On Aug 21, 11:53?am, Robert Martellaro <rob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >The optical centers on the new reading glasses are almost at the
> >centers of my eyes. So, the new reading glasses are OK as far as the
> >optical centers are concerned. However, the old reading glasses'
> >optical centers are below the centers of the eyes (by approximately 4
> >to 5 mm).
>
> The OC should be about 4mm to 5mm below the pupil, along with about 10 degrees
> of panto (lens tilt). This aligns the optical axis of the lens with the center
> of rotation of the eye. Failure to do so will induce power and astigmatic error
> on and off-axis. I would also use the distance instead of the near PD for the
> reading glasses.
>
> It sounds like the frame is sitting too high on the bridge, although the
> vertical OC can be placed lower if needed. I would prefer a frame that fits in a
> way that places the vertical center below the pupil.
>
So, are you saying that the optical centers in the new glasses are
SUPPOSED to be 4 - 5 mm below the centers of the pupils?
So, when the optician is measuring the OC height, is he supposed to
measure from the top of the frame to about 4 - 5 mm below the center
of the pupil?
Also, can you please explain panto tilt, optical axis of the lens,
center of rotation of the eye, and astigmatic error? You're throwing a
lot of jargon at me, and I'm having trouble understanding it.
> >The optician also said that the new lenses are smaller than the old
> >lenses and that I'm noticing the bottom of the new lenses whereas I
> >had not noticed the bottom of the old lenses. In other words, I would
> >have to get used to the new glasses.
>
> That doesn't make sense, using a narrow frame that sits high for the reading
> glasses. I'm sure the frames look very nice on you though.
>
I'm not sure that I understand. Are you saying that the frame must be
huge for the glasses to feel comfortable? My old reading glasses
(-4.25, -4) have a huge frame, and they are comfortable. However, this
frame is very huge and ugly. I was hoping to get a pair of glasses
with almost the same prescription (-4.25, -4.25), but with a small
frame (to match the modern style).
By the way, my -5.25, -5.25 distance glasses have a small frame, and
they are comfortable. And, if I recall correctly, the optical centers
of the -5.25 glasses are right at the centers of my pupils. The
centers are not 5 mm below the pupils.
>
> Lens clocks are calibrated for crown glass, and will give inaccurate readings on
> materials with different index of refraction, unless you modify the reading to
> account for this. Lens clocks will always give inaccurate results with aspheric
> surfaces.
>
An optician at the store where I bought the -4.25, -4.25 glasses
showed me that the lens clock was calibrated by putting the lens clock
onto a flat table at the store. The lens clock read "0". So, according
to the optician, the lens clock was calibrated because the clock
properly measured the base curve of a flat surface.
I do not know whether any optician who measured the base curves of my
pairs of glasses, adjusted the measurements because the glasses were
not crown glass.
>Assuming there are no other issues with the lens
> fabrication, and that the reading glasses were prescribed by an eye doctor, I
> would concentrate on the OC position and frame selection. It would probably be
> best to avoid polycarbonate to rule out any sensitivity to chromatic aberration.
>
Well, I am already avoiding polycarbonate lenses.
Thanks for your reply.