They don't look nearly as bad as the title suggests.
Edit: "My eyesight was sharper than usual for both far and close distances (down to two inches)" blimey! I might be sold. I need read glasses for soldering and close work like that and it's a bit of a pain.
> They don't look nearly as bad as the title suggests.
There's no accounting for taste, but no. No no no. This is Halloween costume bad. Just came from ComicCon bad. Google glass bad. And people are going to assume they are being recorded.
> They don't look nearly as bad as the title suggests.
Come on, yeah they do. You don't have a car-style cellular antenna sticking up any more, the way you would in the 90s. But that, and incremental refinement in materials and profile, is really all the aesthetic difference from what you'd see back then. It doesn't do enough to help.
Granted, you're not wrong about the potential benefits, although I think I'd need a lot of convincing that it's enough of a qualitative improvement to be worth the cost and complexity over fixed magnifiers. But I'd never consider these at all if you could see my electronics bench from the street.
Good news, you tend to care less about stylish by the time you need bifocals. I have leveled up to the point at which I can wear bifocals and suspenders without giving any fucks. Probably because they no longer alter my probability of getting one.
It always amazes me eyewear entrants don't start with something tried, tested, and timeless like wayfarers or aviators. More room to work with and shove batteries evenly, too. Sure, offer this as an option for people who like it if you want, but the classics are still popular for a reason.
I don't think "dorky" is the right word for these glasses. Anachronistic is better. And that can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on one's perspective.
Others mentioned Geordie, but even going back (and obviously the "visor" was in the zeitgeist since at least the 70s with the android type bots drawn by futurists), my first thought was the Six Flags Great America type sunglasses that were cool as hell when my older sister came home with them.
This is the closest I could find in search without trying too hard.
But yeah, why can't these companies just design regular old glasses styles so people don't feel like a dolt and maybe would want to buy them. Instead everyone has to be made to look like a glasshole and all the entitlement that connotes in the mass mind.
Articles only need click-bait titles, not pictures, in order to be profitable. Relevant and informative pictures are an unecessary expense. People don’t read articles to be informed, people read articles to feel smart. And to just feel smart, you don’t actually need a picture.
IP rating is IMHO critical. If people start relying on it to live their life, getting it killed by unpredicted rain or an accidental water splash will be quite a shock.
Battery life could be worked around if they're really that much of an improvement in day to day use. Even buying two or three pairs to go through a full day could be a worthy tradeoff if they don't need to pair to anything. Cost could be an issue, but 2 or 3 of them would still be cheaper that many hearing aids for instance.
These look incredible, and a huge improvement over bifocals or similar. Having lenses that automatically adjust to focus at the distance you're looking would be incredible, for people who need one diopter for distance vision and another (or none at all) for close-up vision.
I hope it's possible to improve the field of view to match ordinary glasses. I also wonder if it'd be possible to change different parts of the lens to have different focal points, or change fast enough to allow for the equivalent of foveated rendering, such that you could look around at different things in your field of view and have them all appear in focus.
I'd pay a lot if they can get a full enough field of view. I detest bi/varifocals, but I detest switching glasses more. The entire experience of glasses is a constant annoyance in my life.
I am thrilled that this exists. I've been hoping for this since my near vision started going south twenty years ago. My current options are reading glasses (dollar store ones are as good as prescription) or hope that accommodating intraocular lenses are available when I eventually have to undergo cataract surgery. Bifocals are disorienting, multifocal contacts sort of work but I still need readers. It sucks to be on the fringe of so much medical technology - have to pay for the insurance but get squat in terms of treatment.
Hoping that it or some next-gen product comes to the US double-quick.
What's your concern with accommodating intraocular lenses? Something that works with your particular vision issues? I live in a relatively rural region, and the eye care center that has them as an option is one of the big TV advertisers.
All current IOLs are non-accommodating: the multifocal IOLs work by having multiple rings beam two or three different focal lengths into your retina simultaneously.
The way a natural accommodating lens works is that your optical musculature physically flexes the lens to focus on the point you're looking at. The current non-accommodating multifocal lenses are stiff and fixed; the implantee handles the transition between focal points entirely in the mind's eye. While accommodating IOLs are being developed, they are currently not on the commercial market.
I have a multifocal IOL that I honestly love, and has allowed me to abandon wearing any glasses; I have crisp and natural vision except in certain edge-cases. Other people, however, never adapt, or dislike the artifacts of the multifocal rings (mostly halos around bright lights such as headlights).
iwanttocomment beat me to it. AFAIK, accommodating IOLs have been in development/trials forever. I wasn't aware of Crystalens but looks like it is not ready for prime time.
People with low vision sometimes use glasses that are a little similar to this but are actual bifocals. The bottom component is ordinary glasses while the top component is telescopic. The telescopic component's focus can be changed, but it's manual. With special training, such glasses can allow¹ people who are otherwise too visually impaired to qualify for a driver's license to receive a limited driver's license with special training.
