Oakley Prism does nothing

A snowHead

Amazing claims are made for the Oakley Prism material so I did a quick test, under the flat light conditions where this is supposed to be most useful.

This is a photo of the snow directly

https://imgur.com/a/w22nUVV

This is via a £250 prescription lens which uses a standard Zeiss material, with no comb filtering (just a tint)

https://imgur.com/1QMMbVd

This is via Oakley goggles with Prism

https://imgur.com/2EwvliM

As you can see, it does nothing!

FYI the three spectra (from Photoshop CS6 RAW import - all 3 were shot in RAW) are:

This result is not surprising because it is physically impossible to increase contrast of an image using passive filtering methods. The Oakley patent shows a comb filter which might possibly do something of parts of the snow were in different colours, but this isn't the case. Snow is just grey, tinted by the colour temperature of the light source (blue sky, grey sky, etc). Zeiss have filed a similar patent but with the comb frequencies in different places.

A snowHead

@Peter Stevens, I'm not sure the results of photos are the same as the experience via the mk1 eyeball-brain extension?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

There’s a great Facebook group called the dull men’s club. Worth joining it for more content along these lines.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Yes; tinted goggles or lenses do work, on the same principle as sunglasses do work (especially with an antireflective coating) but the Prism material does nothing in itself. It merely sells goggles for £200 or whatever.

Sunglasses work by attenuating the light and placing the average brightness nicely within the range which the eye is able to regulate around (using the iris). This in turn enables you to view any detail in the image better. But it does not increase contrast. It is the same with wearing earplugs in a noisy movie.

I compared with the eye too. The tint itself helps (reason above; a snow scene is too bright to view directly) but there is NO difference between the yellow/orange tinted lens, and the Prism goggles.

You'll need to Register first of course.

I must admit I've never found a lens that offers great/good visibility in flat light despite a 35-year search, I used to buy goggles annually.
This is the first year I haven't bought any, I'm just using a pair of Cat II Cebe goggles (bought as a spare for the back pack) on line a couple of years ago from sports direct (massive june discount)of all places,they are a good as anything in the £200 price bracket
Like so many things there is a lot of marketing effort behind product info nowadays.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Yes, it's the effect of different wavelengths of light that can 'fool' the brain into thinking that it can see more. By removing certain colours there's more 'processing power' to better perceive the others; also with some of the light suppressed the iris may dilate more to actually allow more light into the eye.

After all it is free

Also, as, f'rinstance, a yellow lens in bad light can help, as preferentially filters out blue (can't recall exactly what direction this works in, something to do with reflection off snow), it seems plausible that a comb filter could be calibrated to do this rather more precisely.

Personally, we have Smith Chromapop lenses, same principle, and they are just much nicer, more comfortable on the eyes, to wear than the previous ones.

I thought "flat light" was when you couldn't see any features on the surface of the snow. There are distinct features in that first photo, though distincter would be nice. I skied in Tignes with son (who was doing a season cooking there). Got to somewhere where he sent me down the Blue, and said he was going to do some moguls and would meet me further down.

A few minutes later he came down behind me. Said he'd stood at the top of the moguls and could see no bumps at all. Nothing. He's an excellent skier but said he didn't want to ski invisible moguls. That was flat light.

@hang11, Laughing

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

As with all these things - There are those who say it's "Life Changing"; and there are those who say that it's all "Marketing BS".....and the truth is usually somewhere in between these 2 positions.

My view/experience, is that improvements are marginal....and that personal preference is a factor ie. Yellow/Orange vs Pink/Rose.

If you expect a dramatic improvement, you will likely be disappointed.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I went from a cheap pair of ski goggles to Oakley Prizms.

Amazing difference. Worth the money. I have a the Torch for 90% of the time and the hi-pink for low light. I've compared them both to other goggles that our group ski in, and other ones in shops I think they out perform most other lenses.

snow reports

And here we go again……..
https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=3499271&highlight=stockli#3499271

Just wondering about the polarising in ski goggles. Do the have Polaroid filters and if so what angle are they set at?

You know it makes sense.

I bought a pair a couple of years ago after using cheap ones all my life. The difference was incredible. I’d never ski with sunglasses or cheap goggles now.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

A snowHead

No complaints with mine, snow goggles in all lights, and cycling sunglasses.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

My Mrs has a the prism pink or rose, with the reflective coating and is disappointed with their low light performance. Will need to buy something else for our next holiday.

I'm not sure my dragon low light yellow lens is much better, I'm now starting to think it could be an age thing, old eyes just not as good as they used to be. I know when I go from bright sun into shade, my eyes take much longer to adjust than the used to.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@johnE, The angle of the Polaroid doesn’t matter until the light passes through another filter (which in this case it doesn’t).
That is, unless reflected light is polarised, which is not the case (i think)

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Ah another great expose of shyster products in the ski industry from our usual suspect.

Problem is goggle lenses are literally all about perception which is highly individual.

@JimboS. My theory is that it's all about aging eyes. I broke my leg a few years ago as a result of that momentary blackout. I ski a storm lens most days when there is any chance of being in shade.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

As I posted earlier, I did a comparison using the eye and there was no difference in contrast between a tinted lens and the Oakley Prism material.

So the comb filter of the Prism is just another case of ski business snake oil.

One has to compare like for like e.g. a shagged goggle lens will not work as well as a brand new Prism one.

As for "Dave of the Marmottes" picking on his usual targets, nothing new there. Most of the rude posters here either run a ski gear shop or are trying to get occupancy for a chalet. The former I understand but the latter I don't and they ought to get a life.

After all it is free

Oakley makes the shades to transform a tool
You'd hate for the kids to think that you've lost your cool

Name the song - no cheatin' now Y'all

@ski3, ...indeed. Psychology and physiology of perception can be exploited by careful design of filters and that’s exactly what Oakley have done with Prizm. Getting the colour bias to work optimally with our very odd way of seeing different frequency light. What’s actually remarkable about the Prizm series is the VTL being so low relative to the acuity provided.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Pit Vipers are what the cool kids wear these days anyway.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

@Dave of the Marmottes, oh....does that mean I’m not cool...?...I thought I was....drat

@Peter Stevens, Hmmmm, I'm still happier in my Chromapops. The most (to me) telling difference is that I sometimes forget which lens I'm wearing, with my old ones it was very apparent.

You know it makes sense.

@hang11, good to see it's made it down to NZ too! Laughing

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@under a new name, ….important point re individual preference…which does link to individual bias in acuity I think. We test goggles by holding a range of different models up to the same patch of snow outside the chalet - and with four or five people making the choices it’s very interesting that what increases acuity for one person may not be the same as another. My partner had caratacts at 47 - too much time in Africa - and the yellow bias that she lived with changed which was best for her versus a non cataract person. She now has plastic lens in both eyes and so that’s shifted her preference again. My eyes are just generally b…….d from too much time at altitude and the Prizm range is just great for me. I wear googles all the time now.

A snowHead

A snowHead

@valais2, I was just going to make the same point; personal choice, different eyes, brains, whatever.
At least the OP and others have confirmed that it's not just me for whom the amazing Prizm rose pinks don't work at all in cloud, grey, flat light etc.
Smith blue mirror yellows (or some similar name) are the best which I've found; actual yellow are terrible though.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

http://youtube.com/v/PWFF7ecArBk

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Although I like Oakley goggles in general, I do think there are other brands/proprietary technologies which work as well or better. Smith chromapop lenses seem to be about as good as I've tried so far.
Ted Liggety's "Shred" goggle brand also has its own tech - but he makes some slightly outrageous claims about its effectiveness in as much as he thinks that there's a time benefit to be gained by wearing them .
Simple empirical evidence would suggest that if the difference was noticeable then every racer would be using them.

I think its a good indication of equivalent performance or otherwise that those skiers for whom the details are most important (world Cup racers) seem to choose brands other than those discussed above.. there are very few wearing Oakley, and can't think of any Smith wearers.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I said it before in another thread. I have salomon s1-3 + oaklay hi pink prizm. Last time I was snowboarding in bad (flat light) conditions I kept switching googles couple times (during runs). I couldn't say which ones were better.

After all it is free

@Roguevfr, I think most ski racers have tended to to favour cylindrical lenses over spherical ones. Shriffrin for one, has bucked that trend.

No manufacturer has discovered the magic bullet for flat light yet. I'm colourblind, and certain lenses that many people find helpful do nothing for me. But I picked up some new (old stock) flight decks with 2 prism lenses for £85 in January. The main lens is blue/sapphire, and it's the best all-day, all-round lens I've ever tried.

I'm thinking of having a clear out though for next Season and buying some Julbo cat.1-4 photochromics when they're back in stock.

Racers will usually only be able to choose from the goggle brands that have paid to be members of the equipment "pool" for their national team.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@ski3 has it right, the point of goggles is to improve perception by the human eyeball and the information reaching the brain. The effect on a camera isn’t relevant.

However while Oakley have good products that doesn’t necessarily mean they really perform better than their rivals who might be cheaper. None of them is going to say the others are equally good.

Help!!

Oakley Prism does nothing

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions