 Poster: A snowHead
|
| j b wrote: |
@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.
|
No, the point of goggles is to protect the eyes.
Colour blind here, none of your fancy lenses makes a shite of difference to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Just to re-state what I said above a few times:
Oakley goggles work just as well as another goggles of the same tint.
What is fairly obviously worthless is their patented comb filter.
To address the assertion that what a camera sees is irrelevant, I did a visual comparison too, and there was absolutely no difference between the Oakley material and a similar-tint material from Zeiss.
The subject was chosen for
- flat light (100% overcast) since in sunlight you can see everything super clearly (and of course skiing is much easier)
- some marks in the snow (I made these, since it had been snowing and I could not find an uncovered groomed surface)
It would be great if there was a solution for flat light but there isn't because snow is all one colour so you can't do anything with it. The only way to wind up contrast is by image processing (a video camera, wind up contrast, display it i.e. basically VR goggles, but VR takes a huge effort to be comfortable with, as any FPV drone pilot will tell you... imagine varifocal spectacles and multiply that 10x).
Consequently you can find yourself on a slope which is literally invisible. I've done it and so have many others. The worst case is if there are no visible poles. I remember one such at Obergurgl - suddenly it looked really scary. It was like 3 days ago at Cervinia when the cloud dropped to the surface, in a minute or less, with horizontal visibility suddenly becoming about 20m.
But you will see people skiing fast in those conditions. How do they do it? Are they wearing magical goggles? No. They are either stupid/reckless, or they are great skiers AND they know the place. I recall same debates in windsurfing, whether seeing the water ahead helps. Some magazine set out to disprove this. They got some expert boarders to windsurf at night. And it did work... just about. But these guys could sail in their sleep (which is what they were doing by doing it on a fully dark night). You need to remember that many people on the Alpine slopes are truly brilliant; been doing it since age 3 and been to the same place many times, often driving there in their car for the day so not needing a hotel, whereas most Brits started in adulthood and ski 1x or 2x a year only, enduring the airport 4am cattle market and spending 4 digits, having booked a year ahead so taking a big risk on the weather.
The Oakley product itself is well made, but for say 200 quid most would be.
Any famous person wearing a given brand is 100% product placement. That is THE way to market nowadays. Nobody reads magazines. Same problem in every field actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I must disagree with some elements of your argument.
I had a friend who in poor light and with crap goggles missed an icy cat track depression which then caused a fall with major injury. The same thing was visible with alternative low light lens. There is a subtle step between just seeing something and not seeing it, and that step definitely exists in the difference between different low light lens.
There is a big psychology of perception and individual physiology of visual acuity going on.
Do we buy expensive lens? Yes. Is it based on decades of experience climbing and skiing? Yes. Are we susceptible to marketing hype in our family? No. Have low light lens been important in way finding and hazard recognition at times in our lives? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
A question, what do mean by "comb" @Peter Stevens, ? Is that used and referenced in the advertising literature? Or your description.
I feel you are conflating two markedly different light conditions we often find in skiing.
Flat light is of low dynamic range, can have chromatic content and be variable in intensity, usually coming about as sunlight in direct strike onto topic is removed. This will often be at ends of day and likely with sun going behind ridges etc. Clear advantage may be had here with altering response based on visual personal performance and acuity. With most plastic lens manufacturing and coating technologies of the same origin and materials, unlikely one would demonstrate significant performance difference from another IF they are manufactured to the same technical and quality standards.
The type you seem to be mixing that with is often referenced as "whiteout" condition, that in which you are located within a significantly dispersed water droplet "cloud" which simply and physically removes your line of sight to surrounding topographical features. This much more of a simple barrier, depending on droplet stratification immediately around you. And no, there's no significant effect to be had in this scenario as light is simply not going to reach whichever viewing optic in use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Nah it's not just expertise it's also eyesight which varies by individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
If you google on
oakley patent optical comb filter
the first three hits should show the idea.
Of course it "works" and the technique is used for e.g. laser protection goggles (you use multiple lens coatings to create goggles which knock out several popular laboratory laser colours in one go) but it won't make surface texture (i.e. the location of the surface itself) any better because snow is the same colour no matter how you disturb the surface (in given light conditions, obviously).
