| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Divester. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
Divester
by dmv at 2:09 pm EDT, Sep 19, 2005 |
If you’re dissatisfied with a limited underwater view when diving, then you might be interested to learn about Hydrooptix’ Mega-4.5d mask. After years of engineering, Jon Kranhouse – with the help of Hollywood computer gurus, who helped correct the once-fuzzy Hubble Space Telescope – has developed a mask that reportedly provides “a view almost five times wider than the view available through conventional flat masks, and the vision is completely distortion free.” Sounds great! But there is one small drawback…
Makes sense -- a flat view is inherently limited, and with the crazy optical properties of water, flat side vision doesn't work -- and standard curved technology would be entirely too distorted. Because the “concave shape of water” creates an optical phenomenon, you must be nearsighted to use the mask. Many naturally nearsighted divers can use the Mega-4.5d with just their naked eyes. Apparently the view is so astonishing, however, that many divers with 20/20 vision have purchased contact lenses just to use the mask. Voluntarily becoming temporarily nearsighted, the divers claim that wearing contacts is worth the hassle, because of the vast improvement in vision. I wouldn’t’ve believed it if I hadn’t looked at the testimonials. The Mega-4.5d ships for $200; contact lenses not included.
Woo! I use a prescription mask now, that my mom gave me after her Lasik surgery. They work ok, but I worry about the difference in prescription. In this case... I finally have a vision advantage. (Until I go through surgery, of course. It would be funny to start being a contact user AFTER losing the need for glasses). |
| |
RE: Divester
by Catonic at 9:02 am EDT, Sep 20, 2005 |
dmv wrote:
Woo! I use a prescription mask now, that my mom gave me after her Lasik surgery. They work ok, but I worry about the difference in prescription. In this case... I finally have a vision advantage. (Until I go through surgery, of course. It would be funny to start being a contact user AFTER losing the need for glasses).
I have a former co-worker who got lasik in both eyes and still uses reading glasses; as the eye ages it looses it's ability to focus as far and as close (due to hardening of the lens or some rot) or so I am led to believe. |
|
| | |
RE: Divester
by dmv at 10:19 am EDT, Sep 21, 2005 |
Catonic wrote: I have a former co-worker who got lasik in both eyes and still uses reading glasses; as the eye ages it looses it's ability to focus as far and as close (due to hardening of the lens or some rot) or so I am led to believe.
That's well known. My father's Lasik only improved his sight -- he still needs contacts or glasses to drive. My mother, who had already progressed to bifocals, has great vision, and only requires $1 reading glasses to read menus and books. Interestingly, my grandfather *now* has 20/20. His lens was becoming opaque, so they replaced it. And when doing so, did the calculations based on the state of his eyes such that, voila! better vision than he has ever had. It is this technology -- lens replacement -- that my eye doctor recommends waiting for. It is becoming available as an elective surgery -- as opposed to what my grandfather required -- and should be well established by 2010 or so. Similar level of impact, but without the halo side effects and eventual calcification (or whatever it is). |
|
|
|
