TruFocals make steampunk glasses a functional, expensive reality
By Vlad Savov 
posted August 11th 2009 12:28PM
posted August 11th 2009 12:28PM
[Via CNET]
posted August 11th 2009 12:28PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
wow. that's pretty damn cool. too bad they're ugly. :( but hey 1st attempt right?
Yeah, these things are a cosmetic nightmare. It shouldnt be that hard to make them look attractive, id didnt see anything that required it to look so goofy.
I have a feeling it's a lot easier to deal with the science of adjustable optics when they are perfectly circular, that's my guess as to why they make them look like that.
@shiny:
One thing that's going to hold up the aesthetics is the fact that the lenses must be perfectly circular for this technology to work (at least in its present form). There's very little you can do to a circular lens that will make it not look ugly. Also, the frames have to be thick to fit the focusing machinery.
As Jason mentioned, this is a first attempt at an entirely new technology. It's ugly, but most people I know with bad eyes would happily trade ugly glasses for the freedom of not having to keep track of several different pairs.
I may be taking this for granted since I'm in my 20s (although I do wear glasses). But I'm not sure if I'd ever pay the better part of a grand to look like Harry Potter meets Steamboy.
How about AUTO focusing? :)
Well... you just did that for free. :)
It's great to see none of the models on the site wearing actual trufocals (all photochopped). It's also nice that there are loads of customer testimonials.
At least they are sending the products to the customer instead of using them for photoshoots!! >_>
Haha, wow, yeah, it sure is weird when a company uses entirely photoshopped images to sell its products. Guess it was cheaper than hiring a whole bunch of models and photographers and whatnot? Too bad they all look unnervingly artificial and obviously fake, or at least to us young whipersnappers who know how photoshoppery works. Old farts probably can't tell the difference.
A comment like that shows who the real dick is.
Damn.. wish I could afford a set. Nerdy wouldn't bug me at all, if they work as advertised.
And can see through blouses....
What if your vision is different in each eye - anisometropia? I guess these wouldn't work then...
If I'm understanding the video, your prescription is filled in the front lens. So theoretically, you could have your two different lenses on the front, and they should still work.
Then you have two sliders, and your glasses look like multi-band EQ :)
not necessarily. The focal point isnt changing just the overlaying prescription, the front lends allows you to stay in focus, you're just slightly adjusting the focal point for each eye. It'll work just the same.
900 bucks...hmm... how about buying a D60 for 600 bucks and a 55-200 lens for 250?
Um. This is for eyes... not a camera.
You didn't notice the word "glasses" plastered over this article?
Throw away your eyes, D60 does a better job with 10x zoom!
But its bulky and won't fit in the place of an eye. And will require batteries...
No deal.
Next they need to equip a tiny electric motor (silent) and have the focus thought activated... just like eyes!
Maybe even add a zoom function (picture inspector gadget's eyes zooming in).
or have a camera which monitors your eyes for focus
I had a similar thought. Have a small pinhole camera in the bridge that would act as an autofocus.
Although I'd hate if I were wearing the glasses and the autofocus didn't work properly. You know, like on digital cameras where it's trying to find the focal point, but instead it's just cycling its focus near and far? You'd be trying to read a book and you'd get motion sick.
This is where manual focus comes in.
I don't see why they wouldn't work for anisometropia. The actual prescription part is the lens at the front. As long as each corrected lens has the same focal length, it shouldn't matter if the uncorrected vision is different.
The problem I have with these is the manual focus. I bet most people would end up just leaving it in the middle for most situations. I think it should autofocus based on the distance to the object you are looking at. Give it another 5-10 years.
I don't see how this is at all "like having your very own zoom function." I got all excited when I read that, then I watched the video and realized it did not do any sort of zooming at all.
Right, it's more like turning the focus ring on a manual focus lens. Only gonna help if your eyes can't focus on their own anymore.
This is Engadget. Many of the editors are not as familiar with scientific terms like "zoom" or "LEDs" as you and I might be.
Sounds interesting. Hopefully the tech will be cheaper (and better looking) when I'll need them
I'm approaching my 9th month with the bates method to naturally improve vision, and it is progressively getting better. Age doesn't degrade vision over time, bad/incorrect use does. Sight is a sense like touch and taste, if other senses last for life why not vision. Hearing won't be mentioned because many lose partial ability due to loud music. I'm not going to mention the book I read, but do research and get the best one on the bates method to free yourself of "vision enhancements" for life. LOL, keep negative comments to yourself, I'm not coming back to read them.
For those interested, Wikipedia has a good (as of 30 seconds ago) article on this; look up "Bates method". Unfortunately, the story is the usual one for stuff like this: Reports of positive results are anecdotal and have never been confirmed by scientific studies, the theoretical underpinnings of the method are contrary to physiological fact, and some of the practices recommended as part of the method are dangerous. Interesting topic though.
Fashion dictates what is ugly now, maybe beautiful a few years from now. It all depends on who makes it trendy.
I guess glaucoma is due to incorrect usage?
Some vision issues can be caused by things like sitting too close to the computer, but your eyes age like everything else.
Truthfully, I don't think your other senses stay the same as you age either. Think about how people's choices of food change as they age.
I want a monocle version. When I adjust my monocle, no one will notice I'm adjusting my vision. I say!
Maybe if he manages to sell a few pairs of these he could hire a designer.
people adjusting their own focus seems risky and could lead to further damage or deterioration to the eyes.
Isn't something very like this sold (or going to be) in Africa for, like, $10?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/22/diy-adjustable-glasses-josh-silver
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/health/self-adjusted-glasses-could-be-boon-to-africa.html
http://www.adaptive-eyecare.org/
I guess the difference is that you only adjust them once -- but that seems easily modified.
I was wondering this as well.
RE: Josh Silver's adjustable glasses:
Two different problems; two different solutions:
The Centre for Vision in the Developing World is using fluid-filled lenses to provide rudimentary vision correction to the 3rd world. (An admirable cause.) When a user first gets your glasses, he/she “tunes” each lens for the best fixed focus …and then removes the filling syringe.
To quote their web site: “When done, the user simply …cuts off the syringes and tubing - transforming the Adspecs into a normal pair of glasses…"
To be fair, the result isn't actually a normal pair of glasses. Adspecs correct only for sphere, not cylinder or prism – and hence the end result is similar to what one would get with a pair of drug store reading glasses (except that each eye can have a different amount of sphere correction).
Adspecs are not designed to be re-focused on a moment-by-moment basis. But, that is exactly what TruFocals are designed to do.
TruFocals allow presbyopes (essentially everyone over 45) the ability to have the best-quality vision correction PLUS the ability to change focus at will, just as their youthful eyes used to do.
This requires precision fluid-filled Lens Units, a patented opto-mechanical mechanism, and high quality ophthalmic lenses …which, of course, correct not only sphere but also cylinder (astigmatism) and any prism demand.
As I said: Different problem. Different solution.
How much for a pair that aren't ugly? Does the non-ugly model cost more?
Verity of special colors.
nuff said.
Well my glasses were around $500, granted they do look a little better, lol.
the ladies tell me am da real dick.
Good idea. But posting a photo of PILOTS wearing glasses is not. Unless I'm mistaken, good eyesight is a prerequisite for pilots. Airforce pilots have high requirements, hard to imagine that they are lax when setting the requirements for pilots that will be transporting hundreds of people...
http://www.trufocals.com/assets/images/page_headers/secondary_header_pilot.jpg
"Unless I'm mistaken....." Well, Brian, you are. I have a friend in the USAF who wears corrective lenses and has been flying for the Air Force for a number of years. After training, he flew C-5 Hercules for several years. After moving on to other assignments, and increasing in rank, he is now in the U-2 program. Still wears corrective lenses. Also, many commercial pilots as well as private and corporate pilots all over the nation wear corrective lenses. Sorry to deflate your balloon.
What nerdy? I love these!
The NY Times had an article on this days ago, based on the actual experience of a wearer. I agree they're ugly. According to their site, they actually did hire a designer to come up with their present design. Perhaps there's little more that can be done given the technical requirements. Note that another variant on multifocal technology should be hitting market in about a year, using an electronically-adjustable fluid that gets around the round lens and mechanical slider requirements (at the cost of needing to recharge the battery periodically).
I went to check out the Pixel Optics site that was referenced in the original NYT article. Turns out that they are NOT working on adjustable focus glasses. What they are working on is basically just a conventional progressive lens that allows you to turn the close focus section on or off.
my only problem with them is the look obviously, but also the slider location. i think it would be better located on the side of the glasses somewhere. going to the bridge of your nose looks a little inconvienient plus you might smudge the lenses a lot.
I'd have the slider on the side and yell OPTIC BLAST whenever I wanted to see something.