Видео

My suggestion would depend upon what the problem is... Making a suggestion for you specifically involves many factors that you doctor would be best to guide you since they are the person you are working with directly... For example, I would need to understand ( please do not answer these questions, I'm just trying to explain important details to help guide my decision)... What are you not satisfied with? What is your prescription? Are you trying spherical lenses that do not correct your astigmatism and you want sharper vision? How old are you? What are your expectations? What is the status of your tear film? What lenses have you tried prior? What kind of work do you do? Have you been trying astigmatism correcting lenses all along and haven't found clarity yet, or are simply wondering if they are the answer? If you're trying to hone in on the best astigmatism lens, be aware a good fit needs to be done, which requires your cooperation with the fitting process. For example, An astigmatism lens may spin, so followups with your doctor over multiple sessions may be needed to determine the best lens for vision. Overall, for both spherical and astigmatism lenses, I do have my preferences that may determine where I start my fit, but the fitting process (which includes answers to all pertinent questions that may arise) determines where where the fit continues and finally ends. In general, my favorite types of soft lenses are the silicone hydrogel one day designs. If you don't want a one day, I suggest a two week silicone hydrogel (like the Oasys or Oasys for Astigmatism). If you don't want the two week, then the monthly silicone hydrogel option is available. I know that this perhaps isn't the answer that you're looking for, but it's the best I can do without all of the details.

Thank you.

Excellent to hear! We enjoyed the Echo Smart Frame design so much at DeliverContacts.com that we couldn't keep ourselves away from frame technology diving. In response, we are opening a new site (expected in the next week to be available for purchases) called DeliverSmartGlasses.com. The site will sell smart glasses which will include various Smart Frames, as well as VR, AR, XR, and MR glasses as we continue to make alignments with companies. We are in the infancy of gathering frame companies (though not Amazon's Echo frame, because it only sells on Amazon), so our current brands include Smart Eyewear from Nautica, Eddie Bauer, and Lucyd. The current frames range from $120 to $220 if memory serves clearly right now. With our launch coming up, we will also be offering Grand Opening deals to create interest. Check us out... -be aware, you will find over the next week that you can not finalize a purchase because we haven't fine tuned and pressed "GO" yet, but when we officially open and list ourselves on Google, our site will be moving. Thanks for the sharing, I hope you don't mind my plug of my new site in response.

123 can be read on the outside of the lens is all that matters. The orientation of up or down or sideways is not important for spherical (single vision) lenses

Do you only wear them for two weeks and then replace them? Or you wear it for more than two weeks

We are glad to hear we've helped you learn something new!

We appreciate the support!

Wait how the heck does 1 screen work??

Thank you for watching. And special thanks for the vote of confidence, I am happy to hear your appreciation. Thank you for the topic idea too. I'm not sure which direction Im going for my next few videos, but that video idea will definitely go into the hat. Thanks again.

LOL... funny thing is... I haven't bought one yet... so perhaps it's not exactly a good buy either... it was my way of looking at it from another angle... a way to justify a purchase perhaps... that I still haven't brought myself to make... but in the end, it's true... I couldn't have put all that technology together myself for $3500 if I wanted to... so in the end, it's a steal ( just not a steal that I have taken advantage of yet)... I've watched the reviews of others, and I have the quest 3 already, so I'm having difficulty pulling the trigger, even after my video... I can't even talk myself into breaking out my wallet. Thanks for watching.

Thank you for watching and commenting. I agree that anything done in excess could potentially have negative consequences... even staying in the virtual reality for too long. However, the consequences are not expected to be damaging to the eyes or vison. Yes, your eyes may get dry, and yes, you may get digital device fatigue, and yes, you may get motion sick, and yes, there may be social impacts... but to insist that their will be damage is contrary to the message that I was sending. I spent an hour explaining that there is no damage to our eyes without a direct answer (sorry), but my direct answer is "No, there is no reason to expect long term damage to our eyes from VR." In a long stretch hypothetical situation, perhaps in the developing visual system of the unlikely child who is immersed in VR during their developmental years in continuous excess and do not perceive natural vision experiences, then perhaps there could be harmful visual developmental issues, but the typical exposure (few hours per day), even for a developing child, should not even slightly be expected to be HARMFUL or BAD for vision.

Excellent. Thanks for the response. Remember that they are not designed to be cosmetic lenses... but for those who receive the greatest enhanced effect, they tend to love them the most. I hope you are one of those people. Share your experience if you can. Thanks for watching.

@@YourEyeShow I will definitely share my experience. What I'm looking for at my age, has more to do with comfort, visibility, and lens moisture. 😊

This is a great lens for it. Looking forward to your review.

Thank you PAKISTAN!

☠️

🤣🤣🤣

That was the first thing I noticed, that was a pretty cool effect but I think happening solely from his use of a green-screen.

I only said the VR wouldn't damage the eyes. I didn't make any claim about the safety of my videos!

Lmao

The B&L Ultra are monthly lenses. If you meant the Infuse 1-day, it is very comparable silicone hydrogel, and both are designed to stabilize the tears. The Infuse doesn't have the blue blocking effect though. If you meant the B&L BioTrue, the BioTrue are an older 1-day design with far less oxygen transfer.

Thank you for watching this video. You are not the only person who has had issues with how I described the "focus" relief with VR, as it is apparently misleading. I'm happy to hear that you have a better understanding of the concept to comprehend its imperfect explanation and use of vocabulary, and I am committed to explain the convergence and accommodation association in an shortly upcoming video for clarification. My intent (as to answer is VR harmful to the eye) was to explain that the eye does not have to focus (accommodate) as hard with VR as compared to a book or computer. In this video section, I used the term FOCUS, when I should have more appropriately termed ACCOMMODATIVE REFLEX (which includes the accommodation, convergence, and pupil constriction). Though accommodative requirements do not change, the convergence requirements do. So a screen set across the room will relieve an added convergence requirement, even if it is unnatural in setting. Later, in the video, I talked about imperfections that will still require "resets" by our brain. Resets that can be uncomfortable at first (including this vergence-accommodation conflict), but we can adapt to them without harming our eye or brain or even adding work to the system. Yes, it's different than what is natural, and my be uncomfortable at first, but we are capable of adapting, especially when other details such as resolution and lag are improved. And in the end, as I was trying to point out, VR is easier on the muscles needed for FOCUS and easier on vergence, when we move an image across the room. No, not perfect, the Accommodative Reflex is disturbed, but the overall work requirement of the eye is alleviated when an image is enlarged and moved across the room. I will make a better, all-inclusive video later to cover the details and share how this affects our day-to-day experience even without VR, and I do hope you will return for it. I greatly appreciate your comments and your interest. VR/AR is the wave of the future, and I hope to keep that people like you will keep me in line and creating better content as we move forward. Thanks again, please keep in touch.

Check out my new video regarding the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict. ruclips.net/video/c5uOWKlY17o/видео.html

Lol what are you talking about? The screens are maybe less than 2 inches away from your eyes. What you are seeing only simulates that the screens are further away. The cameras of the Vision Pro are filming the reality outside and show it on the little screens in front of your eyes creating a transparency effect.

