Help with prescription translation

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by The Real Bev, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    Old (1996) optometrist's prescription for reading glasses:

    R: +4.75 -1.25 100 (includes 2.25 add)
    L: +6.00 -1.50 75

    New (2001) optometrist's prescription for reading glasses:

    R: +3.50 +2.25 10 (also includes 2.25 add)
    L: +4.50 +2.25 170

    I'm currently wearing the old prescription reading glasses and new
    prescription bifocals with a 1.5 add, which was a stupid choice on my
    part -- I figured I could see stuff better on the ground at yard sales
    with a smaller add, which is not true.

    If they're the same it doesn't matter. If one is slightly stronger in
    the astigmatism setting, I think I'd be better off with that one.

    I'm going to order some new reading glasses from Zenni Optical
    ( Anybody ordered from them? Were you happy?

    I read a previous explanation of the translation process several times,
    but enlightenment just didn't happen. Help!

    "Let them eat shit."
    -- Marcel Antoinette, Marie's little-known brother
    The Real Bev, Dec 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    OK, I found the formulas and plugged them in. The results seem to be
    even less enlightening. Converting and attempting to compare apples to
    apples and oranges to oranges, the cylinder and sphere seem to be in
    some sort of trade-off situation between the old and the new
    prescriptions. Is this a normal variation or is there a significant
    difference between the two prescriptions?

    I can't really tell any difference between the old and new glasses and I
    don't want to go back to the second optometrist for yet another
    prescription nor find a new optometrist right now since I've just
    invested a bundle in contacts.

    At this point I'm willing to bow to known expertise: Should I get the
    old or the new prescription?

    "Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft[0], recently referred to LINUX as a
    cancer. Unsurprisingly, that's incorrect; LINUX was released on August
    25th, 1991 and is therefore a virgo." -- Kevin L
    The Real Bev, Dec 8, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Real Bev

    drfrank21 Guest

    od +4.75-125x100
    os +600-150x75 add+225

    od +575-225x100
    os +6.75-225x60 add+225

    My advice, get an updated rx- not something 2 yrs old.
    Never been a fan of mail order "glasses" (has nothing to
    do with "cost issues") but rather having a live person (optician)
    measuring, fitting, and adjusting the frames and lenses which
    obviously a mail order company cannot do. Over the counter
    readers are one thing but with prescription glasses you're better
    off dealing with a knowledgeable optician.

    drfrank21, Dec 8, 2003
  4. I just quickly perused your post. The two prescriptions do not seem all that
    different from one another. I think it may be a difference in the practices
    between the two optometrists/opthalmologist that prescribed.

    There is no unique way to specify a prescription with both spherical and
    astimatic correction. In your case, the astigmatism correction switch from
    negative to positive. When that is done, the axis should be changed by 90
    degrees. Similarly, the spherical correction must be changed.

    That arises because a spherical correction is the same as two equal
    cylindrical corrections at 90 degrees to each other. After correcting for
    this notation, I think that the difference can be due to measuring error or
    even a small change in your eyes.

    I have been an advocate of changing prescriptions to the use of zernicke
    polynomials. Then there would be only one way to prescribe the same lens.
    That change, however is probably too complicated to warrand the change.

    I AM NOT AN EYECARE PROFESSIONAL. This only my opinion based upon my
    knowledge of optics--not on medical or optometric professional knowledge. It
    is worth what you payed for it, if that much.

    Repeating Decimal, Dec 8, 2003
  5. The Real Bev

    Dan Abel Guest

    I could be wrong here, but I'm guessing that at some point during that
    massive contact experience, your doctor measured your vision without
    contacts on, and that would be the correct prescription for your glasses,
    meaning you won't have to pay for another exam, and you'll have
    information more current than 2001.
    Dan Abel, Dec 8, 2003
  6. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    The contact-optician based his choices on the newer optometrist's
    prescription so I don't have a prescription newer than 2001. There
    seems to be no significant difference between the 1996 and 2001 glasses,
    and both are better than any of the soft contacts -- exception made for
    the first trial of my current prescription. The lenses in the actual
    order are all different in one way or another. People with no
    astigmatism don't know how lucky they are.
    The Real Bev, Dec 8, 2003
  7. The Real Bev

    wle Guest

    i did.

    yes i was very pleased.

    i discovered clip on sunglasses don;t work, though, with small lenses.

    too much light leaks in around the edges.

    so your pupil closes down and you can;t see through the sunglass part.

    wle, Dec 18, 2003
  8. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    Wire frames suck for outside wear anyway, especially if you expect your
    glasses to keep wind out of your eyes. Target has some of those clip-on
    sunglasses with prongs on the outside instead of the flip-thingy in the
    middle that come in various small sizes, maybe you'll get lucky.

    "...and then I'll become a veterinarian because I love children."
    -- Julie Brown
    The Real Bev, Dec 19, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.