Goodbye Bifocals — Electronic Glasses Change Focus

How do you switch? by bradgoodman · 2011-01-12 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

How do you switch between the two? With a mechanical switch? Seems to me like that would be more difficult than just adjusting your gaze between the two lenses, like with normal bifocals...

Re:How do you switch? by NEDHead · 2011-01-12 05:52 · Score: 3, Funny

The 16K implanted brain probes sense your intent and adjust accordingly
Re:How do you switch? by Amorymeltzer · 2011-01-12 05:53 · Score: 2

emPower! lets you switch back and forth between near and far by touching the sides of the frames. Or you can engage an accelerometer that will automatically switch between modes depending on whether you are looking up or down.
Seems pretty easy, either tap your frame or use them just like bifocals. Pretty nifty.

--
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Re:How do you switch? by OolimPhon · 2011-01-12 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Idiots. They have no idea how people of bifocals use them, do they?
I have mine set up so that the line between the separately-focused halves is exactly lined up with the top of my monitor - and the focus of the lower half is arm's length, which is just right for screen work and still acceptable for reading.
All I have to do is rotate my eyeball up to see perfectly the guy at the facing desk or rotate it downwards to see the code on my screen perfectly, all without moving my head.
Why on earth would I want to tap my glasses everytime I look up or down?
Re:How do you switch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 06:00 · Score: 2, Informative

RTFA - you either touch the frame or "engage an accelerometer" (probably not the right device) to switch when you tip your head down.
Also, the entire lens doesn't change focal length, only sections at the bottom of the lens.
Basically, you have bifocals that can be switched to full-frame far vision.
Re:How do you switch? by commodore64_love · 2011-01-12 06:27 · Score: 2

No offense but that sounds like a pain-in-the-ass.
What we really need is to clone eyeballs with fresh lenses that have the flexible membranes of youth.
C64love (not looking forward to wearing bifocals)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:How do you switch? by aliquis · 2011-01-12 06:30 · Score: 1

And when can I get it straight onto my eye? With 4k resolution graphics.
Re:How do you switch? by aliquis · 2011-01-12 06:32 · Score: 1

I was born with astigmatism. Can I please have someone else eyeballs? =P
Re:How do you switch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 06:34 · Score: 0

They use lasers with frikken sharks dude!
Re:How do you switch? by mikestew · 2011-01-12 06:55 · Score: 2

Bifocals are just a general pain in the ass, even with progressives. Their one saving grace is that they're better than the alternative. Well, I guess it's the plural of "alternative" now. I'll still be sticking with progressives rather than these over-complicated devices.
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-12 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Not as nifty as my CrystaLens. Its focus accomodates, exactly like the eye of a young person does (at least from the user's perspective, even if the mechanism is different).
Over the life of your eyeballs a CrystaLens is probably cheaper, too. The surgery is ~$7k per eye, but you only need it once and your eyes focus for the rest of your life, no glasses needed (at least, if your surgeon is competent). If you have cataracts, insurance will pay all but about $1k per eye. You can get cataracts from steroid eyedrops.
The downsides are that the CrystaLens is a surgical implant; they stick a neeedle in your eye, shoot ultrasound down the needle to turn your eye's lens to mush, suck the mush out through the needle, and insert the implant in its place. Most patients don't require any external lenses like glasses or contacts after the surgery, but some do (Evil-X is wearing bifocals, but I think that was a bad choice of surgeons), but most don't have the better than 20/20 vision I got, although something like 98% have better than 20/25. Glasses give better vision for most patients.
(Journal of the procedure here)

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by rumblin'rabbit · 2011-01-12 07:15 · Score: 2

It automatically switches every three seconds. Usually at just the wrong time.
Re:How do you switch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 07:19 · Score: 0

Well, I guess it's the plural of "alternative" now.
That would be "alternativii" 'cause it's got a 'v' in it like 'virus'
Re:How do you switch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 07:26 · Score: 0

Build an Sonar distance measuring system that echo locates the distance to the closest object you are looking at and adjusts the focus accordingly.
or some other tech using IR and binaural view from the glasses to the nearest object that bounces back.
( would need 2 cameras to judge the distance to object in front of the face )
So if you are looking at a book the Optical Device recognizes it as being within reading focus distance for near vision and when you look away and the nearest object in the field of vision is now a few meters away the Optical Device changes the focus for distance vision.
Re-calibrate a few times a second or when motion is detected by the glasses on the face as in when looking up from the book.
and of course with manual override for watching movies or to conserve battery life,
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-12 07:40 · Score: 1

See this comment.
The Crystalens cures myopia, presbyopia, astigmatism, and cataracts.
There were a few errors in TFA (which I just now got around to reading or I'd have added it to my previous comment).
Starting this April, you could have a pair of your very own for $1200 or more. Pretty expensive, but these glasses are just too cool to ignore.
The surgery is only about five times as expensive, so considering that most people need new glasses yearly, the surgery would pay of itself in five years. If you get a cataract in one eye (like, say, from steroid eyedrops), getting that eye fixed is no more expensive than a pair of these glasses after insurance.
Here’s a prediction that I’m also certain will come true: in the future, you will be older.
Not everybody gets older. Many don't live long enough to develop presbyopia.
Starting around age 40, many adults develop presbyopia
No. between 35 and fifty almost EVERYONE develops presbyopia. It's as much a part of growing old as wrinkles are; the eye's lens gets hard, so the muscles will no longer move it.
For millions of people around the world this inevitably leads to reading glasses, or bifocals if you already have bad vision.
No, bifocals if you have myopia or astigmatism. If you already have presbyopia you're not usually going to need bifocals; ten dollar reading glasses from Walgreens will do.
Many people end up having to put their reading glasses on and take them off dozens of times a day
Most don't; they let the reading glasses sit on the end of their nose, and look over them to see distances.
I was always extremely nearsighted. I'd pull my glasses down my nose to focus them for near vision.
All the electronics are completed enclosed within the frame so there’s no worry about destroying them by dropping them in water.
Gees, for twelve hundred bucks I'd be afraid to go outside wearing them; I've had more than one pair of glasses broken or lost in my lifetime, and these puppies are pricy.
Overall, I would say I’m pretty impressed by the glasses.

I wouldn't. Actually, the technology is impressive, but the product isn't.
Lenses that alternate between focal lengths automatically – that’s like Science Fiction 101.
I must be living in SciFi 401 then, because what I have is FAR superior to these.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by garyebickford · 2011-01-12 08:10 · Score: 1

That whole 'stick a needle in your eye' bit freaks me out. It also reminds me of this:

Cross my heart, hope to die,
stick a needle in my eye

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:How do you switch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 08:29 · Score: 0

> How do you switch between the two? With a mechanical switch?
Without even reading the article (ok, obvious here), I'd say it uses the inter-pupil distance as an indicator of the distance of focus.
> Seems to me like that would be more difficult than just adjusting your gaze between the two lenses, like with normal bifocals...
Yes. And using a car is more inefficent and difficult than using a bike (or walking, btw), but the gains in comfort offset problems related to getting a license, being involved in accidents etc.
As some one who needs bifocals -- and had to quit using them because is a too flawed concept -- I do hope this works.
I just wonder why the default is for distant focus... 80% of time I need close reading... ;-P
Re:How do you switch? by dgatwood · 2011-01-12 08:35 · Score: 1

How hard is pupil tracking? I mean cameras do it for focusing these days. It can't be that much harder to do it twice. Once you have the position of both pupils, determine how crossed the person's eyes are, and when it exceeds a preset threshold, switch to close focusing. That would be much, much better than either of the above schemes because it wouldn't require the user to pay attention to the glasses.
Similarly, why only use half the glasses? As far as comfort goes, it's easiest to read with your eyes pointing straight forward, not looking down as far as you can. If you can do it for half the lens, it should cost negligibly more to do it for the whole lens.
It's a neat idea in principle, but I'd wait for revision 2.0.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:How do you switch? by gr8_phk · 2011-01-12 08:40 · Score: 1

It would be great if it could be controlled by the impulses to the focus muscles in your eye. Better yet would be a flexible lens replacement that just bends like the real thing - non electronically.
Re:How do you switch? by Programmer_In_Traini · 2011-01-12 08:59 · Score: 1

why, you clap your hands of course.

--
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
Re:How do you switch? by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-01-12 09:00 · Score: 1

If there's a manufacturing defect or they screw up in the assembly of your eyeglasses, you get a different pair of eyeglasses. Generally for free.
If there's a manufacturing defect or they screw up the crystalens implant surgery, you're blind. Also for free, but the results are nonetheless undesirable.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Re:How do you switch? by AlamedaStone · 2011-01-12 09:27 · Score: 1

>I must be living in SciFi 401 then, because what I have is FAR superior to these.
Authorization needed.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:How do you switch? by gknoy · 2011-01-12 09:32 · Score: 1

Mcgrew's account of his things-stuck-in-the-eye adventures are horrifying. For added fun, go read Larry Wall's diary about his cataract surgery. /shudder. Thank you both for writing those, as it really helped educate me, both about the pain involved and the benefits later.
Re:How do you switch? by catmistake · 2011-01-12 09:53 · Score: 1

You're one of the lucky ones. My close friend is blind in his left eye due to a botched early (experimental) version of this proceedure (from scar tissue, I believe). Also, any time you go under general anesthesia, there is a chance you will never wake up... most that take elective surgeries ignore the statistical dangers of "going under," but they are quite real.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:How do you switch? by vux984 · 2011-01-12 09:58 · Score: 2

The downsides are that the CrystaLens is a surgical implant...
That means a lot of risks, and potential future complications. Glancing at your journal, you were probably a good candidate, and it was clearly worth it to you.
But I'd recommend most people stick to glasses, contact lenses, or orthokeratology. That last is the use of contact lenses that reshape your cornea while you sleep* (so its still reversible and non-surgical)
(* in much the same way sitting on a textured chair will imprint itself on your skin. You stand up, and the pattern is still there... for a short while. These lenses do much the same thing resting on the liquid in your eye ("tears") to create the necessary fluid pressures to squeeze your cornea into the desired shape. You wake up, remove the lenses, and your cornea gradually returns to its original shape, but while it does you can see normally. An ideal ortho-k candidate can get it down to wearing the lenses a couple nights a week.)
Re:How do you switch? by am+2k · 2011-01-12 10:24 · Score: 1

Well, you'd need two CCDs and a CV processor on your glasses somewhere, which I imagine would be kinda bulky (don't forget that you have to wear the glasses about 18h a day, so every gram counts). But I agree that this would be the way to go sooner or later.
Re:How do you switch? by mug+funky · 2011-01-12 10:39 · Score: 1

made me think of Un Chien Andalou, actually :)
Re:How do you switch? by dgatwood · 2011-01-12 11:33 · Score: 1

Eh. You only need to track one axis of motion (horizontal position of the pupil), so I suspect you could come up with something much simpler that would do the job. For example, you might have a row of individually detected photocells across the top edge of the frame and a focused (microlensed?) IR array along the bottom edge. Take the moving average of each cell over a fraction of a second, and find the center of the dark part. Might or might not give precise enough measurement, but it would be worth a try.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:How do you switch? by Jakester2K · 2011-01-12 11:35 · Score: 1

Bifocals are just a general pain in the ass, even with progressives. Their one saving grace is that they're better than the alternative. Well, I guess it's the plural of "alternative" now. I'll still be sticking with progressives rather than these over-complicated devices.
IMO, and I suppose it depends on the glasses, but frankly - after several pairs over 3 years - I think progressives suck.

I don't understand why the only usable, focusable area is a funnel-shaped area in the middle of the lenses - I'm pretty sure I've paid for the entire area of both lenses.

(Actually, the cynical side of me - the part that also believes that changing the blood sugar range outside of which one is considered diabetic from 70-120 to 70-100 is mostly profit driven - understands quite well.)

And yet, my peripheral vision is now essentially useless - I have to look straight at whatever thing I want to look at, and then try to find the 1mm square that puts said thing into decent focus, by moving my head in various directions for several seconds.

Why doesn't "progressive" mean "gradual shift in focal length down the lens - across the ENTIRE width of the lens?"

I'm going to insist on straight-up bifocals next time. I may not get correction that's quite as accurate, but at least I'll be able to use the entire area of the lenses, and look a little less like I have some sort of neuromuscular disease (yeah yeah, insensitive clod, I know - no offense meant).

Which means, I suppose, that these electronic ones might actually work for me. But I wonder if the next generation could be something more along the line of progressives (ideally as I define it above).

Perhaps an accelerometer sensing the position of the head and gradually changing the focal length? Might bring my problem right back though....
Re:How do you switch? by mikestew · 2011-01-12 14:19 · Score: 1

My experience doesn't match yours. I'm looking to my left to the 2nd monitor without turning my head, and it has a wide area of clear vision. Oddly, and it's the first time I've noticed, the right lens has a much more narrow field of usable view. Not as bad as you state, but definitely worse than the left lens.
Anyway, I think by the time one gets to the age of bifocals, the lens get so tricky that it's hard to get them right (whether it's poor quality control at the optometrist, lab, or other step along the way, I don't know). I've gone from "just correct the myopia" to "myopia, bifocals, and *whee!* my eyes don't line up anymore, so throw prisms in there". I certainly make more return trips than I ever did in my younger years. So maybe go back, throw them on the counter, and say "try again"?
Re:How do you switch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 18:11 · Score: 0

So I should get some steroid eyedrops and fuck-up my eyes so I qualify for this procedure? Um - go fuck yourself.
Re:How do you switch? by dysan27 · 2011-01-12 19:10 · Score: 1

Except for the fact that most eye surgeries are done under a local anesthesia.
Re:How do you switch? by mcsandberg · 2011-01-13 01:13 · Score: 1

If this technology can handle extreme correction, its VERY exciting to me! I've got to use two pairs of glasses because I've got a huge amount of prism that's beyond bifocals/progressive lenses capabilities. So, these will actually SAVE me $$, if they work! Just throwing a switch will be a LOT bett
Re:How do you switch? by KritonK · 2011-01-13 01:36 · Score: 1

How do you switch between the two? With a mechanical switch?
According to TFA, there are two modes: A manual mode, where you slide your finger along the ear piece of the glasses, and an automatic mode, where the glasses guess the mode from the position of your head.
The first mode is only superior to having two pairs of glasses and switching between the two, while the second mode is bound to make lots of incorrect switches. Did I lower my head, e.g., to read a book (close focus) or to look at the pavement (distant focus)?
I think the whole "replacement for bifocals" premise is wrong. A replacement for bifocals is already available. They are called varifocals or progressive lenses. I've been wearing them for a few years, and I highly recommend them.
Re:How do you switch? by ultranova · 2011-01-13 03:43 · Score: 1

Also, any time you go under general anesthesia, there is a chance you will never wake up... most that take elective surgeries ignore the statistical dangers of "going under," but they are quite real.

Of course there's a chance you never wake up, since you could die anytime. The question is: are your hourly chances of dying during general anesthesia greater than otherwise, and if so, could the difference be explained by the fact that you're being operated on?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:15 · Score: 1

Well, the cataract surgery was easy. The vitrectomy was a nightmare, though.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:16 · Score: 1

That whole 'stick a needle in your eye' bit freaks me out. It also reminds me of this:
Yeah, like I mentioned in the journal, I told everyone "I shouldn't have said 'cross my heart'".

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:24 · Score: 1

The vitrectomy, yes -- that's pretty much what a vitrectomy is, they remove the vitreous fluid and replace it with nitrogen gas. The gas bubble holds the retina in place until it can heal, and you have to keep your head down all but ten minutes an hour until the bubble is gone. In a week or two the vitreous is regenerated and the nitrogen is absorbed into the body.
With the vitrectomy (two years after the cataract surgery) I was unconsious when they put the instruments in my eyeball, and I wish I wouldn't have let the pretty anesthesiologist talk me into a local. Two hours is a LONG time to have your head bolted to a table.
With the lensectomy I was awake when they put the needle in. It freaked me out, but it didn't hurt.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:31 · Score: 1

With the vitrectomy surgery I was given a choice of local or general. I was going to opt for general but the anesthesiologist talked me out of it. I wished afterwards I'd been unconscious.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:35 · Score: 1

Um, "botched early (experimental) version of this proceedure"... how long ago was that? They've done lensectomies (cataract surgery) since 1949, and afaik the only thing that was different from the older tech with mine was the type of implant itself. The procedure is the same.
If you're talking about the vitrectomy, that was first done in 1969, so your friend must be fairly old. That procedure is extremely risky, but if you have a detached retina your choices are not having surgery and going blind, or having surgery and maybe going blind.
But you're right, I was extremely lucky considering my vision went from terrible (20/400) to better than normal (20/16) after the lensectomy, and all the floaters were gone after the vitrectomy, giving me even better sight.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:42 · Score: 1

The question is: are your hourly chances of dying during general anesthesia greater than otherwise, and if so, could the difference be explained by the fact that you're being operated on?

Any surgery is risky, but the chances of dying during surgery under a general is still greater than dying during surgery under a local.
Of course, far more people die from alcohol overdose when they're not even being operated on than all other overdoses combined. All depressant drugs are dangerous, and the patient has to be monitored closely by the anesthesiologist during surgery.
It's a whole lot better than when I was a kid and had my tonsils removed; they used ether (automotive starting fluid) as an anesthetic back then, and there was no monitoring eqipment at all, none of it had been invented yet. And ether is a horrible, terrible, nightmarish psychedilic.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:52 · Score: 1

That means a lot of risks, and potential future complications.
And the risks and possible complications (the biggest danger is infection) mean a visit to the eye doctor every month for a year. That was with both surgeries (I don't think I linked the journal to the vitrectomy since it wasn't exactly on topic).
But I'd recommend most people stick to glasses, contact lenses, or orthokeratology.
I probably would, too, although my surgeon did say that she'd done quite a few lensectomies on people who just wanted to cure non-cataract lens problems (like near or farsightedness).
I hadn't heard of orthokeratology, I'll have to look that up. But it wouldn't help age-related presbyopia, that is caused by the normal process of the eye's focusing lens (not the cornea, the focusing lens sits behind the iris) becoming hard, which is a normal part of the aging process.
I probably couldn't have gone through orthokeratology at any rate, I tried contacts back in 1970 before they'd come up with soft lenses, and they were far too painful. This sounds even worse.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-13 06:53 · Score: 1

No, I wouldn't reccomend it, but it is available. And if you're young, that's a good reason not to take steroids; blindness from cataracts is one of the risks.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do you switch? by vux984 · 2011-01-13 07:16 · Score: 1

I hadn't heard of orthokeratology, I'll have to look that up. But it wouldn't help age-related presbyopia, that is caused by the normal process of the eye's focusing lens (not the cornea, the focusing lens sits behind the iris) becoming hard, which is a normal part of the aging process.
I agree. You don't sound like a candidate at all, I only mentioned it as a point of general interest.
I probably couldn't have gone through orthokeratology at any rate, I tried contacts back in 1970 before they'd come up with soft lenses, and they were far too painful. This sounds even worse.
Heh, modern 'hard lenses' are all made of RGP (rigid gas permeable) materials instead of 'glass' now and the comfort characteristics are MUCH better. It isn't as good as soft lenses of course, but its not the 70s any more. :)
Re:How do you switch? by Ponyegg · 2011-01-14 02:17 · Score: 1

[disclosure - I used to make spectacles for a living before the internet] You may have different types of progressive lenses. there are numerous manufacturers of them out there and the progressive bifocal area differs across most of them. if you are finding it too narrow then your optician should be able to prescribe a different pair.
Executive bifocals (these basically look like split lenses with the entire lower portion of the lens being the 'reading' area) might well suit those of you with multiple monitor setups as it would cover the lower field of vision. Speak to your Dispensing Optician and explain your needs and they should be able to easily prescribe the right lenses for you.... if they can't then go to another Opticians
Re:How do you switch? by Ponyegg · 2011-01-14 02:28 · Score: 1

It will depend upon how much the refractive index can be altered by and how much the focal point of the lens can be moved to correct the prism. Fundamentally a 'prismed' spectacle lens is simply an 'off center' lens that is physically moving the image on the retina left/right/up/down to compensate for the eye's own lens. If you've got a 'huge' amount of prism then I doubt his will be able to resolve it. If they could somehow create a lens using this technology that acts like a Fresnel prism does then they might be on to something.
Re:How do you switch? by mcgrew · 2011-01-14 04:42 · Score: 1

Heh, modern 'hard lenses' are all made of RGP (rigid gas permeable) materials instead of 'glass' now and the comfort characteristics are MUCH better.
Yes, they are. I mentioned in the journal that I'd broken my glasses and went to buy a new pair, and they said it would take a week, but I could get contacts that day. I had no trouble at all with the new soft lenses (even better than the RPG), and wore them for a few years.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Perfect for by Archangel+Michael · 2011-01-12 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

breaking and expensive replacements.

Sorry, but I like my analog glasses just fine. I'd hate to have to constantly flip between LCD mode and normal mode. That would drive me nuts more than my graduated glasses are now.

Not everything is better digitally.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Re:Perfect for by jayme0227 · 2011-01-12 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is interesting technology, but just screams "Solution looking for a problem."

--
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Re:Perfect for by ColdWetDog · 2011-01-12 06:31 · Score: 1

Actually, if it worked well (and didn't cost $1200) I would buy a pair in a second. I use bifocals all the time around the house and at work. However, for example, if I'm hiking, they're a pain because I'm looking down through the close up lenses and everything gets blurred.

In fact, I have 'outside' and 'inside' glasses for that reason. If you could adjust the magnification of the lenses for even closer work it would be even better.

Looks like a technology to keep an eye on.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Perfect for by Relayman · 2011-01-12 06:38 · Score: 1

You need graduated bifocals, like the earlier poster mentioned.

--
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Re:Perfect for by KnightBlade · 2011-01-12 06:58 · Score: 1

Not to mention these need to be charged. TFA shows a pair being "induction charged". Know, what pair of glasses doesn't need to be charged? The normal kind! What happens when you're in the middle of an important conference/meeting and these give in? "Uhmmm.... excuse me, I'm sorry, I can't sign this document, cause, ummm... my glasses just ran out of juice so I can't read the fine print." Their you tube channel shows a side by side comparison of how images look through normal vs their glasses. http://www.youtube.com/user/PixelOptics#p/u/1/AhCQYNLH2sM I don't wear glasses, so I don't know how true the facts they state so actually are.
Re:Perfect for by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 08:23 · Score: 0

Looks like a technology to keep an eye on.
Intended?
Re:Perfect for by hcdejong · 2011-01-12 09:32 · Score: 1

When volume is ramped up, these could easily become less expensive than bifocals; after all, there's only one grinding operation per lens instead of two.
Switching manually is a pain, but so is moving your head to get the correct lens in view.
Re:Perfect for by Seedy2 · 2011-01-12 09:32 · Score: 2

They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head.
If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
I tried bifocal sunglasses for a while, had the same issue with blurry feet.
So sunglasses are single vision, clear glasses are bifocal.
Now I just go with the whole "if it's dark I can't see my feet anyway, wear sunglasses outside" thing.

--
Nothing to say here... move along
Re:Perfect for by Natales · 2011-01-12 13:06 · Score: 1

That's narrow-minded. This is the just the beginning of this technology.

Just to name one, imagine in a few years the implications for the field of photography. Potentially, you won't need to bring a bag of expensive lenses designed for very specific focal lengths and apertures. One single morphing lense would replace a complete bag of fixed ones.
Re:Perfect for by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 14:47 · Score: 0

I agree. Ive been wearing noline bifocals for years. I always buy them online at www.39dollarglasses.com and they work great. who knows, maybe they will start selling these lenses and ill try them out.
Re:Perfect for by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 17:30 · Score: 0

Wait 'til you turn 45!
Re:Perfect for by Ponyegg · 2011-01-14 02:32 · Score: 1

They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head. If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
What would happen if you're driving a car, Would the windscreen get in the way?
Re:Perfect for by Ponyegg · 2011-01-14 02:41 · Score: 1

When volume is ramped up, these could easily become less expensive than bifocals; after all, there's only one grinding operation per lens instead of two.
Common misconception, nowadays there's only one grinding process when you make bifocals. Bifocal lens blanks come to an opticians with the front of the lens already finished to a set/known curvature/power. The lens 'surfacing' equipment simply cuts/polishes the rear of the lens to the required shape to produce the require powered lens as prescribed by the optician, the finished lens is then 'glazed' into the spectacle frame as a normal lens would be. Lens blanks are incredibly cheap already... seriously... markups can be immense (in the mid 90's we were paying £10 for a pair of Nikon NL80 lenses which retailed for >£200)... the difference between the cost of single vision vs bifocals is about 2 to 1 (depending on power and material).

Why... by yoshi_mon · 2011-01-12 05:52 · Score: 2

Yes let us bid goodbye to a foolproof, established, and market proven tech because something new has come out.

Taco...Come now, "Welcome the new Bifocals," would have been much more appropriate.

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!

Re:Why... by bughunter · 2011-01-12 05:58 · Score: 2

Because I own two pairs of reading glasses *and* wear contacts. As I age, my extreme myopia is combining with presbyopia to require me to keep around several pairs of glasses for different applications: A pair of +1.50 glasses for desk work, reading and computer use, a pair of +2.50 glasses for electronics work, and I sometimes wear both for reading those tiny letters on SMD resistors, etc.
The days are over when I could wear spectacles for my myopia and just remove them for very close work. My eyes just don't focus close anymore at all.
I'd love a practical pair of variable magnification glasses for work.

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:Why... by Locke2005 · 2011-01-12 06:01 · Score: 1

I've got bifocals, and they suck because the reading section is so small. These glasses would also suck, because the reading section is still way too small, requiring you to look down your nose to view a computer terminal. Not exactly the most comfortable position for an 8 hour work day.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Why... by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2011-01-12 06:14 · Score: 2

Ask for the 35mm lens instead of the 28mm next time you get glasses. They might have to special order it, though.
The 28/35mm refers to the width of the bifocal section. 7mm makes a big difference.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Why... by grub · 2011-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that they're "foolproof". Last year, at age 44 (get off my lawn), I ended up with progressive lenses.

I'm used to them now but it was very surrealistic walking around with them at first, especially with things in the lower part of the focus. I still kick things/step on toys around the house.

Overall I'm 80% happy with them. If these things can do it automagically and avoid the visual screw-ups, I'd try them in a heartbeat.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Why... by grub · 2011-01-12 06:30 · Score: 1

oops, and it's not automagic. Guess I'm keeping these fucking things.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Why... by yoshi_mon · 2011-01-12 06:31 · Score: 2

And like your eyesight you miss the point completely.
It is not about there being an new tech. It is not about it being better and someone like you who will benefit from it and likely use it.
But that the idea that because a new tech comes that the old tech is going to go away instantly. Can we please put on some reading glasses such that we have focus on the way tech works on a site like Slashdot.

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Re:Why... by compro01 · 2011-01-12 06:48 · Score: 1

Might try a style of frame with larger lenses/larger reading section or look into inverted bifocals, which have the near/distance sections swapped.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:Why... by garyebickford · 2011-01-12 08:20 · Score: 1

I have progressives too. Note that there are 1/2 dozen different types of progressives that each have different zone layouts. After a week of getting used to them, I like them just fine, had them for years. One other issue I've noted is that there's no such thing as a straight & level line. I mess around with construction & woodworking, and I used to be able to 'eyeball' walls etc. to see if they were straight and level, met at right angles and so forth. Sometimes walls seem like they are leaning slightly when they are not. Since the effect depends on many factors, I can not trust my vision in this particular case any more, so I have to use tools to confirm.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Why... by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-01-12 12:03 · Score: 1

I'd love a practical pair of variable magnification glasses for work.
Progressive lenses - about $60.
Re:Why... by Ponyegg · 2011-01-14 02:51 · Score: 1

re: close up work. We used to make specs for some Harley St surgeons years ago... I say we we would usually send them to Zeiss in Germany. Anyway, they would have their normal single vision glasses inserted with a magnfying scope. eg; http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5180286/2/istockphoto_5180286-surgeon-with-magnifying-glasses.jpg Not very practical for day-to-day wear though :-) Or alternatively you need trifocals but they offer limited field of vision.
Re:Why... by Ponyegg · 2011-01-14 02:52 · Score: 1

Or Try the executive split bifocal, the entire lower portion of the lens is the reading area then.

U.S. $ 1200 for Pixelscmoptix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 05:52 · Score: 0

to manually switch focus?

Goodbye Pixel Optics .

Yours In Akaemgorodok,
K. Trout

Ugh by jimmerz28 · 2011-01-12 05:54 · Score: 1

This is great but I hate wearing glasses. Can't we just get bionic eyes already so I can zoom/record/focus without having to look (any more) like a dork?

Re:Ugh by Spy+Handler · 2011-01-12 05:58 · Score: 1

im sorry but glasses are required equipment for nerds.
Re:Ugh by Locke2005 · 2011-01-12 05:59 · Score: 1

While we're at it, can we get X-ray vision too? I'm tired of having to guess what women look like naked, and I'm not qualified to work for the TSA!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Ugh by Luyseyal · 2011-01-12 06:10 · Score: 1

I don't care about looking like a dork but bionic eyes would be awesome. The major reasons I haven't considered laser surgery is I'm worried about ruining my night vision and amateur astronomy.
Or, take my stem cells and make me new eyes in the lab. That would be fine, too.
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Re:Ugh by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2011-01-12 06:10 · Score: 1

No, Olhado.
The article is wrong. It says that "many" adults develop presbyopia, but that's not true. Eventually, all adults get it, starting at about age 40. The lens in your eye loses its flexibility, meaning that the muscles simply can't move it anymore. That means you can't focus on close-up things, which didn't matter much until we started living past 40 and doing a lot of reading.
There are some options available, though. You mileage may vary.
1. Monocular contact vision. One eye is in distance strength, the other is in reading strength.
2. Surgery. You can get your eyes corrected with LASIK or PRK surgery, and each has a bunch of factors to consider. You can also replace your lens with a synthetic, although that's usually only done on very old people with specific medical conditions. You can also get intra-ocular contacts. You could wear glasses just for reading.
3. Better glasses. This proposes a new solution to progressives of multi-focals. If you don't like wearing glasses, maybe you can find better ones. I can't wear glasses when I'm diving, for example, but I do have 2 dress pairs, sunglasses, swim goggles, all in Rx. I buy them online for a fraction of what I'd pay in town. I've had good luck with clearlycontacts. (I used to be an Optician, so I am exceedingly picky. They aren't quite as good in terms of lens quality, but they are at about 80% of the top-of-the-line lenses. The actual glasses are perfect quality.)
4. Contacts. You can correct the distance vision and then wear reading glasses.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Ugh by Monkeedude1212 · 2011-01-12 06:11 · Score: 1

and I'm not qualified to work for the TSA!
You went to College?
Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 06:40 · Score: 0

Hell, he passed kindergarten!
Re:Ugh by ThatMegathronDude · 2011-01-12 06:54 · Score: 1

He is a bit of a pervert though, he just may pass with that exception.
Re:Ugh by rubycodez · 2011-01-12 10:59 · Score: 1

also for japanese schoolgirls
Moe!
Re:Ugh by JonySuede · 2011-01-12 11:12 · Score: 1

You forgot 5. physiotherapy
According to a colleague from France they have a special kind of physiotherapist that specialize on the eyes. They give you exercises to strengthen the muscles controlling the lens. Sadly we don't seems to have that kind of specialist on this side of the Atlantic

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:Ugh by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-01-16 00:11 · Score: 1

Can localized application of anabolic steroids be of any help?

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.

Cheaper by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 05:58 · Score: 0

Get a smaller sized pair and when you need to read something look under the lenses or take them off.

No thanks, I'm fine with my $60 progressives by KPexEA · 2011-01-12 05:58 · Score: 2

Once these are cheaper then I might switch, but for now the $60 progressives that I bought from http://www.zennioptical.com/ are working just fine thanks.

Re:No thanks, I'm fine with my $60 progressives by Abstrackt · 2011-01-12 06:22 · Score: 1

I was just going to recommend Zenni Optical myself. I have four pairs of glasses from there for less than it would have cost for one anywhere else.

--
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Re:No thanks, I'm fine with my $60 progressives by JonySuede · 2011-01-12 06:59 · Score: 2

As long as you dont take the Anti-Reflection Coating the quality is quite fine. (The coating itself is nice but it breakdown if you wash your glass under hot water or if you take them to extreme cold)

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:No thanks, I'm fine with my $60 progressives by darrylo · 2011-01-12 09:29 · Score: 2
On the other hand, if you're willing to be careful (and not subject the glasses to temperature extremes), the anti-reflection coating is quite nice. I've had progressives with the coating for 2+ years, and the coating is largely intact and unblemished. The only issues are a couple of tiny scratches -- one caused by kleenex (do NOT use kleenex to clean coated lenses) and the other caused either by kleenex or a cotton shirt. I now clean my glasses by doing:
1. Rinsing under water (sometimes hot -- I've never had problems with hot water, but maybe I'm lucky). Gently shake off excess water.
2. Spraying on a mixture of 1/4 isopropyl alcohol and 3/4s distilled water. You can often get empty spray bottles (small ones, around 1-3oz) from the drugstore, or you can sometimes refill the "glasses cleaner" sprayers sometimes given out by optometrists.
3. Wiping/drying with a microfiber cloth -- not the ones that you use to wipe your car, but the small ones designed for glasses and camera lenses. While you can get these from optometrists, they tend to be expensive. You can often get them cheaper from the drugstore or online. Do not use anything made from plant products to wipe the lenses, as these products appear to scratch the coating. This includes kleenex and cotton shirts. I don't know if polyester is safe, but I generally avoid everything but microfiber cloths (many "polyester" clothing are a blend of polyester and cotton, and the cotton can probably scratch).
I do this once or twice a week, and my coatings are still virtually as good as new.
Re:No thanks, I'm fine with my $60 progressives by treeves · 2011-01-12 12:52 · Score: 1

I got a pair of progressive bifocals from Zenni Optical and had no problems with the anti-reflective coating, and I wash my glasses with detergent and water every day.
I did have a problem with the frames eventually (after about two years) snapping in two right at the bridge. Especially since they were 'titanium' frames.
I may try them again. Lasting two years at that price I really have no complaint.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

Meh. by msauve · 2011-01-12 06:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Superfocus ones look much more interesting (continuously variable focus), and are considerably cheaper, too (~$700). Con: they're only available with circular lenses. Pro: they're hyped by Penn Jillette.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 06:20 · Score: 0

2nd on the superfocus / trufocals - mechanical (actually hydraulic) focus change is simple and allows clarity from close-up to infinity... no charging necessary :-)
Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 06:20 · Score: 1

I've had superfocus glasses for a year and a half now, and I'm not sure these are an improvement. These new whizz-bangy specs still require me to touch my glasses to shift focus, but with the superfocus glasses the entire lens changes focus so I can keep the entire screens of my two monitors in focus. Plus I don't need separate pairs of glasses for driving/reading and coding/reading. And the lack of bifocal blur has almost completely cured my headaches. I thought the round lenses were pretty lame but I get a lot of compliments on the look of the glasses from people that don't know about their technical qualities, so I've come around.
Re:Meh. by stevenrowat · 2011-01-12 07:13 · Score: 2

I have the Superfocus "Truefocals" Astonishingly, they work. I'm wearing them right now. I couldn't have continued computer work without them. I searched and read everything, and decided to try them: good company, full 100% refund for 30 days when I bought them (and they pay shipping both ways). I'm getting so I use them for many other things -- woodworking, reading small print on physical manuals. They're 50% heavier than normal glasses. But the bottom line is: they work. I can adjust to any distance just by touching the slider. I wear them 8 hours a day; have for about six months now. If I broke them I'd buy another pair immediately.
Re:Meh. by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-01-12 12:11 · Score: 1

I have the Superfocus "Truefocals"
Astonishingly, they work. I'm wearing them right now. I couldn't have continued computer work without them.
I searched and read everything, and decided to try them: good company, full 100% refund for 30 days when I bought them (and they pay shipping both ways).
I'm getting so I use them for many other things -- woodworking, reading small print on physical manuals.
They're 50% heavier than normal glasses. But the bottom line is: they work. I can adjust to any distance just by touching the slider. I wear them 8 hours a day; have for about six months now. If I broke them I'd buy another pair immediately.
Couldn't a pair of progressive lenses for a third the price do the same thing? I ask this as a serious question, as I have to replace my old glasses (which are progressive lenses).
Re:Meh. by JanneM · 2011-01-12 12:50 · Score: 2

Anything that needs me to manually adjust the glasses is a no-go for me. Normal progressive lenses work just fine already, so I don't really see the point of making it complicated and intrusive. If I want to improve my eyesight I'd much rather get surgery for my shortsightedness and astigmatism, then use progressives with uncorrected upper area. Either way I don't have to mess with my glasses just because I want to change my viewing distance.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:Meh. by stevenrowat · 2011-01-12 14:38 · Score: 1

Couldn't a pair of progressive lenses for a third the price do the same thing? I ask this as a serious question, as I have to replace my old glasses (which are progressive lenses).
I tried progressives and they didn't work for me; I found them dangerous on stairs and with power tools because the sweet spot was too small. I'm not an expert about them and I know they have improved them, and there are many companies with different versions; maybe it will work for you. I feel that the main difference is that with my Trufocals the entire sweet spot -- much larger than in the progressives I tried -- changes to whatever distance I'm needing. They seem particularly well suited to a relatively unchanging distance that you'll work at for a few minutes or more -- like computers, or reading, or a woodworking or kitchen task. In each of these the area I get to see is larger than the progressives gave me, and the edging areas are closer to actual focus also. With the progressives, the area outside the sweetspot was extremely out of focus. But again, I know there are many different progressives. However, the more expensive ones are close to the Truefocals price, and you might need them to match its precision area.
Re:Meh. by pedestrian+crossing · 2011-01-12 21:18 · Score: 1

Great idea, too bad they are so butt ugly!

--
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Re:Meh. by mparker762 · 2011-01-13 04:04 · Score: 1

Progressives gave me very bad headaches. Once I switched to trufocus (now called superfocus) glasses the headaches went away. Plus I can keep the entire screen in focus (both screens actually), with progressives only a small band was in focus, both the top of the glasses was out of focus and the lower half was out of focus because the screen isn't at the right distance for *either* prescription. I could have gotten another pair of non-progressive mid-range glasses that would have solved the problem when sitting normally at my desk, but then I would have had to switch to a far-prescription lens when I leaned back in my chair... Or a pair of trifocals, which would at least give me a 6" bar of screen in focus. But it all got pretty silly very quickly, and the trufocals seemed like they would make the whole problem go away.
The focusing mechanism sounds aggravating but in practice it just disappears. The hyperfocal distance for the glasses is about four feet, so beyond that you just set it to infinity and forget about it. The focusing mechanism only comes into play when you settle down to code and set your focus, then when you get up to move about you set it back to infinity. Also I've found that in practice I don't really use the full focusing range, there are about five positions on the slider that I actually use. But those three extra focal lengths that you get over bifocals are a major win.
I've been very happy with mine, and will be buying another pair in September (I try to get new glasses every two years). My only knock against them was that I thought the round lens look was pretty ugly, however I've gotten a *lot* of compliments on the look of my superfocus glasses, strangers are always commenting to me on how nice they look - I've been wearing glasses for 30 years and never so much as a peep about my glasses except the platitudes from family, but in the 18 months since I got the superfocals it happens two or three times a month; cashiers, tellers, random people in the mall, etc.

!LCD by wiredlogic · 2011-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1

I seem to be missing the display part of this supposed LCD.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:!LCD by raygundan · 2011-01-12 06:34 · Score: 1

Pretend it stands for "Device" and move on.

Peril-Sensitive Reading Glasses? by billstewart · 2011-01-12 06:09 · Score: 1

I suppose those would be the opposite of what you need here - "No, that small print could be scary - let's refocus for distance!".

Thank you for making a humble pair of reading glasses so very, very happy!

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Lots of naysayers... by bjk002 · 2011-01-12 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

on this thread, but I would think a bunch of nerds would appreciate the technological triumph, not belabor the deficiencies / hurdles that remain.

Perhaps the price-point is ridiculous, but as any professionals know the price drops with economies of scale.

From my perspective, this represents a viable first step toward the elimination of glasses all together. I'm thinking contact lenses with micro generators like this. OK, maybe not today, but tomorrow?

--
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);

Re:Lots of naysayers... by dubbreak · 2011-01-12 09:03 · Score: 1

on this thread, but I would think a bunch of nerds would appreciate the technological triumph, not belabor the deficiencies / hurdles that remain.
Perhaps the price-point is ridiculous, but as any professionals know the price drops with economies of scale.
...
Plus Apple might pick this tech up when it's more viable and make an even better product out of it.

I could use some iGlasses while reading the ridiculously small screen on the new iPod nano.

--
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
Re:Lots of naysayers... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 09:15 · Score: 0

Are you thinking of implanting them surgically? Because if so, I'm fairly certain that a) they already do lens replacement with non-electronic versions, and b) laser eye surgery can correct most of the problems that I would expect these to correct.
If you're not thinking of implanting them surgically, any contacts will suffer from the problems of putting them in and taking them out that keep me from getting contacts now, so I hardly see this as a step towards the elimination of glasses.
Re:Lots of naysayers... by Belial6 · 2011-01-12 11:20 · Score: 1

You only just noticed how anti-tech slashdot has become? Look at most threads about technology, and you will find it full of comments about how it will never catch on, it is unnecessary, or the old version is better.
Re:Lots of naysayers... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 20:47 · Score: 0

Hard core geeks are rarely early adopters.

Bifocals really are annoying. by billstewart · 2011-01-12 06:16 · Score: 2

If you're doing an 8-hour work day, get full-sized reading glasses, and switch glasses when you're leaving your desk. Or you could try progressive lenses.

Twenty years ago, it was much easier to fix this problem for my supervisor, who was about 60 and constantly switching glasses. We were using the Sun NeWS windowing system, so we just told his screen to use a 25-point font, everything got bigger, and he was happy. On the other hand, today you can get a much bigger screen, and as long as you're not using Windows, it's not too hard to change font sizes.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Bifocals really are annoying. by mikestew · 2011-01-12 07:03 · Score: 1

and as long as you're not using Windows, it's not too hard to change font sizes.
Or not using Mac OS. That's my one major complaint with Mac OS: 27" screen, and I can't bump the system-wide font size up.
Don't know why you're picking on Windows, though. For quite a while there's been a system setting for "large fonts". Whether or not individual apps honor that is a different story.
Re:Bifocals really are annoying. by Nefarious+Wheel · 2011-01-12 09:40 · Score: 1

and as long as you're not using Windows, it's not too hard to change font sizes.
um, how difficult is ctrl-scrollwheel? Even as far back as Windows XP holding the control key down while moving the mouse scroll wheel alters font size in practically every application except the desktop (for which there's a static font size adjust).

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:Bifocals really are annoying. by cbhacking · 2011-01-12 13:30 · Score: 1

Not quite sure what your complaint is; Windows has text DPI settings and the more recent versions enforce their use pretty well.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...

Headline is misleading by gstrickler · 2011-01-12 06:22 · Score: 1

These are bifocals when switched on. The only difference is that they allow you to switch them out of bifocal mode.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

The Jerk by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-01-12 06:25 · Score: 1

Opti-Grab 2.0 FTW!!

What to do??? RTFA or get first post...? by Joce640k · 2011-01-12 06:25 · Score: 2

Getting first post trumps reading the article I guess.

--
No sig today...

Much easier and better solution by h4rr4r · 2011-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1

A much better solution is contacts for distance vision and some cheap reading glasses. Can I patent this?

Re:Much easier and better solution by YrWrstNtmr · 2011-01-12 07:18 · Score: 1

No, thats a 'different' solution, not necessarily a 'better' one. Many cases where that would be non-optimal:
Person can't wear/doesn't like contacts.
You're in front of a screen for 8/10/12 hrs a day, hence reading glasses, hence why am I wearing contacts for all that time?
Now I have to manage two sets of aux eyeballs - glasses and contacts.

Personally, I like this adjustable concept. Give it a little time to mature, and we'll see.
Re:Much easier and better solution by T'Kethry · 2011-01-12 08:32 · Score: 1

Or, if you're astigmatic and myopic and need bifocals and can wear contacts, these are wonderful:
http://www.coopervision.com/us/patient/contactlenses/brands/proclear/proclearmultifocaltoric/

--
Death is but a doorway.
Here, let me hold that for you.
Re:Much easier and better solution by treeves · 2011-01-12 12:55 · Score: 1

And there are environments where contacts can't be worn (around some chemicals etc.), not to mention the hassle of maintaining and changing them and discomfort.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

electricity...batteries... by PPalmgren · 2011-01-12 06:31 · Score: 1

I wonder how big the batteries will need to be to balance style and weight with the need to recharge the glasses. People will not be too receptive to something like this if they have to recharge it on a daily basis or if it as bulky as the powered 3d glasses. That seems like a significant hurdle that will need to be overcome before these are even remotely practical.

Re:electricity...batteries... by tangelogee · 2011-01-12 06:41 · Score: 1

Recharging at night while sleeping wouldn't be that bad. If they rig it with induction-charging it might not be too bad at all. Just set the glasses on the mat at night.
Re:electricity...batteries... by anyGould · 2011-01-12 07:59 · Score: 1

Recharging at night would be fine, but you would be needing to get sixteen hours of work out of six or eight hours of charge - I'd hate to have to tell my boss "sorry, can't work - my glasses are dead".
Re:electricity...batteries... by tangelogee · 2011-01-12 08:23 · Score: 1

Most phones can do that. If they could at some point make it behave like e-ink, that would reduce the consumption of power. Granted the battery in question would have to be much smaller. Also, I'm not sure if I'd want a battery that close to my head all the time...

driving by MagicM · 2011-01-12 06:31 · Score: 1

Can't wait for it to fail and switch to reading-mode while doing 70mph on the freeway.

Might be a start by idiotnot · 2011-01-12 06:43 · Score: 1

....and it's probably sufficient for many people.

That said, having something that could automatically adjust projection on the retina would be better for most people.....glasses with automatically adjusting correction, based on whatever the lens is doing, not just what direction the glance is focused.

Still, even that wouldn't be help for people like me; refractive correction is one thing, understanding how the nerves transmit that information is anoteher thing. (Optic neuritis is a symptom of another medical condition I have. Even getting corrective lenses is difficult, because it's tough to figure out whether the blurry vision is due to ON, or a refractive problem. Complicating matters is unpredictable eye movement....)

Please change the whole lens by moloney · 2011-01-12 06:48 · Score: 1

In addition to my bifocals, I also have a pair of "computer" glasses. These have a single prescription focused slightly farther than reading glasses. When working on a computer with two monitors, these allow me to just move my eyes to look at different parts of the screen. With bifocals, I have to move my entire head, which is highly annoying.

If the emPower! glasses could change the whole lens, I could manually turn them on and work on the computer with my head up. When not on the computer, I could turn them off and let the accelerometer select far/near focus based on my head being up/down.

Speaking as a bifocals wearer by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-01-12 06:50 · Score: 1

The tech is cool, but I don't see the advantage to this. Or, I should say, the inherent disadvantage (it needs some sort of active switch, either mechanical or acceleration-based) outweighs the single small advantage I can think of (I used to like laying my head back and watching TV through the lower part of my glasses - can't do that with bifocals).

Seriously - this looks like a solution in search of a problem.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Speaking as a bifocals wearer by anyGould · 2011-01-12 07:56 · Score: 1

Well, put a zoom on this, maybe a camera, and I'd be a happy camper.
My biggest pet peeve about wearing glasses is that they'll only correct you to 20/20 (in the hopes that your eyes will fix themselves over time). I've been wearing glasses for almost thirty years now. It's a safe bet that I'll always need them, so why not start giving me 20/15 lenses at least?
Re:Speaking as a bifocals wearer by Seedy2 · 2011-01-12 09:49 · Score: 1

I have found that, when talking to folks who claim to have 20/20, I always have better vision with my glasses.
People complain about the size of the font I use on the screen, when I'm not using the bottom of the bifocal to read it.
I tell them to get their eyes checked, they claim to have 20/20 vision.
They are in denial and/or my eyes are just better, corrected, than theirs.
What I cannot comprehend why someone would be willing to accept worse vision to go a couple for years without glasses, then need glasses anyway. (i.e. laser surgery)
And maybe hose up their night vision permanently.
Of course I've had glasses since I was 10, so I'm used to them. And they've only gotten better over the 30+ years since then.
I have tried trifocals and progressive lenses and they both give me significant distortion issues. (and "seasickness")
So I'll stick with the nice, big secondary region, lined bifocal.
I like the idea of changing the WHOLE lens "near instantly" to whatever you need to focus on, but that tech may be a bit long in coming.
And the whole battery thing would be a bad thing at failure time, possibly.
We just need the S-F authors to solve it for us. :)

--
Nothing to say here... move along
Re:Speaking as a bifocals wearer by Belial6 · 2011-01-12 11:34 · Score: 2

Well, keep in mind that 20/20 is not 'perfect' eyesight. it means that you should be able to see thing that are 20' like they are 20' away. 30/20 might be better. 200/20 would put you in the realm of super hero. (I might have the numbers reversed. It has been a while since I looked this up.) So, perticularly when talking about looking at a monitor, 20/20 doesn't even come into play.

That being said, there are a lot of people that think they have better eyesight than they do. Sometimes this is because of denial, sometimes it is because they got a crappy eye exam that told them wrong, and sometimes they remember being told that they had 20/20 vision 25 years ago, and it hasn't struck them that their vision might have gotten worse.

I know that I was told I had 20/20 vision when there was no doubt in my mind that my vision was horrible. For a long time, I didn't even realize that my vision was bad. When things change gradually enough, you often don't notice anything changed at all. When I did finally get glasses, it was amazing.

I did end up getting laser surgery, and I am glad I did. Not only were glasses expensive, but they tended to scratch, fog up, and get dirty. All of these things lead to worse vision for me. Having glasses is a pain in the butt. Yes, one can get used to them, but it is still a fair amount of trouble.

My wife's vision on the other hand, was saved by laser surgery. By 28, she was 'legally blind'. She could see reasonable well with glasses, but without them, just getting around an unfamiliar room was a chore. The worst part was that like clockwork, every year when her eyes were tested, they would be another half point worse. I doubt she would still be able to see today, even with glasses, if she had not had surgery. She got surgery almost 10 years ago, and she is just now starting to notice slightly worse eyesight. I don't know why having glasses was making her eyesight worse, but it seems they were.
Re:Speaking as a bifocals wearer by russotto · 2011-01-12 13:04 · Score: 1

My biggest pet peeve about wearing glasses is that they'll only correct you to 20/20 (in the hopes that your eyes will fix themselves over time). I've been wearing glasses for almost thirty years now. It's a safe bet that I'll always need them, so why not start giving me 20/15 lenses at least?
They don't; they correct your vision to the best they can achieve with 0.25 (usually) diopter increments.

Mod parent up. by John+Hasler · 2011-01-12 06:53 · Score: 1

Mod parent up.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Glasses by CFBMoo1 · 2011-01-12 06:57 · Score: 1

After wearing glasses all my life I have to say bifocals would be cheaper and easier to replace. Also bifocals don't have much trouble with water when you have a clean towel or napkin around. As cool as electronic glasses would be to me, I'd much rather wear ordinary glasses for the simplicity and ease of use.

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~

dSLR Lens by Ceriel+Nosforit · 2011-01-12 07:15 · Score: 1

Does this mean I'll get an undistorted F/1 10-1000mm lens for under 1k€ in the next 5 years?

--
All rites reversed 2010

Wobble Goggles!!!! by bobwoodard · 2011-01-12 07:23 · Score: 1

Ok, can you tell I watch the Disney Channel with my toddler?? My first thought was "Wobble Goggles" from the Imagination Movers! :-)

Cool but by rossdee · 2011-01-12 07:24 · Score: 1

Will my health insurance cover the cost?

When are we going to see a Total Gym story? by bigsexyjoe · 2011-01-12 07:25 · Score: 1

I mean Chuck Norris loves the Total Gym, it's a product that you can sell with one of these infomercial stories. Why don't we have a story about it?

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free

Feeling old by kabloom · 2011-01-12 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

This probably doesn't solve the main problem of bifocals, which is that people who need to wear them for the first time will still feel old. Graded lenses without the line that's visible to other people didn't solve that problem, and technologically cool LCD glasses won't either.

Re:Feeling old by Agent__Smith · 2011-01-12 20:07 · Score: 1

Absolutely. I got my first pair of BiFocals about 8 weeks ago. I wish I could afford some of these cool gadgety new glasses as at least it would give some cool factor to the situation.

--
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones

I use Superfocus too by heydan · 2011-01-12 07:29 · Score: 1

I use Superfocus glasses and like them better than any other option. They change the whole lens, not just one spot like Pixel Optics does. Also, being manual, they don't require any batteries. Without these glasses, I used to have to carry a second pair just for reading. Superfocus is better.

Batery Life by Master+Moose · 2011-01-12 07:40 · Score: 1

I don't think I will be able to handle glasses constantly needing to be charged.

Some people need their glasses to drive - with flat batteries, we don't want people suddenly becoming blind on our roads.

On the plus side, assuming that these are electronically adjustable, they may work out cheaper - As we age and our eyes get worse, are we going to be able to change the settings to incerase the glasses strength?

--
. . .gone when the morning comes

No Thanks by gamrillen · 2011-01-12 07:42 · Score: 1

I've been wearing glasses since I was in the third grade and don't really see a need for this product. Not everything needs to be digitally enhanced. Additionally, once nuclear armegeddon strikes, I don't want my vision to be impacted. I'm going to have to be able to see those zombies.

