OD: -4.75 - 2.25 x 25
OS: -4.75 - 2.25 x 180
2.25ADD
Lenses #1: Varilux XR 1.67 Transition XTRActive Grey w/ Crizal Sapphire
Lenses #2. Varilux XR 1.67 Tinted Grey 3 w/ Crizal Sapphire
Point of wear measurements are also taken into account.
Customer love vision in lenses #1 when driving but complain that she can't see well out of lenses 2 when driving. No crazy wraps on the sunglasses.
Anybody have an idea of what other things I should be checking for?
Thank you
You thought about the Y-axis. How about the X?
Maybe not enough panto on the sunglasses because they're so honking big?
Try holding up -0.50 DCx 180 and see if she smiles.
Or tilt the sunglasses for more panto by putting the temples on the outside of the ears.
Tint and Crizal aren't compatible.
Further, I wasn't aware that XR was being offered in pre-tinted 1.67 blanks yet (at least not according to E rep out of Omega Dallas I spoke with). If that's true, you either didn't get Sapphire, or you didn't get an XR.
Check for lens aberrations as I'm assuming extended tinting time in 200 degree tint pot possibly warped lens.
Polarized should always be used for sunglasses.
There's less light entering the retina, so comparing and contrasting a clear pair to a sunglass pair the optics aren't going to be as good especially if in a tinted window car? Idk that's just what I pulled out of my ***
My go-to guess in such situations is the pt is slightly underminused. The sun lenses are so dark the attenuated light reveals the issue, while it is not noticeable in the clear. What drk says: put some minus in front of her and see if that alleviates it. Might also reveal that the clear DV isn't as good as she thought.
They are in principle compatible, I have had it done. However many labs have discontinued the practice because the tint dye contaminates the TD2 bath requiring it to be changed out, which is costly and time-consuming. But it can be done if you find a lab willing to do it.Originally Posted by Uilleann
But I don't know the policies for sure any more, I haven't tinted a lens in years. Polarized always.
Last edited by DanLiv; 04-16-2024 at 11:27 AM.
I'm not understanding the "polarized always" movement. Can someone sell me on that?
For the record, I do not think the pupil size in sunglasses increases very significantly.
Last edited by drk; 04-16-2024 at 01:37 PM.
Outside of pilots, I havent sold a tinted lens in over 8 years. In Florida, with all the water everywhere, it is a no brainer. Not to mention the huge benefit of dashboard reflections in windshields being eliminated.
Plus we dont have to deal with that Gray 3 solid tint coming back to us in 18 + months because it has turned purple.
Last edited by Elvis Is Alive; 04-16-2024 at 02:30 PM.
My reasons, in order of importance to me:
You can't readily put the best ARs on tint for the reasons I mentioned, so you have to go for more basic "spray it on anything" ARs. Polarized are compatible with Crizal, EX4, Zeiss Duravision
The reduced glare from eliminating surface reflections is literally superhuman vision. Tinted lenses merely obstruct light, they don't reduce surface glare
As Elvis Is Alive said tints do fade and change color over time with exposure to UV. Polarizing filters do not fade.
Matching a sample is a nightmare. Tints often come out too light or too dark for pt preference. Polarized are fixed, so for better or worse pts can't change it.
The main reasons that I’ve heard are…Skiers. They need to see the “ice” on their course. Pilots. Old instruments are cross polarized and can blackout/become difficult to read. And golfers. Reflections on the course help to determine the terrain and lay.
As a skier in Utah, I can tell you from years of direct, personal experience, as well as having fit thousands of fellow skiers and boarders that the "not being able to see ice" thing is nothing but a myth. As an old pilot as well, I have never flown in *any* aircraft type new or old that polar lenses created any issues whatsoever. Further, there is NO AIM/FAR regulation that precludes pilots from wearing polar lenses (unlike the wildly erroneous information given out in numerous ABO classes I've sat through over the years). There are some companies, that will have a corporate rule against polar, usually due to laminated windscreen optics and not instrumentation, but even those are rare.
As far as golf goes - it's a dumb game, and I don't waste my time. Have at it! LOLZ
I differ to your expertise Uille, these were the only plausible reasons I’ve heard of, all hearsay, to some degree I’m sure. Though I used to play golf, my game was so bad that magic glasses wouldn’t help, so I can’t comment on that reasoning either.
but at least you can see the ball in the bushes or sand trap better.
As far as golf goes - it's a dumb game, and I don't waste my time. Have at it! LOLZFun, if you enjoy "jerking away in the sand". See Robin Williams explaination of the game below (language).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14NQIq4SrmY&t=104s
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 observed no difference on the two people I tested under unfiltered summer sun (43˚ latitude), brown polarized, AR coated sunglasses, with a very good light seal, and clear AR coated eyeglasses.
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.
Since the distance vision complaint for the tinted pair is specifically for driving, is the tinted pair a shorter corridor and/or the wearer leaning back slightly when they drive?
All valid points raised by others already, so if those check out maybe consider if she's leaning back with a more aggressive add increase in front of here, might compromise the distance vision field.
Nice research, RM!
What is absolutely true, though, DanLiv, is that any error in refraction comes out when the pupil enlarges in night driving, of course. (That's one reason I like to refract dilated when possible.)
(Of course the peripheral lens gets into play a little but most dilations I do are no more than 8 mm or so...)
Wow, this is golden information! Thanks Uilleann.
This is information from the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pi...sunglasses.pdf
Polarized lenses are not recommended for a number of reasons.
100% this!
DRK if you are doing a majority tints and not polarized you are setting yourself up for remakes. "The tint isn't what I was thinking!" or "Can it be a little lighter/darker?". NO just NO. So many tint problems I literally want to punch people in the face. My boss said can we just buy a tint tank and you can do them here? Yes, that would work--IF the lenses aren't coated with AR. BUT we like to put AR on sunglass lenses for the reasons DanLiv mentioned.
One of his best bits EVER.
Yep. Let's be crystal clear - that ancient brochure is NOT part of AIM/FAR regulation. And their "number of reasons" are laughably vague in that context. There are thousands of pilots who DO wear polar lenses, in all manner of fixed wing and rotor craft with no issue whatsoever. It's bad form in the extreme to perpetuate as "fact", or "rule" in this case that the aviation environment specifically precludes any polar lens use. Leave it up to the individual pilot - they'll thank you for it!
Well, NAICITPO, you're right because my optician just had to send back some CR39 lenses for more tint because they're "not dark enough" and now they're "too dark".
Not to hijack, but do you all put a flash coat on the front of your polars?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks