Because I know you all give a shti
 

I got my bifocals today, and had the drops, and had the inchling. What fun, he is a good egg. Very agreeable during the long boring wait. Man, finally the sun comes out after like nine moths of rain, and I ahve the drops in my eyes, even witht eh sunglasses they give you, holy mackeral.

It is weird, lopsided and pointing my chin at what I want to see close up. I have to try the camera. The whole thing is disorienting, the screen of the computer is hard to see with the distance part and uncomfortable to see with the near distance lenses.

So that's it. Eye pressure was great. No Glaucoma, no cataract, no rinkon continentar...

sweet! now you can cancel that arm-lengthening surgery!

Getting new glasses is always a trip for the day or so it takes your brain to adjust to the new image. I remember my first time when I got upped to coke-bottle thick glasses, walking out of the place and seeing the floor curve up at me.

Contacts are much better. Not that they could help you.

Cool 3foot, you won't regret it. :D

I better not. shits still all blurry at distances over 20 feet. He says I am corrected to 20/15 and in the office I be reading wit mad resolving skilz.

I'm hoping the drops made my eyes all funky.

We'll see tomorrow. Still I think the bifocal thing was pushing the issue. I can see pretty well up close, but it is crisper.

The whole chicken head thing is weird. I'll give it a month.

GOOD !!!
I am GLAD you finaly got your SPECS !!!
Now a word of advice from somebody that has been wearing glasses for a LONG time ,
1) Keep up with your specs , they cost a bit
2) they are NOT saftey glasses , they will help but DON'T push it !!!
3 ) Don't drink TOOOOO much and go canoeing , You ( I meen I ) tend to fall face first into a canoe ,busting your ( MY ) glasses and getting a shiner , and being BLIND for the wrest of the week end .

This was my view after I was told "SIT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE CANOE , DON'T TOUCH A PADDEL , DON'T LEAN , JUST SIT STILL !!!!!!!"


http://static.flickr.com/54/165752618_87ebe52eaf_o.jpg

hahahahahaha

Ewww, whats on your feet? I hate dirty feet.

leafs from the bottom of the river ,
see all the trees , ( or in southern " cee all em treeys " )
at the time I didn't give a flying F**K ;)

ohhhh, your accent is so sexy :p

Does look lovely though, you look like you are enjoying yourself.

Hmm, thankfully my screen cuts the picture off at his feet:eek:

Too bad you busted your glasses, zippyt, the scenery is lovely, and quite clear.

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20060...y-kit-for-100/

[Yep...a hoax....but the cheese guitar is kewl huh? LOL]

That looks so relaxing! I haven't done that in way too long......

I got my glasses too although I just need them for reading, me and my gulible self let them sell me 'transition lenses' I don't like having to adjust my head up to see the pc screen, the reading part at the bottom is too small but they are a cool blue color. Recently I found a some 5 dollar reading glasses and bough two pair.I find my 10 dollar investment to be much better than my 700 some odd dollar pair of glasses. I can't get used to them either.

Just thought I'd say 'cause I know you give a poop too.

Returned the bifocals and got single lenses. The bifocals weren't so good on ladders and other things where peripheral vision is a plus. e.g. the speedo on the car. I'm not all that blind.

So now I have the single focus lens, and it seems ok. The first set was over corrected and some things were dodgy. The new ones are better but it is still a bit odd. I don't really need them unless I am doing critical work or trying to see things far away. They don't seem like they are "correcting" my vision all around. Things are sharper at certain distances, but not exactly sharp at any or all distances.

It seems to take a moment for my eyes to adjust when I switch from near to far looking. Things are still a bit odd around the edges.

That sounds really good. Feel very happy for you.

I'm assuming you'll learn to change focal points more quickly. Hope it works out man.

