 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2007Does AR Coating Improve Vision?
The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75). Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the Rodenstock. The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not quite as sharp and there is a very light hazing to my field of view. The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it). So, my question, am I seeing differences in the quality of lens (Rodenstock > Ovation) or I am seeing an absence of AR coating. If it's the AR, I can have new lenses ordered (they will only charge me the difference). If I'm seeing the difference because one lens is poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think about getting another lens alltogether. BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly. On 7/28/07 10:56 AM, in article 1185645369.479241.29860@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, "stuckingoo@gmail.com" > The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently > busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what > prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly. AR coatings improve visual performance by increasing transmission of the lenses. Moreover, the lost light without AR coatings can add to the background "noise." I am not familiar with current AR application technique. I would expect, however, that AR coating is the last step in lens fabrication. In principle then, it should be possible to send the lenses back for AR coating. It may be inconvenient, but possible if you are willing to pay enough. The main drawback may be the fabricator's ability to clean the lenses well enough. Bill  SignatureSupport the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney. > On 7/28/07 10:56 AM, in article > 1185645369.479241.29...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, "stuckin...@gmail.com" [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > -- > Support the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney. Eyemasters is willing to order new coated lenses and I just pay the difference between what I have now and the coated lenses (about $120). I explained to them that the salesperson didn't offer me a coating option.....really he should have but he is new and apparently forgot. Eyemasters return and exchange policy is pretty decent. Thanks for the info! > Eyemasters is willing to order new coated lenses and I just pay the > difference between what I have now and the coated lenses (about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for the info! I don't necessarily agree that the your lens sharpness problem is because of the lack of AR coating. You can pretty much eliminate the effect of no coating by standing in a dark room and looking at something in the distance which is well lit. If you still have the blurring problem, then AR coating is not going to fix that. On 7/28/07 10:23 PM, in article lvKdnSm_P_PLuTHbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > I don't necessarily agree that the your lens sharpness problem is because of > the lack of AR coating. You can pretty much eliminate the effect of no > coating by standing in a dark room and looking at something in the distance > which is well lit. If you still have the blurring problem, then AR coating > is not going to fix that. The benefit from AR coatings is going to be greatest when YOU ARE in strong ambient light looking at a dim object. That is when the signal-to-noise ratio is going to be smallest. When the SNR is large, all kinds of nonlinear optical processing performed by the eye and brain. Think of having bright lights on a street also populated with runners wearing black. Bill SignatureIf intelligent design trumps evolution, please explain hemorrhoids. > The benefit from AR coatings is going to be greatest when YOU ARE in > strong [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bill You did not read my post correctly. I said standing in a dark room and looking into a room that is well lit (lighted). Because the lenses are in a dark room they not much affected by reflections. Because one is looking at an object in the distance in a well lighted room, one should be able to see quite well. What I am described is sort of like using a lens shade on a camera to minimize reelections hitting the lens. On 7/29/07 9:46 AM, in article PeudnYt30JnRWTHbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@comcast.com, >> The benefit from AR coatings is going to be greatest when YOU ARE in >> strong [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What I am described is sort of like using a lens shade on a camera to > minimize reelections hitting the lens. I know how to read, but will admit to having left out of the penultimate sentence quoted by you. I responded to your post because you were "standing in a darkened room." If that is why you need glasses and cre only about information transfer rather than being offended by stray light, forget the coatings. Bill SignatureSupport the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney. > On 7/29/07 9:46 AM, in article PeudnYt30JnRWTHbnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@comcast.com, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -- > Support the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney. Interesting experiment.....which I have tried. At first I had difficulty preventing reflections because even a well lit object viewed from a darked environment will create some reflection. I found that standing in a moderately darkened area and looking at a moderately lit object did the trick. And I've concluded that viewing an object straight on, the Rodenstock offers a slightly clearer image. Still the Rodenstock doesn't offer the peripheral vision that the Ovation does. I tend to think though if the optics were equal I should have the same sharpness regardless of the design of the lens since I'm viewing straight on. Right now I'm leaning toward ditching the Ovation all together and maybe trying something like the Varilux. I'm not sure why the Rodenstock is sharper.....is the lens material or design. I think the Varilux also uses poly too. > Interesting experiment.....which I have tried. At first I had > difficulty preventing reflections because even a well lit object [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm not sure why the Rodenstock is sharper.....is the lens material or > design. I think the Varilux also uses poly too. Varilux lenses come in a wide variety of lens materials, but maybe not at that particular optical (although I suspect they could special order it). I would recommend the 1.60 with a Varilux lens if you can get it and if you don't need a higher index. 