Glasses like those in TFA might be easier for drivers to adapt to, and their autofocus mechanisms might also be reusable for proper bioptic lenses, if that proves to be better for driving for one reason or another (i.e., some people actually need magnification, not just differentiated focus). I imagine if the manufacturer ever gets approval for such uses, those customers won't care too much what the glasses look like.
I've used one of their manual ones for years and it made a huge difference for me in being able to view presentations and lectures while also taking notes. However, the experience is not like traditional bifocals, it's like having a small telescope stuck to your glasses (because of course that's what it is). The telescope has a relatively narrow field of view as you'd expect, and is only visible to one eye. Frankly I don't understand how folks can use these while driving or moving around.
Readit News
Edit: "My eyesight was sharper than usual for both far and close distances (down to two inches)" blimey! I might be sold. I need read glasses for soldering and close work like that and it's a bit of a pain.
https://deathbattle.fandom.com/wiki/RoboCop
There's no accounting for taste, but no. No no no. This is Halloween costume bad. Just came from ComicCon bad. Google glass bad. And people are going to assume they are being recorded.
Come on, yeah they do. You don't have a car-style cellular antenna sticking up any more, the way you would in the 90s. But that, and incremental refinement in materials and profile, is really all the aesthetic difference from what you'd see back then. It doesn't do enough to help.
Granted, you're not wrong about the potential benefits, although I think I'd need a lot of convincing that it's enough of a qualitative improvement to be worth the cost and complexity over fixed magnifiers. But I'd never consider these at all if you could see my electronics bench from the street.
* Geordi's visor
* A nose clip for swimming
* Stick-on googly eyes
The last design choice seems particularly bold. I guess they're less threatening that way? Or it just kind of happened for technical reasons.
This is the closest I could find in search without trying too hard.
But yeah, why can't these companies just design regular old glasses styles so people don't feel like a dolt and maybe would want to buy them. Instead everyone has to be made to look like a glasshole and all the entitlement that connotes in the mass mind.
https://di2ponv0v5otw.cloudfront.net/posts/2018/03/20/5ab0dc...
Battery life could be worked around if they're really that much of an improvement in day to day use. Even buying two or three pairs to go through a full day could be a worthy tradeoff if they don't need to pair to anything. Cost could be an issue, but 2 or 3 of them would still be cheaper that many hearing aids for instance.
Dead Comment
I hope it's possible to improve the field of view to match ordinary glasses. I also wonder if it'd be possible to change different parts of the lens to have different focal points, or change fast enough to allow for the equivalent of foveated rendering, such that you could look around at different things in your field of view and have them all appear in focus.
Hoping that it or some next-gen product comes to the US double-quick.
The way a natural accommodating lens works is that your optical musculature physically flexes the lens to focus on the point you're looking at. The current non-accommodating multifocal lenses are stiff and fixed; the implantee handles the transition between focal points entirely in the mind's eye. While accommodating IOLs are being developed, they are currently not on the commercial market.
I have a multifocal IOL that I honestly love, and has allowed me to abandon wearing any glasses; I have crisp and natural vision except in certain edge-cases. Other people, however, never adapt, or dislike the artifacts of the multifocal rings (mostly halos around bright lights such as headlights).
Only 79,200 yen surprisingly.
Initial Setup Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gSqFjZfrH8
https://store.vixion.jp/ :
*We do not ship to overseas addresses.
We ONLY deliver within JAPAN.
Or here, with some markup: https://www.japantrendshop.com/vixion01-autofocus-eyewear-p-...
Glasses like those in TFA might be easier for drivers to adapt to, and their autofocus mechanisms might also be reusable for proper bioptic lenses, if that proves to be better for driving for one reason or another (i.e., some people actually need magnification, not just differentiated focus). I imagine if the manufacturer ever gets approval for such uses, those customers won't care too much what the glasses look like.
--
1: https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/what-to-know-about-driving-...
https://www.ocutech.com/ocutech-bioptics-products-overview/k...
I've used one of their manual ones for years and it made a huge difference for me in being able to view presentations and lectures while also taking notes. However, the experience is not like traditional bifocals, it's like having a small telescope stuck to your glasses (because of course that's what it is). The telescope has a relatively narrow field of view as you'd expect, and is only visible to one eye. Frankly I don't understand how folks can use these while driving or moving around.
Okay, but I wonder if there are any negative aspects. ;-)
Disclosure: Dork.
I started looking into computer glasses (short focal length) and quickly realized I’d need 2-3 pairs for all my work situations.
The daily charge could pay off if it reduces eye strain and perhaps even ends the workday sooner via quicker reading.
Would there be any pitfalls using these primarily to focus on screens of varying distances?
Progressives cost half as much but you'll have to buy a new pair on a regular basis.