In terms of physics, no passive optical system can increase contrast.
What is possible is e.g. attenuation of the light, so the bright bits do not blind you. That is how sunglasses work
I have tried the Prizm goggles in various ski shops. They are reassuringly expensive so hey they must do something. But they don't seem to do anything obvious.
Their marketing material contains obviously photoshopped (enhanced) images of slopes.
I suspect that what may be happening is that - under some light conditions - the shadow of a groove is a different colour to the rest of the groove, and by filtering the image you can increase contrast between the two.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Peter Stevens, also think of the pereception and also the eye detection.
I suspect it is a multiband filter with shelf edges. This will create a discontinuous gradient and a perceived contrast break.
It is well known that we can detect intensity jumps rather than a gradient blend. So I suspect that is how it works. I worked in bioimaging and looked at the Oakley site and it is full of marketing BS.
Regarding the images, a copy and paste into Photoshop and a ctrl-L will give a hint to the manipulation. I always did this when reviewing scientific publications. Amazing what you can see.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@Peter Stevens, late so short post, yes, filtering can increase contrast.
As the poster above says, the Oakley marketing is BS. If it works it must be something else.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I don't know how they work. A better question is do they actually work? And for me the answer is definitely yes. And the effect for me is very much like the slope images on their website.
I don't know much about patent law but as Oakley have a patent on the Prizm lenses I would assume that to be granted the patent then they have to be doing something that hasn't been done before. I don't know whether the patent has to fully detail the tech behind the product but they've now been out for a few years and AFAIK none of the competition have brought out anything close yet. But if the patent doesn't have to fully detail the tech then Oakley aren't then going to spill the beans in their marketing blurb.
Frankly, I couldn’t give a damn how it works, but I can confirm 100%, for my eyes it does. Jeez, most marketing stuff is BS.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Nice goggles and nice lenses. I have Jade and the pink low-light lens. I still prefer my cheap, ancient Scott goggle with its simple yellow lens when the light is really poor, though.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Goggles are great. Fishing glasses even better. Spooky trout don’t stand a chance against shallow water prizm lenses
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
kditrj2d wrote:
Nice goggles and nice lenses. I have Jade and the pink low-light lens. I still prefer my cheap, ancient Scott goggle with its simple yellow lens when the light is really poor, though.
I also have the jade and pink prizms after many years of using a fire iridium and hi yellow combo.
I know a few people for whom a pink lens doesn't work for their eyes/brain but the yellow does, whereas both work for me and the pink Prizm is better. I'd recommend you try their HI Yellow lens instead. It's not a prizm but it's from their iridium range and for me it was the best low light lens on the market until the pink prizm came out.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
This embarrasing marketing video claims that you get more contrast just by differentially attenuating different wavelengths.
Many spectacle brands, Oakley included, are trading names of Luxottica. I did a search on patents and found one which is probably the one:
It seems to confirm that this is what they have done. They pick two colours which are strongly represented in the snow scene and differentially attenuate them.
However, you don't need fancy technology to do that. Yellow and orange lenses will do it also. More sophisticated coatings can do it stronger.
It does rely on the original proposition i.e. different features in the scene being different colours to start with.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@Peter Stevens, seems I was right, multi band filters. This has been used in laser safety glasses for years but for different reasons. I'n the microscope business we use these type of filters all the time.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
I came across this:
"Oakley achieved this innovation by utilizing hyperspectral imaging, a technique used by spy satellites that helps analyze light in real-world environments. The hyperspectral camera allowed engineers to see the patterns and conditions of the spectral peaks that exist in a wide variety of conditions. Once the transmission peaks found in nature were identified, a lens dye was scientifically engineered to match the absorption peaks, which help to boost the “good” light and filter out the “noisy” light."
Generally if it is to do with NASA or Space or Spy Satellites - it must be good!
.....though it certainly works better on the Mountain, than in the shop.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
" laser safety glasses"
Those are notch filters - fairly easy to do for a specific laser type.
"Generally if it is to do with NASA or Space or Spy Satellites - it must be good!"
Yes; it is BS
"though it certainly works better on the Mountain, than in the shop."
AFAICT Prizm doesn't do anything in a shop. I've tried it many times. It certainly doesn't increase contrast. It just produces a tinted image of the shop
I think the way it works is that e.g. the shadow of a groove is a different colour from the apex of it. Snow isn't actually white. If you shoot in RAW and use lightroom's white balance picker and use a patch of snow as the reference, it usually doesn't produce a natural looking scene. Much depends on the sky colour. With no cloud, the light is blue and snow looks quite blue, but since we expect it to be white we see it as white (a common illusion; a piece of paper looks white under any light).
But I bet you that this falls over with flat light e.g. under a heavy overcast, when you have no shadows. Everything is just uniform grey.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Peter Stevens wrote:
"though it certainly works better on the Mountain, than in the shop."
AFAICT Prizm doesn't do anything in a shop. I've tried it many times. It certainly doesn't increase contrast. It just produces a tinted image of the shop
You have to get the Prizm lens that is specifically tailored for use in a shop.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@Peter Stevens, flat light is, aiui, exactly where they are supposed to work best. I haven’t tried them.
Your argument is, however, entirely plausible.
On competitors, I believe Smith’s “Chromapop” is a similar technology and I certainly will be trying that, at some point.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
It's not specific to Prizm though, all the major companies' patented "snow contrast enhancement" systems (claim to) do a similar thing - Anon's Sonar, Smith's ChromaPop, Dragon's Lumalens etc. Oakley just has even better marketing than the others. Some reviewers seem to rate Smith's ChromaPop as being better for low light conditions (see. Storm Yellow ChromaPop lens).
It seems as though the main "villain" in snow conditions is a certain portion of the blue light band which increases haze and reduces ability to make out details/depth perception etc and that selectively filtering some of these wavelengths of blue light (at least partially) negates this.
I may just have swallowed the marketing BS though haha. In any case, having tried Dragon Lumalens and especially Anon's (Zeiss') Sonar lenses, I will add my opinion and say it absolutely does make a difference on those low light/white out days.
EDIT: I've actually found the video I watched a while back. They talk about the "science" between about 1-5 minutes. Optical science is not my specialty however, so you guys may be able to debunk what they're saying.
@Peter Stevens, what is the point of asking people for their knowledge and opinions if you insist on repeatedly contradicting them?! Several forum users (that I know of) work in optics, and probably have a good idea of what they're talking about. Many others of us have used standard Oakley goggles for years (even these are good, when compared to many cheap options, but their competitors are good too) and have switched to Prizms and find they are better. Yes, definition in flat light isn't as good as full sun, but it is better than pretty much any other lens. Yes, other people on the slopes often ask to “have a go” so both of you get a direct back-to-back comparison. No, you can't tell in the shop.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
If you consider the response point of cones in the eye to colour in the attached https://biodifferences.com/difference-between-rods-and-cones.html it's plausible that moving the viewed image to coincide with greater response will yeald a benefit to the person wearing the lens.
You still have to use perception of the information to build a realistic appreciation of the scene in front of you to help you navigate though.
Certainly it's correct that a white out situation ultimately diminishes contrast primarily, and with snow can almost completely remove colour which mainly comes from the light illuminating it. Blue predominantly, which in open light gives the snow blue shadow colour.
If you shift the viewing lens colour, then the eye may be more sensitive to working with any contrast available. But some are going to perceive that differently dependant on their own eye sensitivity.
In terms of adding contrast, then no that's not technically possible as far as I perceive. But preservation of any existing contrast in the original scene in any way possibly should help.
That's a good description. And it isn't based on snow textures having different colours in the shadows.
Unfortunately Zeiss don't seem to do prescription lenses with this coating. I have Zeiss prescription lenses, yellow/orange in colour, but I don't think it is this stuff. They are very good though.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sun 5-01-20 21:01; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Reading this, and some of Peter's other recent posts, I'm reminded of the 'marketing blurb' for a mountain bike which garnered rave reviews when it appeared: "on paper this geometry shouldn't work - but nobody rides on paper".
Oakley Prizms are a spendy way to tackle the problems thrown up by flat light. I've never tried them, so can't comment, as I have a pair of Smith's with 'Chromapop' lenses that I picked up cheap which work about as well as anything I've ever tried. Skiing off piste in Scotland for a big chunk of the season means flat light is an occupational hazard, and I've found that developing a better sense of balance probably does about as much good as anything. By all means grab a set of Prizms - they look great - but spending time doing squats on a wobble board might help just as much.
It has been discovered that an optical filter can be configured to remove the outer portions of a broad visual stimulus to make colors appear more vivid as perceived in human vision. The outer portions of a broad visual stimulus refer to wavelengths that, when substantially, nearly completely, or completely attenuated, decrease the bandwidth of the stimulus such that the vividness of the perceived color is increased. An optical filter for eyewear can be configured to substantially increase the colorfulness, clarity, and/or vividness of a scene. Such an optical filter for eyewear can allow the wearer to view the scene in high definition color (HD color). In some embodiments, portions of a visual stimulus that are not substantially attenuated include at least the wavelengths for which cone photoreceptor cells in the human eye have the greatest sensitivity. In certain embodiments, the bandwidth of the color stimulus when the optical filter is applied includes at least the wavelengths for which the cone photoreceptor cells have the greatest sensitivity. In some embodiments, a person wearing a lens incorporating an optical filter disclosed herein may perceive a substantial increase in the clarity of a scene. The increase in perceived clarity may result, for example, from increased contrast, increased chroma, or a combination of factors.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Peter Stevens, I know laser safety glasses use notch filters. I've looked at the Oakley patent and it easy to see what they are doing. Obviously not OD7+ notch but still as I suspected a multiband filter.
After all it is free
After all it is free
The Zeiss approach is similar to Oakley's but with the additional claim that you have to let in some "extreme" blue to, they claim, enable obstacles to be seen.
This is difficult to reconcile with the latest trend to comprehensively remove anything shorter than 400nm, to protect from macular degeration. This is what Maui Jim are cashing in on (heavily, as normal for MJ ) even though they totally avoid publishing any actual data, and there are undoubtedly better lens materials for which data is published e.g. Shamir Blue Zero.
So maybe the best way is wearing the SBZ prescription lenses under the goggles But, no, because then you won't see where you are going - if the Zeiss claim is to be believed.
FWIW I am amazed these patents are worth anything. There are so many claims which all have to be infringed.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
For those who wear glasses to work on a computer. Try this. Make a hole with your thumb and forefinger. Like the okay emoji.
Place it over one eye so you are looking through the pinhole. Don't wear your specs for this
Now put text from anything eg a book or letter against the pinhole and pull the paper away until the text is clear.
Now remove yuur hand and suddenly the text is all blurred again.
How can this be? Well it works like the simple pinhole camera effect where you use the pinhole to remove out of focus light from hitting your retina and blurring the image.
By manipulating the wavelength intensity that is out of focus you reduce this blurring effect. This is the essence of the Zeiss video and you can try this at home.
Zeiss also make goggle lenses for Adidas. I've seen them in their Shanghai factory the last time I visited. I visited for other reasons.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@Peter Stevens, you can't detect less than about 380-390nm with the eye. I use specific light sources with 365nm 380 and 400nm wavelengths. You can just about see a 380-400nm but your eye can't detect wavelengths below 380nm so you can filter that out without affecting vision.
Indeed I usually use a bit of tissue paper over the optics so you can see the absorbed 365 shifted into the visible by the paper .
Patents in the USA are easy to get. In the rest of the world they are more strict.
But you can patent the use of technology in an application even though it is used in other areas.
And also though it is only specific from one country.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
GlasgowCyclops wrote:
Now remove yuur hand and suddenly the text is all blurred again.
Indeed it was!
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
rob@rar wrote:
GlasgowCyclops wrote:
Now remove yuur hand and suddenly the text is all blurred again.
Indeed it was!
It's true. The only trouble is, now that I know this trick if I can't read the fine print/ingredients somewhere public i'll be squinting though my OK pinhole camera hand at products and looking a right wally.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
"Place it over one eye so you are looking through the pinhole. Don't wear your specs for this"
To be fair, that trick works largely due to a reduction in aperture lenghtening the depth of focus (as well as the depth of field) - SLR camera users should be familiar with this The tradeoff is that you lose some light, which is OK if you want to lose some light anyway (usually but not always true when skiing).
"you can't detect less than about 380-390nm with the eye. I use specific light sources with 365nm 380 and 400nm wavelengths. You can just about see a 380-400nm but your eye can't detect wavelengths below 380nm so you can filter that out without affecting vision."
Sure, but the Zeiss patent suggested they are not removing stuff below 380-400, which IMHO they should be, especially for use at high altitude where the UV is intense.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
rogg wrote:
...i'll be squinting though my OK pinhole camera hand at products and looking a right wally.
Any port in a storm...
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Zeiss do prescription lenses in what looks like a similar material
Now remove yuur hand and suddenly the text is all blurred again.
Indeed it was!
It's true. The only trouble is, now that I know this trick if I can't read the fine print/ingredients somewhere public i'll be squinting though my OK pinhole camera hand at products and looking a right wally.
Other problem is you might look like a white supremacist!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Peter Stevens wrote:
Zeiss do prescription lenses in what looks like a similar material
Isn't that link showing that those lenses ARE cutting the lower levels of visible spectrum? Signified by their colour transmission being far more yellow.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
) even though they totally avoid publishing any actual data, and there are undoubtedly better lens materials for which data is published e.g. Shamir Blue Zero.
Indeed it was!