Re:No Thanks by treeves · 2011-01-12 12:59 · Score: 1

Or finally read all those books you've been waiting to read but never could because of all the people bothering you every day.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

What, no 3d? by fl_litig8r · 2011-01-12 07:43 · Score: 2

If you're going to add whiz-bang technology to glasses, why not go the full monty and add a 3d polarized mode for movie-going four-eyeses? Why not throw in a "sunglasses mode" while you're at it? For $1200, I'd expect more features.

Re:What, no 3d? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 09:54 · Score: 0

You did not just use the phrase full monty and 3D in the same sentence right? Now I have to go wash out my brain with soap. ow my eye.

What about spare batteries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 07:58 · Score: 0

My first thought on reading this was:

If you apply power to obtain close-up vision, how do I figure out which end is up on my plug/button cell/whatever when I need to recharge the glasses?

Upon reading the article I discovered that this is a moot point because they use an inductive charger. While that's pretty cool on the gadget factor, it also means that you can't carry a spare battery with you. What happens when you forget to charge them up? Do you just spend most of the day being illiterate?

If you have to carry around a spare set of glasses to deal with this problem then you haven't really gained much.

Plain old Mechanical vs. Electronic by vlueboy · 2011-01-12 08:05 · Score: 1

I'm more worried about things look like when these go "bluescreen"

Re:Plain old Mechanical vs. Electronic by Seedy2 · 2011-01-12 10:00 · Score: 1

Or when they play ads from time to time... sorry officer targeted advertising in my legally mandated eye-wear, please apologize to everyone I hit on behalf of N!ke, Micro$oft, BigPharma, and W@llM@rt.

--
Nothing to say here... move along

Preventing falls by djKing · 2011-01-12 08:09 · Score: 1

As this story on CBC point out bifocals increase the risk of falling.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/05/26/bifocals-falls-elderly.html

So yes switching your gaze is easy with tradition bifocals, but they reduce your field of vision for certain things like walking.

--
Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."

Especially for pilots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 09:18 · Score: 0

You look down, you read the instruments, you look up, you read the sky. That's "look up" and "look down" as in move your eyes, not your head, for anyone who has RTFA.

How does that work? I don't even ... by goodmanj · 2011-01-12 10:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

OK, here's me. I'm a physics professor. I don't do optoelectronics research, but I do teach optics sometimes. I'm pretty savvy about electricity, magnetism, optics, chemistry, etc. I know how LCDs work, in detail.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THESE SUCKERS WORK? IT'S DRIVING ME CRAZY!

How the hell do you change the index of refraction of a material for *both polarizations* simultaneously? Liquid crystals are birefringent, but that's not enough to make a *lens*.

Also, what does it say about Slashdot and the rest of the geek community websites reporting this story that nobody else is asking this question? Aren't you guys supposed to be curious about how things work, or have you become like the rest of humanity, taking technology to be a miracle handed down from on high?

I'm baffled on both counts.

Glasses ? No thanks, my contacts work great by kimanaw · 2011-01-12 10:15 · Score: 1

Seems to me someone just announced a new electronic buggy whip. I've been wearing multifocal contacts for 2 years and love them. They're less than $200/yr if you know where to look, and if you've got decent insurance, they're basically free. So why would I want some huge electonic goggles perched on my nose again ?

--
007: "Who are you?"
Pussy: "My name is Pussy Galore."
007: "I must be dreaming..."

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by goodmanj · 2011-01-12 10:29 · Score: 1

Okay after racking my brain for a few minutes, I have one guess: an electrical field orients liquid crystals so their long axis is parallel to the light path -- as opposed to traditional LCDs where the crystal elements are aligned perpendicular to the light path. But that's just a guess: I have no idea if that's even *possible*.

Limited lifespan by nurb432 · 2011-01-12 11:07 · Score: 1

Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. We don't need to 'electroinfy' everything we see.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by Belial6 · 2011-01-12 11:38 · Score: 1

No, Slashdot has gotten more of the mindset that technology is sent for the hoary nether world to corrupt us bring about the end of mankind. You notice a lack of curiosity concerning tech, I have noticed a distinct distrust and aversion to it.

Remember by justinlee37 · 2011-01-12 11:44 · Score: 1

The primary goal is not to represent the subject of the article with a title that is 100% accurate. The primary goal is to craft a title that will make you click on the link.

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 12:41 · Score: 0

Well, professor, please don't feel bad. Most on ./ are just web monkeys (web site coding), there are exceptions, though. Another thing not raised here is if this Tech is so good, why didn't Nikon or Canon figure this out and put it in their cameras already? Why are they still making SLR cameras (even if digital)

When will they cost $1 per pair by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 14:05 · Score: 0

like the reading glasses I wear that were purchased at Dollar Tree?

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 15:06 · Score: 0

They are leasing the tech from e-vision llc. Here's one of their patents that looks like it's close to what these glasses are doing.

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 15:33 · Score: 0

How about two orthogonal LC layers?

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by goodmanj · 2011-01-12 16:04 · Score: 1

Not sure if this is a very clever joke or a genuine question. Two orthogonal LC layers on top of each other would be totally opaque.

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-01-12 16:17 · Score: 1

How the hell do you change the index of refraction of a material for *both polarizations* simultaneously? Liquid crystals are birefringent, but that's not enough to make a *lens*.

I think what they're saying is that the individual liquid crystal molecules they use have a refractive property themselves, and when aligned together electrically produce a lens.

My knowledge of optics is cursory at best - please check out page 12 of the patent and translate for the ignorant masses. :)

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:How does that work? I don't even ... by goodmanj · 2011-01-12 17:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Thanks to people who linked to the patent, I think I understand what's going on now. My guess was mostly right...

A liquid crystal material consists of long rod-shaped molecules. They have the funny property that light passes through them at a different speed depending on whether the light is polarized parallel to or perpendicular to the axis of the rods. This is called "birefringence".

Normally, if a thin layer of liquid crystal is sandwiched between two glass plates, the molecules line up parallel to the plates. However, if you put a voltage across the plates, the molecules line up end-to-end, perpendicular to the plates.

Therefore, applying a voltage effectively changes the speed of light passing through the liquid crystal. Glass optics work because the speed of light in glass is slower than in air: the difference in speed causes the light to be bent. Since liquid crystals can *change* their speed of light electrically, if you create a LC layer with exactly the right shape you can make a "lens" that vanishes when you switch off the voltage.

There's a lot of technical details (rather than creating a classical lens, the liquid crystals impersonate a Fresnel lens, requiring specific shapes and voltages for the electrodes) but that's the gist of it.

Where I was being led astray was by the effect liquid crystals have on *rotating the polarization* of light. This is a crucial part of understanding how LCD monitors work, but after thinking about it I realize that when used in these glasses, the liquid crystal will indeed rotate the polarization, but that's not something the human eye can detect.

get the replacement rider by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 18:24 · Score: 0

I think you can get it anytime, but there's a 75-dollar policy that you can buy per-year that pays for half of the replacement cost in the event of the unthinkable. Ya Ya extended warranties suck - but these are for 700+ dollar eyewear in the real-world.

Want the see state-of-the-art glasses? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-12 21:34 · Score: 0

Here's the real thing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/22/diy-adjustable-glasses-josh-silver

Chill out technofreaks! It's probably much more ground breaking if it doesn't include electricity.

Huh by sjames · 2011-01-13 09:00 · Score: 1

It looks more like say goodbye to bifocals and hello to our more expensive and complicated bifocals that need a battery.

While I can possibly imagine some benefit, I would think at the very least the un-powered state should be bifocal (to maximize their usefulness when batteries fail).

Slashdot Mirror

Goodbye Bifocals — Electronic Glasses Change Focus

166 comments