1.60 is about the same index as poly (1.59) but much better optical quality. Keep in mind that there are numerous models of Varilux, such as Comfort, Panamic, Physio, Physio 360 etc. Wal-Mart caries an Essilor version of the Physio 360 in 1.67 material at a fairly good price (considering the price of the Physio 360 in 1.67). Essilor owns Varilux, which I suspect you already know. > I know how to read, but will admit to having left out of the penultimate > sentence quoted by you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bill Since you admit to having read my post and claim to understand it, I will now pronounce you an idiot. You need to be in a dark room looking into a well-lighted room. This will obviate almost all the benefits provided by an AR coating (not 100%. but a very high percentage). This will enable the OP to know whether getting the same lens/material with AR added will clear up the blurriness that he encountered. >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the >Rodenstock. >The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not >quite as sharp That's related to Rx, lens design, and lens position, if the object in your straight ahead view is 20+ feet away. I'd get that resolved to your satisfaction asap. > and there is a very light hazing to my field of view. Very likely due to the absence of coated optics. >The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly >did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think >about getting another lens alltogether. >BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the >business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what >prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly. The quick turnaround was due to the limited product choices, and by not having to send the finished lens out to a separate lab for coating. Hope this helps Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently > >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new > >prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to > >Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription > >only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75). > >BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the > >business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > having > to send the finished lens out to a separate lab for coating. There's a terrible quote, and I know I am butchering it, but: I can do it cheap, quickly or right. Pick any two. This is not an optical thing, it applies to many things. I have had too much experience with cheap and quickly. It's not worth it. > >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently > >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > straight ahead view is 20+ feet away. I'd get that resolved to your satisfaction > asap. Could this have anything to do with the material being polycarbonate which many seem to feel is optically inferior to plastic or just about anything else? >> >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently >> >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >which many seem to feel is optically inferior to plastic or just about >anything else? Not on the distance gaze, unless the distance Rx is very strong, over eight diopters or so, and would only occur with PALs or improperly positioned SV lenses. Two problems with Poly- it's a very dispersive material and tends to blur images off-axis in higher strength RXs, and it's very chemical sensitive- tends to crack at the edges, especially in rimless mountings. You didn't provide the full Rx in your previous posts, although you did note that the Add power increased from +1.25 to +1.75. Some folks might feel a slightly softer focus on the distance gaze initially, along with some flare or streaking of lights at night, dependant on lens design, pupil diameter, and client sensitivity. This is much more common, if it happens at all, with higher Add powers, although there always seems to be exceptions. However, if you stand up in a relaxed and typical posture, look at a distance object (a street sign for instance) during the daytime, the object should be clear and sharp, and should not become clearer if you raise or lower your chin. Moreover, the distance vision should, at the least, be as clear as your old glasses. I would investigate further it that's not the case, especially if this is still occuring the next morning. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >> >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently > >> >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper format: Sphere R -4.00 L -4.25 Cylinder R -0.50 L -0.25 Axis R 108 L 075 Add R+1.75 L+1.75 One thing I haven't mentioned that I thought would pass by now but hasn't.....I feel extremely tired. I don't have headaches or eyestrain. But each day since I've gotten the glasses it feels as though I have only gotten a couple hours of sleep by mid-day (though my actual sleep schedule is the same as it has been). This has been going on since Saturday (four days now). I called the store today and they said to give it a couple of weeks. I don't think I want to wait that long. Could this be a lack of AR coating? This is really strange. I'm almost positive this is the glasses rather than some other sort of ailment. Regarding sharpness of the Ovation vs the Rodenstock, I should point out that I notice the difference (Rodenstock being a bit sharper) only when I compare the two glasses. Taken by themselves, the Ovation seem to be sharp. The Rodenstock, practically crystal clear. It's hard to describe unless you are seeing what I'm seeing. BTW, I appreciate your comments and help! > Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper > format: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > BTW, I appreciate your comments and help! AR coating is nice, and it is worthwhile if you get a name-brand durable coating and are reasonably careful with your lenses (otherwise you may have to purchase new lenses before your Rx changes). However, AR is not a cure-all, and it is very unlikely that the lack of AR will make you tired. If you lenses and/or fitting is not right, that could make you tired. >Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper >format: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >they said to give it a couple of weeks. I don't think I want to wait >that long. Could this be a lack of AR coating? Like Mark said, it's unlikely. However, poor lens positioning, changes in Rx and lens design, no AR, can have a cumulative effect on visual comfort. For instance, if the old distance Rx was a half of a diopter weaker, and you look frequently at a monitor that rests 22" from your eyes, then the new glasses will be less comfortable, regardless of the Add power change. >This is really strange. I'm almost positive this is the glasses rather than >some other sort of ailment. Probably. Rule out the glasses by having the optics checked, and if necessary, see the doctor again. >Regarding sharpness of the Ovation vs the Rodenstock, I should point >out that I notice the difference (Rodenstock being a bit sharper) only >when I compare the two glasses. Taken by themselves, the Ovation seem >to be sharp. The Rodenstock, practically crystal clear. It's hard to >describe unless you are seeing what I'm seeing. I wear a very similar Rx, and I felt that the old Rodenstock Life C (a cast molded lens) and the regular Rod. Life had extremely good distance vision. It wasn't sharper per se, more of a sense of refinement, along with a larger field of clearer vision. The addition of AR can also give the feeling of more refinement. However, I found the distance peripheral vision to be very good, certainly better than the Essilor Ovation or Pananmic, just the opposite from your experience (unless you had the XS version), which makes me think that the incorrect base curve was used on the Rod. lens, and the Ovation is fit too low. Something is going on here that would make me investigate this further. If the Ovation was fit low, then both the distance and near vision would suffer, and this might explain your discomfort with the new glasses. >BTW, I appreciate your comments and help! Your welcome. This might all boil down to the change in add power and your decreasing accommodation reserves. On the other hand, I don't believe Rodenstock sold it's lenses to the chain opticals, leading me to believe you were fitted by an optician located in a private office, with a skill and experience level, on average, far superior to what you'll find at Eyemasters. If true, you might want have the optics checked out by the more experienced opticians, or a neutral third party as long as they have decent credentials. Good luck. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper > >format: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman Today I visited Eyemasters to do a verification that the lenses were cut per prescription. They confirmed that it was. I visited with the store manager who appeared to know his stuff. One thing that I did discover, and it was a big surprise, was that the Rodenstocks were in fact made incorrectly. Specifically the add was correct on one side (+1.25) but not correct on the other side (+2.50 when it was suppose to be +1.25!). Examination of the lower part of the lens verified this to be true. Funny thing is that I rarely read with the Rodenstocks (maybe because I knew in the back of my mind that it wasn't quite right) so I didn't feel there were problems with the glasses. In any case, I'm going to give this a few more days and if things don't improve I'll go with the Panamic plastic lenses with the AR coating. The store manager still believes this is a situation where I need to be more patient with eyes adapting to the new lenses. First I'll visit my optometrist to see if she has some ideas. I do have confidence in her. BTW, the Rodenstocks were dispensed by Sams. I think I've learned a lesson here.....next time I'll be more careful on who I choose to make my glasses and plan ahead. > Today I visited Eyemasters to do a verification that the lenses were > cut per prescription. They confirmed that it was. I visited with the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > think I've learned a lesson here.....next time I'll be more careful on > who I choose to make my glasses and plan ahead. About 15 years ago, I had a very bad experience with Eyemasters on a pair of SV lenses. When I got the lenses I could not see a thing. They had 3 different people in the store (with an in-store lab) recheck the power with a machine and they all insisted it was made correctly. After made a big scene in the store, they finally brought in a lab expert the next day who discovered the cylinder was off by 180 degrees. I had a second pair of lenses tinted brown for sunglasses, and they were obviously blotchy (they claimed they did not know what I was talking about). I would never, ever, consider doing business with Eyemasters. >> >Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper >> >format: [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >cut per prescription. They confirmed that it was. I visited with the >store manager who appeared to know his stuff. I hope they marked the lens for the FC (fitting cross), verifying the monocular position on both meridians. The lenses, whenever possible, should sit so close to the eyes that the eyelashes almost hit the lens. Getting the doctors Rx right is the easy part, using the correct lens design and positioning it correctly is the hard part. >One thing that I did discover, and it was a big surprise, was that the >Rodenstocks were in fact made incorrectly. Specifically the add was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >it wasn't quite right) so I didn't feel there were problems with the >glasses. The Add power is written right on the lens, about 6mm down from the FC and 17mm to the temporal side. Missing by a whole diopter is a grievous error, and probably accounts for the blurred peripheral vision. I'd complain to your state's consumer protection agency, or your attorney general. If they get enough complaints they'll get shut down. Maybe. Alas, most folks don't have the time to do this, and just move on to the next optical chain hoping and praying for someone to be at least marginally competent. >In any case, I'm going to give this a few more days and if things >don't improve I'll go with the Panamic plastic lenses with the AR [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >think I've learned a lesson here.....next time I'll be more careful on >who I choose to make my glasses and plan ahead. If you tend to read without your glasses, one might decide to use a PAL design that provides a larger field of vision on the distance gaze. If you prefer Essilor lenses then the Physio lens will be better in this regard, without compromising the near functionality. Another good general purpose lens is the Zeiss Gradal 2, and if you wish to bias much more towards the distance vision then try the Zeiss Gradal Top. The difference in designs become more apparent as the Add power reaches +2.00 and higher. Use the above info as talking points only, a more in depth Q&A should be provided by your dispensing optician. Good luck. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >> >Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper > >> >format: [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman Again I appreciate your thoughts on this. I think I've found the add specs on both glasses. The Rodenstocks have 12 and 25 on the lenses and the Ovation has 17 and 17. If I'm understanding this correctly then the Rodenstocks are indeed wrong for my prescription (should be 12 and 12). I spoke to a Sams optical employee today and explained the situation. She was very sympathetic. They have a record of my visit and so do I as I have a receipt with the prescription written on it. The manager wasn't in but I'll be talking to him in the next couple of days. I'm not as upset about the reading power being wrong on the Rodenstocks as much as I am about the peripheral vision being screwed up because the add was wrong. My goal is to get a new pair of glasses free (they don't carry Rodenstocks anymore but they do carry Varilux) and even then I still may complain. Unfortunately botching basic, bread and butter service is almost par for the course these days for retail service establishments. Volume and profit margins trumps service it seems all too often. > Again I appreciate your thoughts on this. I think I've found the add > specs on both glasses. The Rodenstocks have 12 and 25 on the lenses [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > retail service establishments. Volume and profit margins trumps > service it seems all too often. The etchings on PAL lenses are a godsend for consumers. Not only do they discourage fraud (someone trying to pass off a cheap lens as an expensive design), they also enable one to more easily discover honest mistakes, like in your situation. The etchings show the lens design, the material (usually), and the add power. > <stuckin...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The etchings show the lens design, the material (usually), and the add > power. Yeah I see a couple of other things too....like the letter "P" which could be.....polycarbonate? And something that looks like the integral sign in mathematics.....it's right next to the "P". Yep, this is very good info. > Yeah I see a couple of other things too....like the letter "P" which > could be.....polycarbonate? And something that looks like the > integral sign in mathematics.....it's right next to the "P". Yep, > this is very good info. The other markings are proprietary and vary by manufacturer. The OLA Lens Identifier is the primary source of this info, which many optical shops have on-hand. Some will look your lens for you. You may be able to Google a copy of it. Here is another chart which describes the PAL markings. http://www.laramyk.com/tools/pal_chart.html > >> >Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper > >> >format: [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman I thought I'd write a conclusion to all this.....who knows I might need to refer back to this thread in four years or so, lol. Anyway, the Eyemaster Ovations I could not completely get used to. The eye fatigue improved but the lack of clear straight on vision I was used to with the Rodenstocks still bugged me. However, Sam's offered to make me new glasses. Since the old Rodenstock prescription was filled improperly (the add on one side was +2.50 when it should have been +1.25) they did the right thing and comp'ed me a pair of Seiko Proceeds (Proceed 2 I believe). These are 1.67 high index plastic with AR coating and once again I have clear vision. Since this is a new design for me there is a bit of swimming but I'm sure that will go away shortly. I can also tell there is more vertical vision space devoted to the mid and reading view.....is this what's referred to as 'short corridor?' I'm not sure if I didn't take to the Ovations because they were poly (that's my guess) or just fitted improperly (don't think so) but I won't take a chance on the polys again. I'll be visiting Eyemasters in the next few days to return these things and to get a refund. On Jul 28, 1:56 pm, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote: > The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently > busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what > prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly. were the rodenstocks poly? > On Jul 28, 1:56 pm, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > were the rodenstocks poly? No, they are plastic. On Jul 31, 8:23 pm, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 28, 1:56 pm, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - if the plastic is cr39 for example ("regular" plastic) than you may be noticing the lower abbe value (a measure of optical quality) of the new pc lenses. If you need thinner higher index lenses there are other options like 1.6 (MR8) which are still superior to pc. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.