bottom) a low plus add (approx. 3M approx. =+0.50-+0.75). You actually may prefer a NVF lens that offers more "regressions" to achieve this, although peripheral distortion would increase.
It would be important to see how close the patient gets to the cue ball, to determine the add in the near portion (top). I'd be sure not to get too aggressive with the plus, here.
I would set the MRP rather high (low), as CME alluded to, for, as Darryl suggested, walking around, smoking, and drinking is a distance-vision task. Don't overachieve, because to converge in extreme upgaze is an instant headache (don't try it).
For effect, be sure to use a double-bar with an obnoxious gradient tint (see Paul Newman in "the Color of Money").
I shoot pool. I do not need a correction (at this time) when I play, but know others that do. I do not see how an upside down Access would work well. I like the overplus idea better.
I need more explanation on how this Access works so well.The lens design and head positons do not make sense to me.
Beer Glasses!
Sorry.
It would probably be a good idea to use a frame that puts the geometric center at or above the pupil, something like the shooters frames from Zeiss and B&L. I would just cut the panto, if you go retro the top of the lens/frame with dig into the brow/forehead.
Over-plusing is a great idea. Most advanced presbyopes appreciate using a separate pair of indoor glasses with a little extra plus on the top anyways, with the add reduced by the same amount of course.
Hope this helps
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
The thing that makes shooting pool (and snooker) uniquely difficult visually is that:
It requires you to keep your head still, and look at the cue ball (and often the ball you're playing, if it's close to the cue ball) at a relatively close distance, depending on the player's posture. Some people like to get pretty close.
AND THEN you must switch your focus to often times the end of the table for shots that cover "lots of green".
When shooting, some people look at the cue ball, some look at the pocket, some look at the ball they're playing...you can't have a person tilting their head back to look through an add as they shoot.
The point is, it has to be individualized for each player, and you have to ask the questions.
Overplussing doesn't work well, IMO, because if you overplus just a little, then oftentimes there's not enough add to look at the cue ball. If you get as much plus as necessary for the cue ball, then the pocket's blurry.
Early presbyopes can just use their remaining accommodation. It's the old guys that have the biggest problems.
I wear a 2.25 add PAL. The last time I played on a regular pool table I could see the cue ball quite well, although I do wear a 37" sleeve. There is some blurring when I look through the top, leftmost part of the lenses, but that's due to the short corridor PAL that I wear. A FT or SV lens would clear that up. So I would think that an advanced presbyope would do quite well with overplussed lenses as long as the vision is not compromised when looking across the entire 13' length of a snooker table. Besides, what are the alternatives? Are there any "seasoned" players reading this? What works for you?
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
I have shot competitive pool for 20 years. I have also over the years made several pair of pool glasses for players who play professionally and semi professionally. I have always used just the distance RX, raised the OC's as much as possible and usually designed a very tall lens to be worn in a semi-rimless halfeye frame. The whole thing with poolplayers is that good players will get their head down with the cue sliding right below their chin so that they can aim right down the cue. Therefore distance vision is the most important. The only thing presbyopic players would need reading for is to see if a ball is frozen to the rail. I would be really interested to hear from the actual players using good stance and form, why an upside down Access would work. Not saying its wrong; just saying I want to know why...
Why not SV with focal length set for intermediate distance (arm's lenght to 6' ?) Would certianly be more effective than an inverted progressive which would be useless in the bottom (distance) area anyway. Progressives aren't the cure for everything.
Another possiblity would be a quadrafocal or top and bottom bifocal with the top set for intermediate. This would still allow one to view one's adversary and audiance when standing upright.
Chip
Well, the Access is an intermediate pal, so it's going to give you that intermediate power on the bottom, not distance. I can see how the Access would work though. The way people stand when lining up the ball, they're leaning over so the tend to be looking through the top of their lenses when they're looking up close. When they look at what they're aiming at, they look up, looking through a lower part of the lens, so the intermediate power would help there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks