Hi All,
I have a lens lab that say their blue coat effects the darkening of transitions and another lab says theirs doesn't!
Different type of Mar perhaps?
hope you guys can shed a little light on this for me
thanks!
Alan
Hi All,
I have a lens lab that say their blue coat effects the darkening of transitions and another lab says theirs doesn't!
Different type of Mar perhaps?
hope you guys can shed a little light on this for me
thanks!
Alan
I'm Still waiting for a response Oh well will give it another few years!
self delete
still searching OB history I think we've gone over this.
Sorry I'm coming up empty.
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 03-09-2022 at 10:16 AM. Reason: after search...
And of course, as there is literally ZERO science that has shown ANY actual definitive measure of a specific frequency range, intensity, or duration of exposure to "dangerous blue light", there is absolutely zero consensus on what to block, or how much. So every single lens marketing department has a different solution - just looking for a problem.
I could easily see how Brand A has detrimental effects on a given photochromic's effectiveness, whereas Brand B might have no effect at all. Brand C on the other hand may cause a slight degradation. Brand D however only works under a crescent moon, if you're wearing a green sweater, and riding a unicycle - backwards. Brand E used to work well with photochromics of Brand A only, but that was before the Earth's magnetic poles last flipped. Don't use that combination now, or you'll create a micro black hole, and the singularity will cause the destruction of your daily delivery box from the lab...if not your entire office. Probably.
It's the wild wild west out there folks. Drink accordingly.
OK, let's dope this out.
1. Photochromics are photo-activated.
2. More photo, more activation.
3. More AR, more photo.
4. Less effective AR, less photo.
5. Blue reflectors are less effective ARs.
6. Ergo, blue reflectors negatively affect photochromics.
QED
abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum": written or said after an argument to show that you have proved something that you wanted to prove
Here's the counter-argument.
1. Photochromics are SELECTIVELY photo-activated via UV wavelength light.
2. Blue reflectors do not affect UV transmission.
3. Ergo, blue reflectors do not negatively affect photochromics.
OK SO WHICH ARGUMENT IS CORRECT?
Does anyone have a complaint about this or are we in a thread like the one that argues about the power found in a single vision (non eyezen type) plano lens?
It's all about the UV in my book and AR with blue blockers create negligible differences imo.
I'm willing to be corrected.
I though Transitions claims their product already is “blue blocking”? (Of course, I’ve never seen at what percentage).
"Indoors, Transitions® Signature® lenses filter 1.4x more harmful blue light than a basic clear lens. Outdoors, they reduce exposure to the sun's harsh glare, and filter more than 8x more harmful blue light than clear lenses.Originally Posted by optical24/7
Indoors, Transitions® XTRActive® lenses filter at least 2x more harmful blue light than clear lenses, and 8x more harmful blue light outdoors. And Transitions® Vantage® lenses filter at least 2x more harmful blue light indoors than clear lenses, and over 6x outdoors."
This is transitions Gen 7 and xtra active but I would expect it to be pretty similar to Gen 8 and xtra active new generation. So 20% with regular transitions and just over 30% for xtra
This lab's blue coating might affect UV, it's adjacent on the spectrum so it's reflective effects could bleed into the UV range, hampering photochromic activation. Traditional ARs were found to increase UV reflectance despite decreasing visible light reflectance, thus the reason Essilor developed (and then everyone else piled on) the UV formulations of Crizal. And as Uilleann said there is zero standard or even consensus for blue filtering, so this lab could have a wacky home-brew product.
Quantum’s Retinal Bliss, our house “HEV” coating looks cool on photochromics. I wouldn’t recommend this on any photo product, as it is worthless, but the blue mirror effect once activated is pretty cool.
I bend light. That is what I do.
"Harmful" blue light. Yeah.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Hah! Ask a stupid question ("Hey...do Transitions protect me from BLUE!!!!????") and get a stupid answer ("Why, yes, they do. Less blue transmission outdoors than clear lenses" DUH! "And 1.4X less indoors" when they're not totally de-activated...that used to be a bug, not a feature!)."Indoors, Transitions® Signature® lenses filter 1.4x more harmful blue light than a basic clear lens. Outdoors, they reduce exposure to the sun's harsh glare, and filter more than 8x more harmful blue light than clear lenses.
Indoors, Transitions® XTRActive® lenses filter at least 2x more harmful blue light than clear lenses, and 8x more harmful blue light outdoors. And Transitions® Vantage® lenses filter at least 2x more harmful blue light indoors than clear lenses, and over 6x outdoors."
This is transitions Gen 7 and xtra active but I would expect it to be pretty similar to Gen 8 and xtra active new generation. So 20% with regular transitions and just over 30% for xtra
Great post.
Agree! Blue-blocking AR or a clear flash coat on a photochromic lens makes the darkened state look a lot more like cool sunglasses.
It's fun to do that in sports specs for the kids.
I've made a few "driver/sun glasses" with a photochromic and a flash mirror (or blue AR would be almost as good) where the lens is less dark in the car and more dark outdoors.
Really, any time (golf tint, etc) that you don't fully tint a lens it's going to look weird (or like you're Bono) when the patient can see their eyes. And beyotch. That's why I like flash mirror on polar, too, which just aren't that dark appearing.
Last edited by drk; 03-10-2022 at 10:10 AM.
Zeiss is now making Non-AR Blue Guard lenses. I guess the blue light lenses with very noticeable blue reflections are losing popularity.
VisionEase had them in poly way before Zeiss. Zeiss is releasing FSV in both non-AR and Duravision AR, and SV pucks. I received samples for testing, but haven’t had the time to test them.
Lensco has them (marketed as UV 420) as well. Both products are 420nm protective. I’m sure the Zeiss will fall into the same category.
I bend light. That is what I do.
And contrary to popular beliefs, Zeiss photo fusion with HEV AR darkens quite well. It was meant to be a test pair, knowing that the coating wouldn’t increase attenuation, but hey, WTH. Still, selling this combo is nothing more than ripping off the consumer.
I bend light. That is what I do.
Conceptual question:
Are blue-blocking (you call them 'HEV") AR coatings really "AR coatings" (because they are, instead, quite reflective of blue light) or are they really more of a "mirror coating"?
Hmmm....
Its a combo cating.
I bend light. That is what I do.
They do reflect some blue spectrum, but are much more AR than mirror. They are much clearer than uncoated lenses (at least the good ones, I have seen cheap crappy OTC blue light lenses that do look like stupid mirrors. Probably all those are, just appearance), just not as clear as pure AR.
I remember my Essilor rep's marketing to ECP's when Prevencia first came out: "The reflection is PROOF that it's working!" It did look odd when we first saw it, but blue light AR has been a thing in the market for a decade and the appearance is pretty standardized.
Finally something I can agree with an Essilor rep about. If the Blue AR is barely reflective, if the lens is barely yellow, or virtually clear, what is it doing? Nada. Not that I think the more reflective or more yellow ones are doing anything either, but at least it looks like it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks