[HN Gopher] You've got to hide your myopia away: John Lennon's c...
___________________________________________________________________
You've got to hide your myopia away: John Lennon's contact lenses
Author : geox
Score : 102 points
Date : 2024-08-13 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| melling wrote:
| Paul has a funny story about John trying to get by without his
| glasses.
|
| https://www.today.com/video/paul-mccartney-says-john-lennon-...
| pimlottc wrote:
| It's mentioned in the article, great to hear Paul tell it
| though!
| sschueller wrote:
| I am amazed what soft contacts can do. I have a myopia greater
| than -14 on each eye and the contacts I wear are as thin as any
| other regular set.
|
| In comparison the glasses I have even with the most advanced
| glass is extremely thick and only a small area doesn't cause
| color shifting.
| j45 wrote:
| Lennon was wearing the best shape for high prescriptions.
|
| Small, and round. Both will make the highest prescriptions very
| thin since the flaring out of the lens doesn't happen. Most of
| the mainstream optometrists don't specialize in frames like
| these.
|
| Lenses are also available in 1.7+ high index in plastic lenses
| or even higher if you don't mind glass. Glass lenses while
| brittle at high index, can be additionally hardened as well.
|
| It's helpful to find a frame manufacturer that can hide higher
| prescriptions in the thickness of the frame.
|
| Companies like OGI, Anne Et Valentin have suitable frames for
| high prescriptions, which include adjustable nosepads to get
| the lenses right, and also a hybrid frame where the lenses
| might be wrapped in a combination of metal and plastic.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I have astigmatism, and have worn rigid gas permeable (RGP)
| lenses starting over 40 years ago. I have tried various types
| of soft lenses a few times but could never see as well with
| them.
| sgt wrote:
| Astigmatism here too. I have soft lenses for sport use but I
| can't really read with them easily. Things go out of focus
| often and I have to wait for eyes to re-focus etc if at all
| possible.
|
| But for sport use it's fine. For every day use I use glasses
| and it's perfect. Except of course for the inconvenience of
| wearing them!
|
| Do you think RGP could be worth trying out for me ?
| quercusa wrote:
| I've used RGPs for 45 years (now -6.5) because I've been
| told multiple times that they provide the clearest vision.
| They only times I have any issues with comfort is grass
| allergy season but antihistamine drops work great. They
| tend to be a bit more expensive up front but they also last
| for years.
|
| My understanding is that even non-toric RGP lenses can
| correct some degree of astigmatism.
|
| Once thing that you can do with contacts is so-called
| Monovision [0], where one lens is slightly under-corrected
| and your brain figures out which to use. I'll put on
| reading glasses for close detail work but otherwise go from
| driving to working at a computer without any focus
| troubles.
|
| [0]
| https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/monovision
| SoftTalker wrote:
| RGPs are initially not very comfortable, it's been a long
| time but when I first got them I would only wear then a few
| hours, then I slowly worked up to wearing them all day. But
| now I rarely notice them, unless I get a bit of dust or a
| loose eyelash under one of them (that can be _really_
| uncomfortable).
|
| The nice thing is that they last pretty much forever and
| care is pretty easy. Just clean them daily and soak them
| overnight in disinfectant/conditioning fluid.
| 13of40 wrote:
| I wear soft contacts and one of my eyes has astigmatism. I've
| never understood how a symmetrical lens can correct an
| asymmetrical eyeball. Another strange thing I've seen is that
| after having put these things in my eyes about 2000 times at
| this point, I think I can tell that they vary in thickness,
| sometimes even in the same pack, but it doesn't seem to affect
| their performance. It all seems a little magical, so I guess I
| should find some time and go down the youtube rabbit hole that
| probably exists.
| kvgr wrote:
| Its not symetrical, one part is heavier and turns in the eye.
| What optometrist told me.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Astigmatism correction requires toric contacts- you should
| have a small line you have to orient upwards to align it
| properly, which myopia only contacts don't have.
| foldr wrote:
| Hmm, I have astigmatism and have never had to worry about
| the alignment of my contact lenses in order to get good
| correction. Perhaps they are somehow engineered so that
| they automatically settle in the correct orientation.
|
| _Edit:_ Answer here, by the looks of it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41237519
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| It is much more likely that your astigmatism is very
| mild, and your optometrist decided not to correct it, and
| corrected only the myopia. This is common because toric
| contacts are more expensive, more difficult to put in,
| less breathable, and fall out easier.
|
| As a longtime user of toric contacts, I have tried a
| dozen brands and every single one has the exact same
| mark. The shape will keep them from moving out of
| orientation, but it isn't enough to put them back into
| orientation if put in wrong, at least not quickly.
|
| Care to share exactly what contacts you are using? Do you
| have astigmatism in one or both eyes? If it is toric and
| for astigmatism it will say so on the box- many people
| have it in only one eye, so the boxes will be different,
| and only one will say toric.
|
| If you really are using toric contacts, but not aligning
| the mark, I am willing to bet you will be able to find
| the mark, align it properly, and your vision will be
| remarkably better.
|
| Edit: One reason you absolutely need the mark is because
| the optometrist also needs to be able to tell if they are
| staying in orientation like they're supposed to, by
| visually checking the alignment mark. It needs to point
| straight upwards (vertical). If not, they can prescribe
| you one that is made pre-rotated to compensate.
| foldr wrote:
| No, my prescription is for astigmatism, and my contacts
| are contacts specifically for astigmatism. In my
| experience, they orient themselves (and indeed I have
| never had to worry about their orientation).
|
| I have never previously thought about this in terms of
| rotation (as I was not even aware that the contact lenses
| were asymmetrical), but I do normally have to blink a few
| times after inserting the contact lens before I have
| sharp vision. But in my experience it takes a few seconds
| for this to happen and does not depend on inserting the
| lens at any particular orientation.
|
| I have glasses too, so I would notice if the contact
| lenses were giving me significantly worse vision!
|
| The brand is '1 Day Acuvue Moist for Astigmatism'.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| It might be different for different people, but if I
| don't align mine, it takes more than a few blinks to
| align them. I think they will eventually but it could be
| a very long time (hours?)
| therein wrote:
| I have astigmatism and toric lenses never worked well for
| me. I could feel them rotate in my eye and they would
| never settle perfectly. This was back in 2006, though.
| And they weren't bad contacts either, they were ordered
| from Switzerland, allegedly custom made etc. I tried for
| a few weeks, they never worked well. Every ten blinks or
| so I'd get blurry vision.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| You should try again, I've been wearing them since before
| that time, and they are much better now than they used to
| be.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Probably just need a fitting with a different brand.
|
| A lot of times your local distributor doesn't carry many
| of the astigmatic lenses because they can sit on the
| shelf for a while (it can 100x the available
| combinations) so they special order. I doubt they're
| specially manufactured per order for soft lenses.
| 13of40 wrote:
| That's good to know - thanks! My astigmatism one is
| definitely special, because it takes an extra two or three
| weeks to get it from Costco, but I didn't know there was an
| orientation mark on it. I'll take a look.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I'm blown away that apparently lots of people on here are
| using toric contacts but their optometrist never
| instructed them on how to use them ??!!?!? That is
| horrible.
| cwmma wrote:
| not all of them work the same, only some of them need to
| be line up, others will line up on their own
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think they are pretty much all the same (I've tried
| almost every brand of them over the years), but will
| orient themselves... however at least for me it can take
| a long time, and vision is pretty bad while that is
| happening. I can't imagine skipping the extra few seconds
| required to have them perfectly aligned from the
| beginning.
| Arelius wrote:
| Interesting! I have always worn symmetric contacts when I
| (rarely) wear contacts, because I can't get astigmatism
| contacts them to sit comfortably in my eyes and not pop
| out. I wonder if I were to align them first if they would
| be comfortable enough to wear. I'll give it a try next
| time I'm at the optometrist.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Even when they fit properly, they are slightly less
| comfortable and pop out a little easier, but they have
| gotten leaps and bounds better in the last few decades.
| If they didn't work for you a while ago, it's worth
| trying again.
| BlueGh0st wrote:
| Toric lenses align themselves, the mark is for visual
| inspection by the doc while in the eye.
| JoeyJoJoJr wrote:
| I have tried contact lenses, but it seems they keep rotating
| around slightly and don't match the angle of my astigmatism
| exactly, causing my vision to become blurry. I don't know if
| it was a bad fit, but my optometrist told me it is because
| astigmatism correcting lens come in 15 degree increments, and
| the angle of my astigmatism falls right in the middle of
| these increments. I have never heard of anyone else having
| this issue and would have thought that surely it would be
| more widespread. Has anyone else had this issue, and have
| they corrected it?