Thank you for watching and commenting. I agree that the brain is NOT like a pixel to pixel arrangement like a pixelated screen, that is why I suggested that this arrangement is comparable to the the RETINA in the back of our eyes where light is focused. In full disclosure, only our finest tuned photoreceptors in the center of the fovea may have a 1:1 ratio of receptor to nerve. The further you get away from the fovea, the greater the ratio. That's why fine detail is less appreciated away from our central fovea... the ratio of receptor to nerve rises significantly, but I think that the analogy holds for understanding. And, it should probably be noted, a blue receptor only interprets blue, and red receptor only interprets red, and green only interprets green... each receptor does NOT respond to every color like a pixel can emits, but the analogy can still be applied. You are even also correct that there are cells in the retina whose entire job is for interpreting other things such as motion as well, but that does not dismiss the layout explanation. Photoreceptors are jammed in tightly (like teeny-tiny light receiving pixels on a screen) across our retina. And, if the messages received on the retina do not reach the brain, then there is NO VISION. The brain must process these images for sight to happen. The retina is an extension of the brain (cranial nerve 2), but it is brain the must interpret the details within the visual cortex of the occipital lobe and in association with the rest of the brain for understanding. I agree, that its not mapped like the retina. In fact, all light that enters the eye from the left side of our sight is processed in neuro cells on the right side of our visual cortex, and light from the right side of vision is processed on the left side of our vision cortex... its not a map like our retina at all, but don't not think that there is not a pattern to the layout there either. This brain "map" pattern is often used in visual fields tests to help identify locations of potential lesions (tumors, strokes, damage) along the optic nerve, chiasm, tract, and lobes. I understand your concern if my explanation made it sound like there was a tv screen in our brain, but that is not what I intended. Instead, the pixel to pixel was only intended to explain the layout of our retina to people who are not aware of the basics of retinal images. Again, thanks for watching. I do appreciate the comment. It gives me a chance to clarify things.

Thanks for the appreciation and sharing your research experience. We are trying let the nation know what we provide, so your testimony is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the support, and we hope to serve you soon.

Since you're asking for thoughts... I got some, but I do not have absolute answers, just speculation. We're going to have to hear from Apple to be sure. Though I explained that a focal point on the cornea is tracked with this device, I do not exactly know how it is achieved (though I expected retina reflections or using iris points, nothing in the early literature explained it clearly). My video intent was to help my viewers understand how the device could recognize what we are looking at and what must be tracked (the line of focus that ultimately begins at one point on the cornea and ends at the fovea). A soft contact lens conforms to the cornea, overlaps on both sides, and is allowed for use with the Vision Pro. A cosmetic (color) soft contact lens (that fits the same) is not allowed. Why? A cosmetic lens must block the iris from being recognized. This may simply complicate Optic ID, but perhaps it also disrupts the tracking system if the iris is utilized. An RGP, since it does not overlap the edges of the cornea, may also interfere with the Vision Pro from identifying points on the iris, and therefore disrupt Optic ID as well, and perhaps the tracking too if iris points are utilized. A point of consideration, however, is that a soft contact lens conforms to the cornea, but RGP's and scleral lenses do not. If reflections are used, then I could also see how hard designs (rgp's and scleral's) could confuse the system since they will have vaulted zones for optical correction that uses the pooling tears in their design. Perhaps its separate issues?... a vaulted lens and blocked iris points make the tracking AND Optik ID inefficient?... and to reduce inefficiency of their new design, the simple answer is to say "No cosmetic soft lenses or RGP's."? Great question. Thanks for watching, and thanks for the support. I will share more when I learn more. What do you think?

@@YourEyeShow Thanks for the reply! TL, DR is that I wear scleral lenses. The little experience I've had with RGPs was... painful. And with severe nearsightedness + keratoconus--(possibly due to years of use/abuse of soft contacts), sclerals have allowed me to achieve the finest vision I've experienced in my life. Glasses at my prescription also bend light considerably, and therefore I'm assuming the Zeiss prescription lenses Apple is offering will as well. However, with regard to reflections, the bubble of fluid between a scleral lens and the cornea make the structure appear (at least in visible light) contiguous right up to the iris; as if the cornea itself was just made a little thicker. Perhaps its a matter of the surface texture of the lens itself? Oh well, all my questions will be answered when I take this thing for a test drive next month. I may end up saving money... (Or not.)

Please share your experience. I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes. Thanks again.

Just?

@@paulrevere1479 yes. "just". Its like saying sodium chloride instead of just calling it salt.

This is a great question. The intent of the VR is designed so that light is as parallel as possible, but it is not perfect. Some focus is still necessary, however, but it is not based on the distance the lens is from the eye, instead, it is built into the optical design of the system. Focus requirement with VR systems (though I do not know what Apple's) is often requiring +0.75 D, which is not significant, and usually is not bothersome left uncorrected to the normal eye. To see a typical desktop computer, for example, +1.25 diopters of fucus is necessary, and +0.75 is less than that. But that is only IF you are truly perfectly focused (emmetropic) after cataract surgery for far away... perfection is not usually the normal post cataract. Often, post cataract, an eye will be up to -0.50ish to +0.50ish diopters off emmetropia and perhaps with some uncorrected astigmatism, and released without glasses (lower dioptric powers aren't always necessary for people). If your Rx is actually at zero or is in the low minus power, the need for any additional focus will not likely be necessary. If you are left in the low plus after surgery, this additional focus requirement will probably push you over the edge and some extra power would be appreciated. For example, I am currently using the Meta Quest 3, which uses pancake lenses and I have a low plus power script (@ +0.50 Diopter) that I do not require for normal distant viewing. However, being 51 years old, my near focus is gone. In the VR space with the meta, I am definitely benefited with my glasses for higher quality detail and visual comfort (though I can function without them, I prefer not). It will be interesting if the new design and enhanced detail in the Apple Vision Pro will decrease the need for the extra Rx, or make me want it more. I don't know, but I guess we will soon find out. In your circumstance, your Rx may be shifted to the minus side and additional Rx might not be necessary. In the end, I would suggest, first get your precise prescription from your doctor (if you have some plus power, you're more likely to need help, but if you're low minus or zero, you may be able to get by without it) and test the Vision Pro without it before you make a purchase for the optics using the script. Like I said, good question. I plan to explore the answer and comment more. Thank you.

LOL. Gosh, I hope not. The purpose of this video is share knowledge and alleviate the unsupported fear. It would be terrible if unlikely and unforseen ocular problems ever did arise. I'd feel terrible. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@YourEyeShow My concern is that just like headphones and earphones, seem to cause hearing damage, I’m wondering if the Vision Pro may be injurious to the eyes? Time will tell?

This video was to designed to explain how there is not evidential support for why we should fear harming of our vision sense from VR.

@@YourEyeShow Yes, but we don’t know the long range side effects at present. Time will tell.

True. Time will tell.

Neither a traditional monitor nor the Apple Vision Pro are harmful to the eye. Monitors require more accommodation, which can lead to strain, and the Vision Pro requires adaptation to an improving, yet imperfect, virtual world, which can cause adaptation fatigue. As far as actual health, neither should be considered as harmful to the eye based upon current understanding of the eye. You may get strain and visual fatigue, but that doesn't equate to harm or damage. Example, it's kind of like asking is bench pressing or doing curls more harmful to muscles... neither are harmful, yet both will require a certain amount of work in different ways.

The tracking uses LED infrared technology (just outside our visible spectrum) that is not harmful to the eye. Ultraviolet light is absorbed and destructive to our cornea tissue (as with welder's flash and LASIK), visible light could be seen within the headset and would be bothersome, but infrared is invisible to the eye and not even noticed by the eye at low intensity levels such as the LED. Realize this... infrared light is present in every day daylight, all day long, without being harmful, just like visible light is present everyday (that's how we see things), and it's not harmful, right? And at the times you do feel infrared at higher intensity, you feel it as heat energy... temperature rises, tissue is not destroyed. But since this infrared is low intensity and is not amplified (as with a laser), it never reaches a point that we can even sense the presence of IR anymore than we can when we are looking around our homes. Also, even though I am not a technical expert nor a designer of the Apple Pro, I would bet that Apple is following all safety protocols associated with protecting their customers from eye damage. So, NO, I do not think eye tracking poses any risks to the safety of the eye. Great question... thank you.

Thanks for watching. I love your show.

