glasses

[cellio]

I'd been meaning to order new glasses for a while, but did not want to get caught in another dispute between the doctor who wrote the prescription and the optical shop that made them (like last time). So I'd been looking for a place that provides both services so I could surround any mistakes with a someone-else's-problem field. Dani had a good experience at NeoVision in Shadyside, so I went there.

The exam started off with a fascinating gadget (that, alas, I did not get the name of). One eye at a time, they told me to stare into the gadget and not blink. I watched a grapheme (not text) blur into and out of focus before "snapping" into focus -- without any communication from me. That was neat! It got the right eye just fine (which is usually the one that's hard to get a reading on), but did not "snap" to focus on the left (unusual). I reported that fact and they said that's ok; they'll tune things during the exam.

Their optician then did a fairly conventional refraction, except for two things: (1) when I told him I needed more time to focus before being able to answer "is that better?" he listened and slowed down, and (2) instead of the wacky frames into which they fit physical lenses, he had a device where he just twiddled knobs or something, with the result that the transitions were smoother. (I had not previously seen such a gadget.) Within some parameters that I don't know, adjustable glasses are clearly feasible.

The final version he came up with allowed me to read text on the wall chart that I had not been able to read with the glasses I walked in with. So that's a good sign. I told him I was most concerned with the bifocal, for both reading and computer use, and he inserted something to show me what that would look like. (For reading, anyway -- no handy computer, and they are different in feel.) Bifocals are just an add-on; there's no tuning involved. So there's not a lot of flexibility there. If I ever decide to try again with the all-bifocal-all-the-time glasses (exclusively for computer use), we could presumably fine-tune it.

Of course, the danger of all of these things is judging on a few seconds' worth of exposure; the real evaluation requires longer. (That's part of why I want those adjustable glasses!)

Their guy is an opthamologist, so he started to do a glaucoma test. I wasn't expecting that but the insurance covered it, so I let him do it. Unbeknownst to me, that insurance would bite the dust two days later. Let's hear it for lucky timing. (The new corporate overlords do have vision coverage, though it's a bit weaker. More imporantly, though, even though we've been assured that insurance will be back-dated to the beginning of the month and we're not uninsured, we haven't yet been able to actually sign up for insurance. I had a doctor's appointment scheduled for this week that I've had to move already; I hope they fix this before next month's dentist appointment!)

I picked up the glasses today. They are taking some time to adjust to, both distance- and close-vision, but the drive back to the office was perfectly fine (so distance seems promising) and I haven't ripped them off my face to return to the old ones yet. So we're already well ahead of the last time I got new glasses. Focusing on the computer screen is different but possible. Reading paper seems to be fine, though I haven't tried anything challenging yet like smaller newsprint.

So a provisional thumbs-up to NeoVision. I'm hoping that by the end of tomorrow these will feel perfectly normal. Right now, about 12 hours after putting them on, I still feel like I'm wearing someone else's prescription. (I have the impression that most people adjust more quickly than I do.)

Oh, I personally think the new glasses are a little aesthetically-challenged, but appearance is so far down on the list compared to functionality that I don't really care. I asked them to recommend a shape and size for the lenses.

Update Apr 12 morning: Distance vision in the left lens is a bit off; I can't read street signs as clearly as I could with the old glasses. The right lens is spot-on, though, and better than the old one, and bifocals seem to be better overall. I'm going to have them look at that left lens, though.

Comments

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

The gadget sounds interesting. I should check around here to see if anyone has one. I have a lazy left eye that is really hard to correct. I explain the vision in it as some of the pixels are missing. It's not blurry; it just isn't always an complete image.

Good luck with the new glasses!

[geekosaur]

Ugh. That sounds kinda like a detached retina, which can only be corrected by surgery. (Alternately, cataracts, but I'd think any competent ophthalmologist should be able to detect that easily.)

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

It's not any that serious. There are not big patches missing, just tiny bits or "not quite there" patches that jump around. It's been that way since I was 7. I explain more below in response to Monica.

[cellio]

Have you been checked for all the usual suspects -- cataracts, detatched retina, macular degeneration? (I don't think glaucoma would produce those symptoms, though it's something you should be checked for routinely for other reasons.)

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

I became cross-eyed as a result of measles when I was 4 or 5. I had eye surgery when I was 5 and again when I was 7 to try to line my eyes back up. My left eye has been that way since then. It's really hard to get a 7 year old kid to do the eye exercises! The vision is not that bad; it's just not normal. Some days it is better than others. I once talked to someone who has a similar lazy eye. When I described the symptoms, he knew exactly what I meant. That made me feel better about it. Now, I just accept it as a weird anomaly. If I cover my right eye and concentrate, I can actually get my left eye to work. Otherwise, it doesn't want to do its share of the work.

An interesting result of the surgery is that, while my eyes look normal, my focal point is not the same as everyone else's. You might remember the old 3D pictures that appeared sometimes in Scientific American. You needed a little stand to look through plastic "glasses" to see the 3D effect. I can't see it at all. However, one of the pictures was slightly off and nobody could see the 3D effect, except me! Very odd.