| tehlike wrote:
| Have you considered LASIK?
| saghm wrote:
| Not OP, but I'm a lifelong glasses wearer with a strong
| prescription who has started considering LASIK in recent
| years; have you had it done, and would you recommend it?
| password4321 wrote:
| Consult the HN hive mind here (mind the timestamps):
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Lasik
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I've only heard from others but the people I've talked to
| all had some issues post-op which they seemed to
| rationalize and claimed that it was a net improvement, but
| I've ruled it out as something I'll ever have done.
|
| It would be really nice to have 20:20 vision without
| contacts or glasses but some of the stuff I've heard
| (extreme dry eye feeling, distortions, glare/dazzling at
| night) just don't sound worth it.
| MR_Bulldops wrote:
| I had it done 2 years ago and started taking it for granted
| about 4 days after the operation. I have perfect sight with
| no complaints and almost never think about it.
|
| I was 30 years old and wore -4.0 lenses.
| sgt wrote:
| LASIK is scraping away cornea, not recommended for high
| myopia
| xyst wrote:
| Was LASIK surgery experimental back then? Would have alleviated
| the issues John experienced on a frequent basis with those pesky
| rigid contact lens.
|
| I think I had similar diagnosis of myopia and astigmatism as John
| and its worked wonderfully for me. Fortunately this was
| completely recently where the techniques have been
| perfected/improved with technology.
| jrimbault wrote:
| I also had a great success with LASIK, but it wasn't invented
| before his death.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#History
| pmarreck wrote:
| LASIK wasn't a thing until starting around the late 80's/early
| 90's.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Before that it was radial keratotomy which my Mom had. Maybe
| it is apocryphal but she told me they discovered it when a
| Russian someone got exploded glass in their eye and it
| improved their vision.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_keratotomy
| xyst wrote:
| Makes sense, ha. I only briefly read it was invented in the
| 50s. But 90s for mainstream adoption and approval sounds
| about right
| deelowe wrote:
| I've met so many people who've had issues with Lasik at this
| point that I've decided I'm not going to risk it unless
| absolutely necessary.
| xyst wrote:
| What types of issues? I understand there are a wide range of
| issues that would exclude a person from being a good
| candidate (ie, persistent dry eye, uncontrolled diabetes,
| age, other eye conditions). But any good surgeon would
| clearly explain that to a patient and not recommend the
| surgery if it wasn't ideal.
|
| In my case, the only possible complication was dry eyes prior
| to surgery. If it wasn't resolved, then would be canceled.
|
| but fortunately was mitigated with over the counter and some
| prescription eye drops applied liberally.
|
| I too was skeptical but I think the key is finding a good
| surgeon with a looong history of doing these surgeries.
| dhosek wrote:
| I can't keep my eyes open for the glaucoma test. I'm pretty
| sure that LASIK Would be impossible for me (unless they
| have _A Clockwork Orange_ -style devices holding the
| eyelids open).
| pjerem wrote:
| > (unless they have A Clockwork Orange-style devices
| holding the eyelids open).
|
| That's how it works yes.
| sgt wrote:
| Remember the Space Quest zombie?
|
| https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtY3nJ2WptU/VUt7x1dPTQI/AAAAAA
| AAC...
| xyst wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's the exact device depicted in that
| film. But the lids are forcibly held in an open state
| during surgery while you hold your head still on a table
| and focus on a green light.
| ryanwhitney wrote:
| I was something like -8, -9.5 before getting LASIK at about
| 21.
|
| My eyes couldn't focus beyond a reading distance
| afterwards. No lens could get me to a legal driving
| eyesight.
|
| Surgeon had no idea why. He re-lifted the flaps afterwards
| and flushed beneath them on the hunch that it might be from
| slight ripples. Horrible experience, didn't fix it.
|
| Hard contacts worked, but a second surgeon advised against
| having anything in my eye while we figured it out.
|
| After about a year, it healed enough that eyeglasses could
| refract me to good vision again.
|
| So I still wear glasses, but my vision is much better
| without them. (-2ish range these days.) Pretty awful
| experience, but I like glasses and it was a big improvement
| from where I was before.
| xyst wrote:
| Shit that's terrible. Wonder if your eye was still
| undergoing changes. 21 is relatively young.
|
| My surgeon requested vision history from my referring
| optometrist. And did his own work up at the office. Took
| 2-3 months of follow ups and "adjustments" (ie,
| prescribing eye drops to fix dry eyes) to ensure vision
| was stable and dry eyes wouldn't impact outcome.
| ryanwhitney wrote:
| I think there was some guidance around waiting 2-3 years
| since your prescription changed, which I met--though
| that's obviously imperfect.
|
| There was never any clear cause/effect. My best guess is
| that it was from being super tense during the surgery. I
| found it extremely uncomfortable and intense to be fully
| conscious, knowing it would be bad news if I moved my
| eyes during the procedure. (They're holding a flap of
| your eyeball open during it, etc--super fun.)
|
| Would have requested a little higher dose of Valium if I
| could do it over again. :) And maybe crossed a border to
| a high-volume specialty shop instead of my local
| ophthalmologist.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Me too. It's why I won't even consider such a procedure at
| this point.
|
| Glasses work well for me, so a permanent surgical solution is
| only something I'm willing to consider if the risk of it
| adversely affecting my vision is very close to zero. Right
| now, that's not the case (as evidenced by the fact that I
| know multiple people who have had adverse effects in the
| longer run).
| TeaBrain wrote:
| LASIK hadn't even made it to the conceptual stage then. Early
| trials for vision correction via radial keratotomy were ongoing
| at the time of his death.
| astura wrote:
| A man who died in 1980, of course, couldn't have benefited from
| a surgery that was FDA approved in 1995.
|
| It's like asking why JFK didn't use the Internet.
| sgt wrote:
| Are you saying JFK didn't use the Internet?
| settsu wrote:
| Is there any empirical evidence that he did not??
|
| /s
| buildsjets wrote:
| No. The first Laser did not even exist until mid-1960, so they
| were definitely not in surgical use in 1963-1966. Even the
| Soviets did not develop Radial Kertotomy surgery until 1974. RK
| uses a physical scalpel to make small radial incisions around
| the iris, and the scarring that occurs during healing causes
| the eyeball to shrink and warp the lens.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_keratotomy
| pmarreck wrote:
| I had no idea about the Yoko Ono album cover of "Season of Glass"
| featuring John's bloodied glasses... and I was 8 in 1980!
| dhosek wrote:
| It always startles me a little given how iconic the "John Lennon"
| glasses are that he started wearing them so late in his career.
| I'm guessing that the sunglasses he wore on stage at times when
| the Beatles were still performing live were prescription lenses.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| With his Rx, he would definitely need some correction.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| I think it's funny how many people really don't want to just wear
| glasses. I love that I can completely change my look just by
| getting some new glasses, though I'm admittedly fortunate to have
| a low rx such that I can get away without wearing them sometimes
| when I misplace them.
|
| Another random comment: I just love that his contacts apparently
| only fit because of ptosis from using weed.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| For me, glasses get smudged and fog up, slip down my nose, and
| are something to worry about during sports. Contacts "just
| work".
| loeg wrote:
| Glasses are also absurdly expensive for what they are (maybe
| this is a US thing). Contacts are also expensive, but you can
| sort of appreciate the manufacturing challenge.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _absurdly expensive for what they are (maybe this is a US
| thing)_
|
| It's actually a European thing. Luxottica, an Italian
| company, has largely monopolized glasses worldwide.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/09/10/meet-
| the-...
|
| from wikipedia: _Luxottica retails its products through
| stores that it owns, predominantly LensCrafters, Sunglass
| Hut, Pearle Vision, Target Optical, and Glasses.com. It
| also owns EyeMed, one of the largest vision health
| insurance providers. In addition to licensing prescription
| and non-prescription sunglasses frames for many luxury and
| designer brands including Chanel, Prada, Giorgio Armani,
| Burberry, Versace, Dolce and Gabbana, Michael Kors, Coach,
| Miu Miu and Tory Burch,[8] the Italian conglomerate further
| outright owns and manufactures Ray-Ban, Persol, Oliver
| Peoples, and Oakley...In March 2018, the European
| Commission unconditionally approved the merger of Essilor
| and Luxottica.[14] On 1 October 2018, the new holding
| company EssilorLuxottica was born, resulting in combined
| market capitalization of approximately $70 billion.[15] The
| merger with Essilor additionally gave Luxottica control of
| Foster Grant and Costa Del Mar, sunglasses brands acquired
| by Essilor prior to the merger_
|
| Now, I'm not an expert on European regulation, but I do get
| a lot of good information from Europeans here on HN, and
| I'd guess that the EC approved the merger because the
| company respects the GDPR
| mportela wrote:
| Freakonomics did a very good deep dive into this world
| recently: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-do-your-
| eyeglasses-cost...
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| That's why I order mine online from Zenni. I've heard
| reports of some quality control before and I've had one
| pair come that was a bit off, but I've still saved an
| ridiculous amount of money as someone who loses glasses
| constantly. I just ordered a pair that was ~$50 and a lot
| of that was just expedited shipping. I made no attempt to
| find the cheapest frames/lenses either like a lot of the
| ads for normal discount glasses show. Oh, and that's
| WITHOUT insurance.
|
| I have no idea why they're so expensive at most vendors. It
| shouldn't be cheaper for me to order glasses without
| insurance. That said, the cost breakdown I saw from Zenni
| definitely showed that the major cost was for the lenses
| and given that they seem to be the cheapest vendor, I
| suspect they're actually telling the truth. Lenses seem to
| be pretty complex as well to manufacture, even for simple
| prescriptions.
| callalex wrote:
| They are expensive because they are run by the Luxottica
| cartel.
| loeg wrote:
| My impression of Zenni / EyeBuyDirect is also not great.
| Sure, they are inexpensive, but they are also flimsy.
| When I tried them, the pairs I got caused pretty bad
| discomfort, too.
| tomcam wrote:
| My wife used to make me get the "best" glasses from
| boutique stores because average places like LensCrafters
| never suited me. Average price from boutiques about $1300
| in the 2010s. I have -4.50 vision and need bifocals.
|
| Tried Zenni about 12 years ago. Best lenses ever by far.
| Also the best style for me--$30/pair. My kid's glasses are
| $9/pair but would be $7 without custom engraving.
| simlevesque wrote:
| > I think it's funny how many people really don't want to just
| wear glasses.
|
| In many situations they're not practical. Sports and sex to
| name a few.
| JodieBenitez wrote:
| Agree about sports, or any outdoor activity, gardening,
| lumberjacking, and more.
|
| For sex I kinda like the blurred vision though.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I wear glasses just fine during sex.
| simlevesque wrote:
| You can. But it's not as great to put your face in a pair
| of boobs with glasses.
|
| Glasses always create a distance between your face and the
| world.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| I posted this in another comment, but I've found sports is
| kind of a tossup. My current glasses are large aviators
| because they do a great job at keeping gnats out of my eyes
| that are all along my favorite trail right now. If I wasn't
| wearing glasses, I'd want to be wearing goggles anyway. If I
| want to go swimming, it's also a lot simpler with glasses
| since I can just take the glasses off in seconds compared to
| removing contact lenses.
|
| I think this also extends to sex. With glasses, you can just
| take them off once you're ready and then afterwards you can
| just go to bed right afterwards if you want to. With
| contacts, you need to make sure you take them out before
| going to sleep.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| You don't pee after sex?
| saghm wrote:
| I have an extremely strong prescription (and have been wearing
| bifocals since I was 16), so I basically need to wear them at
| all times other than in the shower and in bed. I really don't
| like not being able to see things without them if I want to
| look at something while in bed (or worse, when I accidentally
| drop them when trying to grab them after I wake up and then
| can't find them easily due to not being able to see without
| them), but contacts seem like they'd just make that worse by
| increasing the effort needed to put them on. The eye doctor I
| saw from when I was a kid until college apparently had laser
| surgery and suggested that I should get it whenever my vision
| stopped getting worse (which happened throughout my childhood
| but would be expected to stabilize in adulthood). For me, the
| motivation wouldn't be cosmetic, but quality of life; being
| able to see without an external tool is just inherently easier.
| astura wrote:
| >I really don't like not being able to see things without
| them if I want to look at something while in bed (or worse,
| when I accidentally drop them when trying to grab them after
| I wake up and then can't find them easily due to not being
| able to see without them)
|
| I wear my glasses to bed, while sleeping. Avoids this issue
| entirely. Highly recommend. It's not uncomfortable and they
| don't fall off.
|
| I also wear them during sports (including gymnastics when I
| was younger) & during sex. It's not really that big of a deal
| if you are really used to wearing them. I've been wearing
| glasses since before I could talk.
|
| I'm guessing a lot of people just don't get used to them.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| How? Can't you only really sleep on your back that way?
| astura wrote:
| No, I sleep on my stomach.
|
| How? Um, just lay down without taking them off? Idk what
| else to say?
| invalidator wrote:
| Are you far-sighted?
| astura wrote:
| Yes. far-sighted with astigmatism.
| hollerith wrote:
| Some eyeglass frames are very flexible. Are yours?
| astura wrote:
| No, they are just normal glasses? I've had dozens of
| pairs over the years both metal and acetate. I'm
| currently wearing https://www.ray-
| ban.com/usa/eyeglasses/RX5169%20MALE%20rb516...
| saghm wrote:
| The few times I've fallen asleep wearing glasses, they've
| pressed against my face in several places to the point
| where they're imprinted and sore, and the glasses have
| gotten slightly bent. I do tend to aggressively toss and
| turn when sleeping though, so this might not be a common
| issue.
| newzisforsukas wrote:
| > Highly recommend
|
| Dunno, that all sounds more like great ways to break
| eyeglasses.
| astura wrote:
| They don't break.
| tomcam wrote:
| I wear my glasses to bed, while sleeping.
|
| Can't tell if parody? If serious... how the hell do they
| not warp out of shape or lose hinges?
| astura wrote:
| Why would they?
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| I've tried contacts and as a counterargument, I've found that
| there are few scenarios where contacts work but glasses don't
| and that it's way more effort and expense to use contacts vs
| glasses. People have mentioned sports, but there are probably
| more sports and exercise where glasses work better than
| contacts like swimming (sure you need special goggles, but
| contacts are simply a non-starter) and cycling. I actually
| prefer a pair of aviator glasses for cycling because they
| keep things like bugs and pollen from going into my eyes even
| if it's too dark for sunglasses.
|
| However, I totally agree that eye surgery is probably the
| best option since then you don't have the downsides of either
| contacts or glasses. The only reason I'm hesitant to do it is
| because my prescription isn't that strong and I've heard it
| can mess with your close up vision later in life. But for
| someone with severe issues, fixing the myopia and then just
| using reading glasses as needed is definitely a huge QoL
| improvement.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I consider glasses to be purely functional, not a matter of
| style. In fact I think glasses are ugly. The only reason I
| don't use contacts is because I would never be able to suppress
| my blink reflex to get them in.
| mrob wrote:
| If you don't need astigmatism correction, spherical contact
| lenses give much better image quality than glasses. You don't
| get the image minification/magnification that you get with
| glasses, and the off-axis optical aberrations are much reduced
| because the lens moves with your eyeball, meaning it's always
| correctly aligned.
|
| Astigmatism correction in contact lenses sacrifices some image
| quality (sharpness is reduced), but it might still be better
| than glasses depending on how much correction is needed.
|
| It's possible to combine spherical contact lenses with
| cylindrical glasses, which might give the best overall image
| quality depending on the exact correction needed.
|
| Related to this, different glasses lens materials cause
| different levels of chromatic aberration, measured by Abbe
| number. The cheapest (PADC, e.g. CR-39) is one of the best you
| can get.
| vr46 wrote:
| This is interesting as I have been a photographer for decades
| as well as playing various sports, and have had endless
| fantastic discussions with my opt over the years about the
| various merits of different lenses and glasses but this has
| never come up.
|
| I wore only contacts from December 1992 to maybe a few years
| ago, when presbyopia made things impossible, and I have been
| lamenting - truly lamenting - the state of things with
| glasses.
|
| I procured some Natural Vue lenses for multifocal vision last
| month, as I had previously tried them with decent results,
| but the outcome is not good at all. My near vision is
| rubbish.
|
| I wish I could wear contacts again, my QoL has taken such a
| massive hit. I'm -10 in specs with astigmatism.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| >I think it's funny how many people really don't want to just
| wear glasses.
|
| I paid for college working in the glasses business. Glasses are
| just not comfortable to wear all day. You can have them
| adjusted up the wazoo, but after a few hours, they're just
| annoying. Then the lenses are easily smudged. Or they're easy
| to bump. The reasons are long.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| For me, it's the 100% unobstructed field of vision with
| contacts. Sometimes I wear my glasses anyway to give my eyes
| a break but it's otherwise morning to night contacts.
| tomcam wrote:
| I think it's funny how many people really don't want to just
| wear glasses.
|
| People who are active, sports-oriented, live in places with bad
| weather, or who work outside may view things differently
| lysace wrote:
| Glasses have a vastly inferior field of view (FOV) compared to
| soft contacts. That's why I wear the latter.
|
| (Like 120 degrees vs 170, or something along the lines of
| that.)
| maxerickson wrote:
| I can manage without correction but still remember the first
| time I walked in the rain after switching from glasses to
| contacts, 20 some years ago. I'd only put up with the glasses
| for a little while at that point.
|
| Nowadays I don't wear a contact in my better eye, so that I can
| focus to read, just one in the worse eye for distance vision.
| anthomtb wrote:
| > many people really don't want to just wear glasses
|
| > I can get away without wearing them
|
| There's a fallacy of some sort here but I do not know enough
| rhetoric to determine which one.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've worn glasses since I was 5. On three occasions, they have
| prevented something from damaging my eye. Tried contacts for
| about a year - gave them up after 3 incidents of being blinded by
| grit getting in them while driving.
| ajkjk wrote:
| Well that is... An uncommon experience.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| You could wear contacts _and_ protective goggles when driving
| :)
| sgt wrote:
| My 2 year old took a flat screwdriver and stabbed me in the
| face with it. Saved by my glasses, which were scratched!
| supertofu wrote:
| It seems that there is a generational divide between glasses
| acceptance. When I was a kid in the 90s, having glasses was seen
| as cool and desirable. I remember being puzzled by all the 80s
| movies which mocked characters with glasses, when having glasses
| was seen as a positive trait among my peers.
| Teever wrote:
| I can't recall which episode it is exactly, but there's a
| Seinfeld episode where he's doing a standup bit in the opening
| sequence where he's talking about how glasses are a thing that
| are associated with intelligence and style while hearing aids
| are not.
|
| Coincidentally I was thinking about this but yesterday and how
| it relates to Bluetooth earbuds. Somehow Apple managed to make
| hearing aids cool.
|
| It crossed my mind when I was thinking about a coworkers
| hearing aids and if they were ever picked on as a child for
| wearing them. I bet that the rise of earbuds has made life a
| lot easier for children who are hard of hearing.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > Somehow Apple managed to make hearing aids cool.
|
| Just like with all fashion things, the causality goes the
| other way. People think Apple is cool, so when Apple does a
| thing they think that thing is cool.
| atestu wrote:
| AirPods were widely ridiculed by the press when they first
| came out. Lots of online comments about q tips and "tech
| bros." Idk when or what changed but they became cool a year
| or so later... not sure about the timing but they weren't an
| overnight sensation.
| andrewpennachio wrote:
| Never made the connection until reading this, but I suspect Steve
| Jobs' choice of spectacle was a nod to or was influenced by
| Lennon's 'granny' glasses.
| divbzero wrote:
| The shape and color of Steve Jobs' frames were similar to John
| Lennon's, but I believe Jobs opted for rimless lenses.
| fsckboy wrote:
| when I just read this FTA, i was shocked, thinking "how did I
| never know this till now?"
|
| > _In 1973, he stopped wearing the 'wire rimmed Lennon glasses'2
| and expanded to slightly non-round styles. His blood spattered
| spectacles even featured on the cover of Yoko Ono 's 1981 album
| 'Season of Glass' following his murder in 1980._
|
| https://images.artbrokerage.com/artthumb/onoyoko_129502_12/1...
|
| but then i realized, "ok, that's really grotesque, but at least I
| have done a great job of ignoring Yoko Ono!"
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Archive: https://archive.is/wip/6XmKN WayBackMachine:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240813194919/https://onlinelib...
| seancork wrote:
| I wear hard lens for my Keratoconus and amazed at how comfortable
| they are all day.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-13 23:00 UTC)