Thank you for your insight and kind support. And especially thank you for watching this video all the way through. I do agree that the vergence-accommodation conflict does need a deeper explanation, and I will have an all-inclusive separate (probably a half hour or so) video of its own. I will create that video as soon as I can, but it's going to have to wait until I have a complete understanding Apple's and other newer VR designs' implications on both vergence and accommodation. My intended point was, as you have already explained, the eye is relieved of extra accommodative duties when compared to laptops or desktops, but I can see how it can be inferred that I was suggesting that it was a perfect system of focus and convergence within the video's explanation. Though it is kind of what I implied, it was not exactly the mark that I was trying to get across. I later touched upon "the more an image is matched with 'Real Images' the less motion sick," but to expect that the brain would still recognize a "mismatch," and adapt. This focus mismatch was one of the imperfections that I was indirectly referencing without fully opening that can of worms. My overall message was that there is currently no reason to think that VR or these 'resets' are actually harmful to the eye and, if anything with the Apple expectations, should only be better than anything we have done so far. Your points about "taking breaks" and "sleep disruption" are also both relevant to limit the problems associated with excessive use of VR/computers/laptops/phones, but are not singularly VR problems. However, maybe you're right, a video for good habits should probably be included along the way as well. Again, I thank you for watching as far as you did. Thank you for the support. Please keep watching, and I promise to try to give better explanations as I go. And always, keep doing this, reach out when you catch my mistakes or feel that I gave an awkward explanation that needs clarification. I appreciate that. Feedback can only help. Your comments will definitely help me moving forward.

yes the vergence accomodation is huge issue - for example, fully see through devices, like Microsoft Hololens2 do not have as much of an issue as most of the "world" is actually natural, whereas all-display devices, like all VR headsets to date, are painful after a while for this reason@@YourEyeShow

Check out my new video regarding the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict ruclips.net/video/c5uOWKlY17o/видео.html

The blue light filter does block the blue end of the spectrum as well as UV, therefore decreasing sensitivity to sunlight bother from that end of the spectrum. For example, blocking the UV and high energy visible may make a visual difference, especially on those long sunny days for overall eye comfort. As far as it's blue blocking tint effect, I wouldn't put a lot of likely benefit from it, except perhaps spotting a ball in the sky in the outfield when sky conditions are just right for that particular player. If you're looking for that baseball competitive edge, I don't think this lens is meant for it overall, but the best way to test it is to put it to the test. Ask your doctor for some trials and have yiu teen test it. We each have our own sensitivities and different number of color reseptors, so we each will appreciate the effect differently. However, a good research paper may come out someday and demonstrate that batting averages go up or down with these lenses (heck, there's probably already a stat out there for that with how everything is measured in the MLB right now). Also, have you checked out the Oasys 2-week Transitions contacts? They block UV and some of the blue end and darken in the sunlight... they don't get as dark as sunglasses, but they take the edge off. The people who seem to love the Oasys Transitions in my office the most are baseball and softball players, and golfers.... those who want some sun protection, but not so much that it limits vision.

Not yet.

Thank you for watching. No worries, LASIK will not bother the tracking system.

Eye tracking for the user interface and OpticID (biometric iris scanning) are 2 different issues. Eye tracking is not affected. However, if you enroll your iris pattern into the device and then get LASIK, you may need to re-enroll. Those surgeries do not directly affect the iris, but they do change your cornea, which could change the way light refracts. Other consumer electronic devices with iris scanning mention such caveats in their documentation.

L

You are correct. At this time, insurances (that I am aware of) will not cover these frames.

@@YourEyeShow no I mean the insurance of eyeglasseorld was worried about fire hazard injuring employee and damaging the store

@@YourEyeShow Which is dumb because on their product page thats one of the selling points they have

@@YourEyeShowreally? No insurance will cover? On their page they say it does. I have a VSP + upgrade plan. In your opinion I’d be outta luck?

Uh-oh. Sorry to disappoint then. This is just prep for surgery, in attempt to make the viewer ready for a real cataract surgery... no images to freak anybody out... but you're right.. there's plenty of opportunity to watch a good surgery out there. Thanks for checking in!

