No, actually, any optician who knows the basics should
be able to do a basic eye test, then apply the diopter
corrections for the desired set of four distances,
be able to supply lenses with a standard bifocal of
the type "flat-top, 28mm" and have it set lower than
usual, adjust the "PD" for the changed corrections,
and (if the lens maker is good), get the top of the
bifocal beveled at the proper angle to be invisible
to the eye... Let me tell you - these are a joy to use,
with no focus gaps, with no sense of monocular vision
(the corrections are minor between the 4 distances),
and with wide-angle sharpness.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:10:54 GMT, paminof@att.net__ (paminof) wrote:
>
>Yes, I read about the eyeglasses too, very interesting. Two things
>though:
>
>--It sounds really advanced, I'm an eyeglass/contact lens wearer but I
>don't really get it as much as I'm trying to. :) At 40-something I'm
>starting to get the lazy focus thing, but I still don't get it.
>
>--Wouldn't you need a very talented optician to have eyeglasses like
>that made for you? If such an optician exists I'd like to meet him
>real soon.
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:21:22 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
>>
>>I wrote that a few years ago (the site has been up, in one
>>form or another, for several years...), and have been using
>>the described method for having both good overall vision
>>(wide-angle sharp image, with continuous focus ability from
>>near to far) and ideal still-camera manual-focus ability,
>>with a remarkably simple method for correcting the problems
>>of age-related inability to focus over more than a short
>>range of distances. This method has virtually no
>>down-sides, yet to my amazement, NO ONE has tried it!!!
>>Not even people I know locally who have struggled with the
>>very problems this solution so neatly solves! WEIRD!
>>I guess people would rather believe the advertising of
>>the line-less lens sellers, or the somewhat off-bass
>>solutions offered by optomitrists (tri-focals; bifocals
>>with inappropriate correction-distances selected;
>>bi/tri-focal insets that are too large, and placed too high;
>>line-less lenses with only a narrow angle of horizontal
>>sharp vision). Try my solution, and you will never go
>>back (I hated the line-less lens types, since I want to
>>be able to see sharply over a wide angle, and to have a
>>fixed FL over enough vertical angle to not have confusing
>>focus correction with large camera eyepieces...).
>>The article is at:
>>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#glasses
>>On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:05:32 +1000, "Andrew Gyles"
>>
>>
>>>In revisiting your website I read your description of the glasses
>>>(spectacles) you use to give you "complete continuously-sharp smooth-focus
>>>vision from about one foot to infinity..., a sharp view of the camera
>>>viewfinder and wide-angle vision".
>>>
>>>A few months have probably passed since you wrote that. Do you still find
>>>the "four-distance" design as satisfying as it was at the start, and better
>>>than "narrow-angle lineless glasses"? (Are the latter the same as
>>>"steplessly variable focal-length glasses"?)
>>>
>>>I found this article very interesting. I'm glad your site is back up.
>>>Andrew Gyles
>>>"Neuman - Ruether"
>>>news:3b5937d7.5545176@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>
>>>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>>>> is running again, after a server failure that put
>>>> it down for a few days. The hit-counters reset,
>>>> but otherwise it appears OK. On it are (critical...)
>>>> reviews of several Mini-DV camcorders, with frame-grabs
>>>> and comments on motion-video picture and on sound
>>>> characteristics.
>>>> David Ruether