Wow, I had no idea answering this question would be tougher than
solving the mystery of the oracle - Beth you're the only person who
was able to answer it and I posted to a few forums.  I think I'll copy
and paste your reply in case anyone looking at those forums wants an
answer.  Thanks a lot.

I saw two optometrists because of an insurance change, FYI. Because I
didn't have an answer I went ahead and ordered two pairs of glasses,
each based on a different prescription.  I've worn each pair for a day
so far and honestly I don't notice a difference; they're both great.
I haven't yet tried an eye chart which I'll probably do just because
I'm curious.  By the way, I got both pairs from eyebuydirect for $30
w/ the glassy eyes discount and I'm very happy with them.



On Aug 17, 10:55 pm, Beth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not an optometrist or an optician, but I think I can help with
> this based on an explanation that an experienced optician gave me
> yesterday about my own prescription (and a course in general optics
> that I took).  He indicated that the strength of the glasses (overall)
> comes from the addition of the spherical and cylindrical (which is
> applied at an angle, the axis) values.  In my case, I had asked why I
> have -9.00 in one eye and -7.75 in the other (for the spherical); he
> pointed out that the -1.00 and -1.75 for cylindrical on my
> prescription balanced it out, as it turns out more like a total of
> -10.00 on one side and -9.50 in the other.
>
> To apply this to your question, you had -2.25 and -2.00 total.  Now
> you have something like -2.50 and -3.00.  So, basically, they moved
> one of the correcting forces off from the side, onto the front, at
> least as I understand it, so your overall prescription went up.  I
> likened it to vectors to see if I was understanding it the same way as
> the optician at the store did, but he didn't really confirm the
> application of this analogy one way or the other.  Check out something
> on vector addition for more detail on this explanation, which may be
> correct.
>
> On Aug 12, 7:51 pm, phillo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I visited 2 optometrists 1 year apart and now need to order new
> > glasses but when I compared the newer prescription to the older 1 this
> > particular difference jumped out but doesn't make sense:
>
> > old script -   OD-CYL:-2.00
>
> > new script-  OD-CYL:-1.75
>
> > I'm assuming that closer to 0 = less correction so -2.00 should be the
> > newer prescription/more correction but I'm having a hard time
> > validating or negating this assumption online and I'm in contact with
> > neither of the optometrists that examined me.  If anyone could clarify
> > I'd really appreciate it.
>
> > FYI COMPLETE PRESCRIPTIONS
>
> > Old script:
> > ____________
> > OD-SPH:-0.25
> > OD-CYL:-2.00
> > OD-AXIS: 95
> > ---------------------
> > OS-SPH:-.50
> > OS-CYL:-1.50
> > OS-AXIS: 80
>
> > New script:
> > ____________
> > OD-SPH:-0.75
> > OD-CYL:-1.75
> > OD-AXIS: 95
> > ---------------------
> > OS-SPH:-1.25
> > OS-CYL:-1.75
> > OS-AXIS: 80

-- 
Check us out at the oft-updated http://glassyeyes.blogspot.com!

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"GlassyEyes" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/glassyeyes?hl=en

Reply via email to