I've got a good recipie for chocolate chip cookies.
I've got a good recipie for chocolate chip cookies.
In the same sense that a metal frame is a metal frame is a metal frame.Originally Posted by chip anderson
It should be considered when the lateral chromatic aberration is more than .1Δ.
LCA = prism / abbe value
Some folks seem to be more sensitive than others. The variability might be due to some interaction with our eyes' own aberrations, and/or their visual cortex's sensitivity to visual noise. Most folks that I've checked can easily see .2Δ of LCA when I have them look at an eye chart in normal office lighting. Some folks see color fringing, but I think that may be dependent on object contrast and lighting conditions.Is it true that only a small percentage of the population is "Abbe Sensitive", or is it that opticians are just bad at diagnosing Abbe sensitivity?
Not concerning individual sensitivities, but Darryl Meister's course/paper on CA can be found here...Has anyone seen studies on this topic?
http://www.opticampus.com/cecourse.p...ic_aberration/
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.
+1. For example, referring to anti-reflective lenses as "no glare" and progressives as "no line" or "invisible" bifocals.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
I agree to a certain extent. With patients one should be as accurate as possible, without going over their heads. But on a peer forum? Tell me you all didn't know what I was talking about when I said plastic lenses.
I knew what you meant.
Yes...we knew. You are fine.
Maui Jim came to my mind immediately after reding your comment .......Cheers for Colours !
If it were up to me, we'd all go back to glass...but that just me.....
"Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde"
+1, but you already knew that LOL!!
In the surfacing world, I agree, they call CR39 Plastic. But in the dispensing world, not so much.
It was understood and simple to understand. I would venture to say those technical terms would be more complicated to understand for the consumers or laymen adding a layer of obscurity to the product.
I constantly get questions on the difference between transitions and progressives, I don't offer either one. I have a feature that allows the lenses to change into a tint when they walk outside and I have a lens that can give them reading and distance in one pair without the unsightly lines like grandma used to wear, but its been years since I have sold a progressive or a transition lens. I would also venture to say I understand them on a much deeper level than most my peers and I still prefer to describe them differently. I also offer lenses without glare on them to my patients with much satisfaction. I guess my clients prefer a country hick over a professional, as they say know your market and cater to them.
The article claims that because millions are wearing it, it must be ok. You must be aware that millins of Europeans wore single layer AR for years. It would not fly here in the US because we don't generally treat our possesions with care and respect. This forced the industry to improve the coating.
Now we have Trivex and a few other alternatives to poly, and we can't see our way around how cheap poly's become. There's no excuse for this..and those who can tolerate poly do so for reasons's you'd have to investigate..like proper fitting/alignment, rx , etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks