|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yeah, much as I'd love better vision, I just can't justify the risks. Too many people with blurry vision, dry eyes, halos, etc. And even if I got 20/20 distance, I'd still need glasses. Aubrey I can't believe you haven't hit the "bifocal age" yet. You will, soon. It usually hits around 40 (I was about 40 and 3 months when I started noticing it), and it's a rare person who makes it to 50 without bifocals. Now my damn eyes can't focus for sh*t, so I need bifocals to do it for me. *sigh*
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paw
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1176
Location: Arvada, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lyd wrote: | Wow, paw. I'm glad you're happy with the outcome, but your recommendation is enough to talk me out of it.
My room-mate had it about 4 or 5 years ago, and he seems to be one of the cases you read about on the brochures. No negative effects whatsoever, just clear vision.
I'm still too wary of all the possible gotchas to try it myself.
Plus, aside from a short-lived experiment with soft contacts in high school, I've been wearing glasses for over 30 years. I just can't get used to the way I look without them, anymore.
lyd |
Lyd
You might do better in the dry eye department. As Gary stated, we live in a DESERT. To quote the comedian Kinson. The halos were no worst than a really, really dirty pair of glasses and only at night. But we all gotta desided what best for ourselves. Had I not ski, bike, etc. I might would have stuck with glasses and/or contacts.
| garyfritz wrote: | | Yeah, much as I'd love better vision, I just can't justify the risks. Too many people with blurry vision, dry eyes, halos, etc. And even if I got 20/20 distance, I'd still need glasses. Aubrey I can't believe you haven't hit the "bifocal age" yet. You will, soon. It usually hits around 40 (I was about 40 and 3 months when I started noticing it), and it's a rare person who makes it to 50 without bifocals. Now my damn eyes can't focus for sh*t, so I need bifocals to do it for me. *sigh* |
Oh, I'm there. I don't need bifocal but I do need reading glasses. I have a pair on as I type. The Dr told me I'd need the 1 - 2 years after LASIK. I squeaked a couple more years out. Actually I'm thinking about bifocal reading glasses. The top part for actual reading and the bifocal part for reading the labels on AV equipment when I've got my head stuck behind the cabinet. Damn, this getting older ain't fun but it beats the alternative. 
The thing with reading glasses, is you can pick cheap pairs at Walgreens. Though my eye Dr keeps wanting me to buy an expensive pair from him. One friend, justified the cost of LASIK by the saving on glasses. Let's see $300 for my daughter, $500+ for my wife. Maybe she was on to something.
_________________
Aubrey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| paw wrote: | | Though my eye Dr keeps wanting me to buy an expensive pair from him. One friend, justified the cost of LASIK by the saving on glasses. Let's see $300 for my daughter, $500+ for my wife. Maybe she was on to something. |
The retail eyeglass business is a total racket, right up there with the funeral industry. Get a good eye exam including the appropriate physical measurements, then buy your glasses on the net. $30 instead of $300, same quality.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Works fine if all you have is presbyopia (farsightedness, i.e. old age eyes that can't focus up close). But if you're nearsighted, farsighted, AND astigmatic, like SOME of us  , it ain't quite that simple. That would be the biggest advantage of LASIK for me -- get rid of the nearsightedness and astigmatism, then all I'd need is reading glasses, in theory. But 10 yrs after getting bifocals, my eyes are "old" enough that if my glasses give me sharp vision in the distance, I can't comfortably focus on anything within about 6 feet of me!! So if I got LASIK for good distance vision, I'd still need glasses so I could see stuff in the same room. But at least I'd be rid of the astigmatism, which is a PITA. But is it worth the risks of LASIK? I'm not so sure.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
messerfloh
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Bavaria, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we should use a pair of cpc magnet rings attached to our glasses and adjust the astig... 
And btw, to get a razor sharp image, what has to be tweaked first - the astigmatim of the eye or that of the PJ???
sorry, couldīnt resist 
Greetz Floh (nearsighted and astigmatic!)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | Well, I can't stand contacts, they make my eyes water constantly, and are a PITA.
But I've never noticed this affect at all wearing glasses. It depends on your glasses/prescription. |
That must be the case. I'm mildly far sighted. The only time I wear my glasses is when I'm driving or watching a movie. I've never seen any of these aberrations.
I have encountered it though. I was converging a local guy's G90, and while working on it, he kept complaining that blue was off. It wasn't. I had read something about the eye glasses problem on AVS a long time ago, so I suspected that was the problem. He wasn't convinced, and seemed to be getting a little flustered with me, so I finally had him get his wife to watch as I adjusted blue. I told her to tell me when it was aligned. She and I both agreed when it was converged, which still looked off to him. That finally convinced him it was his glasses, not my ineptitude.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mild farsightedness wouldn't cause the problem. Probably not mild nearsightedness either. It takes a stronger prescription.
Tell him to turn his head left & right as he looks at the line, so he sees it through the left side, center, and right side of his lenses. It will look like you're changing the convergence but you won't be. (Unless you really want to mess with his head. )
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paw
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1176
Location: Arvada, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lyd wrote: | | paw wrote: | | Though my eye Dr keeps wanting me to buy an expensive pair from him. One friend, justified the cost of LASIK by the saving on glasses. Let's see $300 for my daughter, $500+ for my wife. Maybe she was on to something. |
The retail eyeglass business is a total racket, right up there with the funeral industry. Get a good eye exam including the appropriate physical measurements, then buy your glasses on the net. $30 instead of $300, same quality.
lyd |
Gone any websites to recommend?
_________________
Aubrey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paw
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1176
Location: Arvada, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Works fine if all you have is presbyopia (farsightedness, i.e. old age eyes that can't focus up close). But if you're nearsighted, farsighted, AND astigmatic, like SOME of us , it ain't quite that simple. That would be the biggest advantage of LASIK for me -- get rid of the nearsightedness and astigmatism, then all I'd need is reading glasses, in theory. But 10 yrs after getting bifocals, my eyes are "old" enough that if my glasses give me sharp vision in the distance, I can't comfortably focus on anything within about 6 feet of me!! So if I got LASIK for good distance vision, I'd still need glasses so I could see stuff in the same room. But at least I'd be rid of the astigmatism, which is a PITA. But is it worth the risks of LASIK? I'm not so sure. |
Since you put it that way, I'd say no.
I pulled out my last pair of glasses. I might have them made into reading glasses. They were pretty nice frames. I put them on to see how they looked. To see if they were too outdated. MAN! I couldn't anything. It was all blurry.  And my eyes were never really bad.
_________________
Aubrey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| paw wrote: | | lyd wrote: | | paw wrote: | | Though my eye Dr keeps wanting me to buy an expensive pair from him. One friend, justified the cost of LASIK by the saving on glasses. Let's see $300 for my daughter, $500+ for my wife. Maybe she was on to something. |
The retail eyeglass business is a total racket, right up there with the funeral industry. Get a good eye exam including the appropriate physical measurements, then buy your glasses on the net. $30 instead of $300, same quality.
lyd |
Gone any websites to recommend? |
Glassyeyes.com is a blog/forum/review site dedicated to the whole eyeglasses online thing. It's a good place to start looking at options.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Works fine if all you have is presbyopia (farsightedness, i.e. old age eyes that can't focus up close). But if you're nearsighted, farsighted, AND astigmatic, like SOME of us , it ain't quite that simple. |
Gary, are you responding to my post about cheap glasses online with this?
I have a strong prescription and massive astigmatism, R -4.50 -0.25 x 90 L -4.50 -0.25 x 30, and that's just part of the base price with these outfits. I don't have any problem with reading (yet...*groan*) but they also do bifocal/varifocal/progressive lenses at an additional cost, though nowhere near the additional cost you pay at the Lenscrafters or whatever.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I was responding to PAW's comments about cheap reading glasses at Walgreens.
?? Your prescription looks to me like massive myopia and very mild astig. Isn't the -4.50 the "sphere" and the -0.25 the "cylinder" ?
The online places are great if you have simple needs and fit into their standard model. But if you have special needs like I do (must use low-index plastic, need different PD (pupilary distance) for distance lenses and bifocals, need bifocal line placed higher than normal, big head requires large frames, etc), it doesn't work as well. I wish I could get my glasses online -- it's a whole lot cheaper.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | No, I was responding to PAW's comments about cheap reading glasses at Walgreens.
?? Your prescription looks to me like massive myopia and very mild astig. Isn't the -4.50 the "sphere" and the -0.25 the "cylinder" ? |
Yeah, you are precisely correct. I was misunderstanding my prescription and looking at the axis as if it indicated amount of astig rather than orientation. Thanks for prompting me to get it straight. I don't have massive astigmatism, I just have weirdly divergent orientation of astigmatism from my left eye to my right. According to one source, only about 4% of those with astigmatism in the world share this trait. *shrug*
| Quote: | | The online places are great if you have simple needs and fit into their standard model. But if you have special needs like I do (must use low-index plastic, need different PD (pupilary distance) for distance lenses and bifocals, need bifocal line placed higher than normal, big head requires large frames, etc), it doesn't work as well. I wish I could get my glasses online -- it's a whole lot cheaper. |
All of that is certainly addressable by some of the online purveyors I have been looking at, with the exception of your PD requirement. That may be addressable too, but I have never heard of it before... different for distance and bifocal?? How is that possible?