@@YourEyeShow I wasn't disappointed in the least. It was an interesting video 👍

Chalk one up for the Dailies Total 1 Multifocal then. Sometimes, that is what happens even with the top lenses out there. Not every brand is for everybody. It's always best to do a full trial before making any final decisions or orders.

I haven't seen anything that compares the decibel value of these frames to the 2nd generation frame, only that the sound is clearer and bass is improved. As far as lenses go, there shouldn't be any restrictions to putting lenses into the frame that are not present in other frames. With Higher Minus powers, however, be aware that the lenses get thicker the wider the frame is, so the wider designs will add edge thickness just like any other frame. So, if your lenses are thick, the narrower designs will help minimize the edge thickness. If you're asking about the index of refraction, the 1.67 or 1.71 index lenses bend light with minimum curve differences on front versus back of the lens to keep the lens as thin as possible as well, but know that you will have to pay more at your optical to get it. Expect your lens buying experience to be the same as any other frame, but since your selection is limited, you can't control the width of the frame as much.

The truth is, both are very good lenses that recognize the importance of stabilizing the tears. I believe that the B&L promo team had leaned a bit harder on sharing the importance of tears in their promotional material. I jumped on the extra shared detail from them and found an easy way to elaborate on the tear education opportunity and shared details about dynamics of tears within my video in response, and it may have given the INFUSE a well deserved shine. In my representation of the INFUSE, you can understand the importance of tear stabilization when wearing contact lenses. However, the Oasys 1-day with HydraLuxe was also designed with a "tear-infused design with an enhanced network of tear-like molecules that integrates with your patients' own tear film" (according to a longstanding quote from ACUVUE). Yes, Acuvue had already "infused" (notice the interesting verb usage as well) tear stabilizing components into the Oasys 1-day. But I don't feel that I adequately shared this important detail in my earlier stages of creating videos. This point didn't get its deserved shine. I know it sounds like I'm letting the advertising guide me in my messages (though I try not to let it), sometimes how heavily a brand leans upon a point inspires an obvious teaching point. And I think that's what INFUSE did... it inspired me more than the Oasys did when I made its video. I failed to emphasize the value of the Oasys 1-day tear-infused components, that are clearly important to the brand's design and success. The Oasys 1-day and the INFUSE 1-day both deliberately attempt to stabilize the tears to create a better product. Both provide great technology and the right direction for tear conscious designs to be headed. And to answer your question, "No, I can not say which one less negatively affects the eye". But, regardless of what any product review will conclude (since reviews are so often biased anyway), the result of "Which one is better for YOU?" (in this comparison) can only fully be determined by YOU. In the end, they both address the tear stabilization, but from their own angles. They both appear to be great lens designs.

Multifocal contacts tend to work better for the person who is binocular. Depending on the depth of amblyopia, if the amblyopia isn't very deep (vision isnt terrible in the worse eye), i often will try monovision with single vision lenses - not a multifical (put a NEAR FOCUS lens in the worse eye - and a FAR FOCUS lens in the other). In the end, getting both far and near to work with any contacts definitely creates a greater obstacle to wear regardless. You're going to have to accept compromise to make it work.

@@YourEyeShow my worse eye is +3.50/+1.75...my better eye is +0.00/+1.75.

1. Get an illuminated magnified mirror. I have one that I mounted to the wall and "scissors" out. Mount it at eye height. 2. Stand very close to the mirror and move your eyes so that the right eye is now looking towards your nose. It may help to stand at an angle towards the mirror. 3. With your clean index finger, touch the lens at its very bottom, then slide the lens laterally; that is, towards the exposed white part of your eye (on the ear side of your face). 4. With your index finger and thumb, pinch off the contact lens and discard. 5. Rotate your body (swivel to the right a little bit) so now you can apply the same technique to the left eye. I've been doing it this way for three years. Once in a while the lens doesn't slide laterally. A drop or two of contact lens solution will help.