You can set that picture as your desktop and put your feet up on your computer desk and sit back for a spell. :D

Sounds like your refractionist (optometrist or ophthalmologist) has hedged your Rx so that you can see ok at distance and near, but not great at either distance. To see really crisply at distance and near, you would need ...... bifocals! Were your bifocals lined or Progressive Addition Lenses (PALs)? If lined, it sounds like the Rx might have been suspect. If PALs, you may have had crap lenses. There are about 100 different PAL"models" on the market, and some suck - good ones are made by Varilux, Hoya, and Shamir. They would also have to be measured properly. Did your optician educate you about multifocals, and let you know what to expect? I know that nobody wants the line to been seen, but a lined bifocal gives you a large, well-defined reading portion, and it's simpler - over the line for far away, under the line for up close. Other than cosmetics, the only down side is that a lined bifocal doesn't have arm's-length distance in it, for seeing the dashboard, computer, and prices on grocery store shelves. You would need PALs or trifocals to see arm's-length.

Remember when you were little. You would swing on a swing, when you got off, it was hard to open your fingers. That's why it takes time to see at distance after you've been reading. You're straining to see up close, then, when you look in the distance, it takes time for your eye muscles to relax. That's how I knew I needed bifocals. Most people's arms get too short between 40 and 45 yrs old. Like clockwork.;)

There are millions of successful multifocal wearers in the world. It just takes understanding the patient's needs, providing the best product to meet those needs, and not selling with ulterior motives (commission, sales quotas). Hopefully, you used an independant optician, and hopefully opticians are licensed in your state, so s/he knows what s/he's doing.

Sorry for the unsolicited tw-like response.

One more thing. Do you know why you carry all those clubs in your golf bag? Because the clubs are specialized. PALs are the best all-around lenses. Even though you can putt with your driver, you would probably do better with your putter. You can climb a ladder wearing PALs, but you'd do better in a pair without the bifocal. I know, that means another pair of glasses *sigh*, but how many different kinds of shoes do you own? Do you wear your flip-flops or sandals out in the snow? Your sneakers to a wedding? Do you haul wood in your Jag? Do you cut plywood with your coping saw? Do you swim in your tuxedo. Ok, I'll stop. I have (yeah, they're free, or just about free) clear PALs, Sun PALs, lined bifocals, computer glasses, and single vision transitions (clear/dark) for sports and lawn/housework. Then there are specialized lenses for some particular occupations, which are pretty cool. If you can afford them, get yourself some task-specific glasses, to maximize your visual performance.

Once again, always talk to Cellarites before you make a decision.:p

Spexx,
Thanks for the response, it was helpful. especially the swing analogy. That makes a lot of sense to me because it is in exactly those situations (switching from very close to very far that takes a moment to adjust. I have the same perma clench in my hands after carrying a heavy pail or something.

The problem with thebifocals was that I really didn't need to close up vision correction, he was somewhat over correcting because, like you, he predicted my imminent short arm syndrome.

Walking up a ladder was impossible because the rungs were too far out of the near focus range, tape measure at waist level was O.O.F. so I had to look through the distance lens to see things that I considered up close i.e. <3feet (not a pun, but I'll take the points anyway)

The thing I don't quite understand is that the corrections seem to involve altering focus distance. The doc told me that for vision correction optical infinity is set at 20 feet and beyond.

I'm guessing that if my problem is mainly astigmatism, then as my eyes change focus points, the shape of the cornea is changing and therefore the correction at each focus point will be unique. Since it would be impossible to have infinitely variable focus lenses (not bi and tri focals) you have to hit upon an average correction. Is that why some distances appear sharper than others? Or why can't I be corrected at any and all distances?

Just a guess. Despite decades of being a photographer, I never really learned a whole lot about the physics of lens design.

I don't know what your distance power is, but my guess is that you are slightly nearsighted, with astigmatism. Uncorrected, you probably don't see crisply in the distance. Assuming that your distance Rx corrects you to 20/20, your near vision is probably worse while looking through the distance only Rx. Now you need to offset your distance Rx AND add some more power to see near. This is not caused by astigmatism (your cornea cannot change power, and it's rare to have astigmatism other that corneal astigmatism), it's caused by the inablity of the lens in your eye to accomodate (change power to see at near). This is called presbyopia, and is caused by age (shhhhh: presby - old). Your maximum accomodative power is when you are ten years old - it's all down hill from there. Usually, at about 40, you have lost enough accomodative power that you can't see within 20" - in essence, you have lost your near vision.

A PAL will correct for distance (20' and beyond) directly in front of your eye to the top of the lens. As you move your eyes down the lens, the power progresses through the intermediate (arms length) to the near (about 17"), about 20 mm below the center of your pupil, in today's better PALs. I'm guessing that your doctor has prescribed a power that allows you to see 15' in to 22", maybe, to avoid multifocals. That's why you are not satisfied with either your far distance or close near vision. Only a PAL will allow you to see clearly at every distance.

You said that you don't need close up vision correction. When wearing a correction that allows you to see clearly at optical infinity, you should be able to read the bottom line of the reading card at 16". If you cannot, you need to do something that will allow you to see at near. Some people can take off their distance Rx glasses and can see near with their naked eye. Some have two pairs of glasses - one for distance and one for near. Some have bifocals, trifocals, or PALs. It depends how visually demanding you are. Let's face it - if you're not doing brain surgery or posted as a Hizb'allah rocket spotter in northern Israel, do you need to see 20/20 at distance and near? Probably not. Do you want to? That depends on how visually demanding you are.

Wearing multifocals successfully is all about understanding and accepting the limitations of the lens. If you accept that no matter what you do, when you look through the bottom of the lens, only objects 16" to 20" away from your eyes will be in focus, you'll be successful. If you fight that limitation, you will not be satisfied. Or if your occupation or hobby requires that the bottom of the lens must have a focal length other than 16" to 20", a task-specific pair of glasses can be designed to do that.

It sounds to me like you weren't successful because mental issues, not visual ones. When wearing your PALs, could you see in the distance clearly when looking straight ahead? When looking through the bottom of the lens, was your vision clear up-close? If the answer was yes to both questions, it wasn't that your vision was poor while wearing the glasses, it was that you were not mentally prepared to work within the limitations of a multifocal. And that's OK. Eventually, the "hedge Rx" that you're wearing now won't be work for you anymore, then you'll need to make the choice: a second pair of glasses for near vision, or (God forbid), multifocals.

Going on vacation, I'll check in when I get back.

Spexxvet, you are awesome. That post doesn't apply to me yet, but I'm glad I read it. I'm 39, and am pretty nearsighted. It's only a matter of time before I'll be in the same boat and need bifocals, or maybe reading glasses to go with my contacts.

He is awesome, but I'm saving my accolades till he gets back from vaca. Then I've got a super occular trivia question for him...

Wow, Spexxvet, I'm also very grateful for your detailed explanations. The next pair I get will probably have to be bifocals too, and you have helped a lot with my decision :)

what is your question footfootfoot?

I'm baaaack, and flattered. :blush: What's your question FFF?

This is assuming I do not have on my glasses. At night time certain fluorescent signs are quite sharp and crisp, but one particular color sign is always extremely blurry. Distance is not a factor.

What color is the sign, and why is it blurry?

I do glasses, not eyes, but I'll guess violet. Yellow light improves visual accuity and is in the middle of the spectrum. Red and violet are at the extremes of the visual spectrum, so it makes sense that it would be one of them. Ultra-Violet light is bad for eyes, in many ways, so I'll guess violet since it's closer to UV than red is.

I imagine that the lighting at night where you can see fluorescent signs is bluish, as in mercury vapor. The sign color that would have the greatest vibration against the blue would be...magenta. Just my guess. And I chose mercury vapor over sodium since the orange choices don't really have as bad a vibration problem, imho.

Why it vibrates (is blurry)

OK you both are sort of correct. The color of the sign is indigo, similar to this but more intense since it is back lit. It is almost the exact same color as those purple lights which indicate security phones on campuses.

Anonymous is bringing up a related phenomena of adjacent color effects. In this case though it is the single color sign against black night sky.

I'm thinking it has to do with the focal point of the wavelength of light being outside of the range my eye can focus it. I am also wondering if, being night, more rods are involved than cones and that may have something to do with it.

Many years ago, I noticed a problem seeing blue signs at night too. Figured it was for the same reasons. They are always very blurry when everything else is in pretty good focus.

I wonder if sign makers and marketing departments are aware of this? I bet it's fairly common.