I am familiar with the common case of the left and right monocular PD measurements differing, but having your eyes get closer together when you read is a new one on me.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lyd wrote: | | I don't have massive astigmatism, I just have weirdly divergent orientation of astigmatism from my left eye to my right. According to one source, only about 4% of those with astigmatism in the world share this trait. *shrug* |
Really? Then I'm another one of 'em. I have -2.50 and -3.75 cylinder, and the axes are 28 and 150. So mine are 122° apart. (I assume that's the same as -58° apart, so the difference is just about the same as yours.)
Be glad you don't have a lot of astig. It has lots of interesting side effects. E.g. did you know your eyeballs "self-level" ? If you tilt your head, your eyes rotate to try to keep the same angle as when you were straight up. Which doesn't work when your astig lenses rotate with your head, but your eyes don't... When I tilt my head, everything goes a bit blurry. Strong cylinder also means the axis is VERY critical. I get headaches if my lenses are off by a degree or more -- and yet most Lenscrafters-type places consider it "in spec" if it's within 3 degrees.
That's the main reason I'd consider LASIK -- just to knock the astig down to zero, or at least reduce it. I'd be happy with "only" -0.25 like you have.
| Quote: | | All of that is certainly addressable by some of the online purveyors I have been looking at, with the exception of your PD requirement. That may be addressable too, but I have never heard of it before... different for distance and bifocal?? How is that possible? |
Think of drawing lines from your pupils to what you're looking at. When you look into the distance, the lines are parallel or close to it. Then when you focus on something fairly close, the lines converge on what you're looking at. Which means your pupils are a little closer together, and the lines of sight pass through the lenses "closer together" than they would if you're looking out at the horizon.
My opto Dr. suggested it. I've been having a lot of eyestrain when I read through the bifocals, and he thought it might help to have the bifocals centered better for where I actually look through them. Once I thought of it, it made perfect sense and I'm surprised they don't do that ALL the time. I guess most people just aren't that sensitive to it.
| Quote: | | I am familiar with the common case of the left and right monocular PD measurements differing, but having your eyes get closer together when you read is a new one on me. |
Well your EYES don't get any closer together, but your PUPILS do! Look at someone when they cross their eyes. Their pupils get noticeably closer to each other.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a follow up to all of this: lens material definitely makes a huge difference in optical quality. We knew this already from the abbe numbers, of course, but it is a more clearly evident contrast than I would have guessed if not trying them side by side.
I bought two pairs of glasses, one in a 1.56 index CR-39 plastic, and one in a 1.59 index polycarbonate. Since I bought them both online, I paid less than $100 for both pairs, shipped.
The poly lenses have tons of chromatic aberration, plainly evident when watching the CRT and sometimes noticeable (now that I am looking for it) at other times, while the plastic lenses have almost none.
I use the polys for daily wear, especially at work, and have made the CR-39's my PJ tweaking and watching specs. It was well worth it.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WTS
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1276
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what is CR-39 plastic? Where did you order your glasses from, for that price maybe I'll order a pair.
_________________
Thanks
Walter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WTS wrote: | | So what is CR-39 plastic? Where did you order your glasses from, for that price maybe I'll order a pair. |
Just the standard plastic for eyeglass lenses. When you buy "plastic lenses" virtually anywhere you are getting CR-39.
I got one pair from goggles4u.com, one from 39dollarglasses.com, and one from globaleyeglasses.com.
Take a look at the blog glassyeyes.com for a list of several other good ones and some reviews and things.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WTS
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1276
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HI lyd,
Thanks I'll have alook. What does the 1.56 index mean?
I take it they're cheaper than Costco then too.
_________________
Thanks
Walter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tommo2
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 226
Location: Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, Had LASEK 2 years ago, and definitely was worth it Everything perfect, though it was painful for a few days afterwards.
_________________
pull up the handbrake and walk away
Barco Data 701s
iScan HD scaler with sdi mod
Oppo 981HD with sdi mod
Xbox 360
Playstation 2
Denon AVR 1507 7.1 AV receiver
Wharfedale Diamond 9.4 floorstanders (front)
Wharfedale EVO2 (center)
Pioneer 100W (sides)
Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 (rear)
Wharfedale SW150 active subwoofer
Photos on the way!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyd
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 390
Location: Lake Mills, Wi
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WTS wrote: | HI lyd,
Thanks I'll have alook. What does the 1.56 index mean?
I take it they're cheaper than Costco then too. |
The index of refraction. Higher numbers will result in thinner lenses, at the expense of optical quality. That's the second most influential factor in how much chromatic distortion will be evident with a given lens.
I don't know anything about Costco.
lyd
_________________
de gustibus non disputandum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