If say a groomed surface had one side of the ridges in grey and the other side of the ridges in blue, that would be great, but it isn't thus. You could probably arrange that if you had a point source, but then if you have a point source (i.e. the sun is shining) you don't need any of this 
As for what a "comb filter" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter
Electronically you do it as shown; optically you do it with multiple coatings, each with a precise thickness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 12-03-24 22:37; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Peter Stevens, that is not what Oakley use. They may call it a comb filter it is not that but a simple multi band filter. I suspect.
I’ve not read the patent but I did try and find it in the past. I’m too busy to look just now but I do remember reading the Zeiss patent for someone on snowheads a while back and it is a simple violet light reduction.
One thing is clear, eyes have a completely different sensitivity than a camera. Also the signal perception is very different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Sure; it has only a few bands. I recall reading a Zeiss patent which was a similar thing.
Like I said multiple times, the result was identical to my eyes too. Exactly the same as the camera actually.
Also note that if the eye was "completely different" to a camera, all photos we take, since the invention of colour photography, would be completely cr*ap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Peter Stevens, ?? "Also note that if the eye was "completely different" to a camera, all photos we take, since the invention of colour photography, would be completely cr*ap"
So, a photo taken using IR sensitive film/device is what I see? woohoo superpower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Peter Stevens, what makes you think your eyes are a reliable guide to any theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@valais2, you forget the first rule of being Peter Stevens - never back down. Other rules include - whinge about being bullied by a clique, make irrelevant references to post count, spunk wads of cash on bad kit and talk about running some other forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, ah….didn’t realise…track record….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Oh well back to Dave's usual stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I wore my oakley sutro (road cycling) glasses a few times last year, they have prizm lenses.
I really rated them on crap visibility days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Peter Stevens, ?? "Also note that if the eye was "completely different" to a camera, all photos we take, since the invention of colour photography, would be completely cr*ap"
So, a photo taken using IR sensitive film/device is what I see? woohoo superpower! |
A camera generally has a broad range of colour acquisition (200-1200nm) but with varying quantum efficiency (call that sensitivity) and usually ranges from 40% to 70% (can be higher in specialist cameras)
The eye doesn't have this range of colour sensitivity (400nm to 700nm) but has a greater dynamic range and due to local feedback in the retina has a far greater perception of contrast.
This different contrast perception is not even across the field of view and interestingly it has a higher cutoff in peripheral vision. I suspect this peripheral contrast enhancement and ability to detect edges outside of the central field of view meant you had a lower chance of being eaten by a predator. So the eye can indeed perceive contrast better than a camera.
Look at image 1 in this article (I've not read it all) and move your had from side to side and you can see the sharpness of the line increasing and decreasing.
https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/why-eye-better-camera
My background is in neuroscience, tissue regeneration and optics. I suspect a comb filter is a multi band filter.
Here is a picture of a multi band with different transmission and blocking of sections
https://www.chroma.com/products/parts/zet405-445-514-561-640m
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@GlasgowCyclops, interesting, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I have low light vision issues, so did some research and bought some Oakley Prism with a "high rose" (I think) tint which was at the time billed as the best option.
It did make a bit of difference but this year I tried a pair of my sons old cheap goggles ("Spy" brand) which work better for me.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Tiredoldskibum wrote: |
I have low light vision issues, so did some research and bought some Oakley Prism with a "high rose" (I think) tint which was at the time billed as the best option.
It did make a bit of difference but this year I tried a pair of my sons old cheap goggles ("Spy" brand) which work better for me.
Go figure. |
You don't say what colour lens was in the Spy goggles. Again, a yellow tint lens may still be superior to the "hi-rose" .
I don't think there is actually a "hi-rose" tint BTW, the rose tint is the base colour for most of Oakley all-round lenses.
There is a "hi-pink" , which is (was) their primary low light lens in past ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Tiredoldskibum wrote: |
I have low light vision issues, so did some research and bought some Oakley Prism with a "high rose" (I think) tint which was at the time billed as the best option.
It did make a bit of difference but this year I tried a pair of my sons old cheap goggles ("Spy" brand) which work better for me.
Go figure. |
You don't say what colour lens was in the Spy goggles. Again, a yellow tint lens may still be superior to the "hi-rose" .
I don't think there is actually a "hi-rose" tint BTW, the rose tint is the base colour for most of Oakley all-round lenses.
There is a "hi-pink" , which is (was) their primary low light lens in past ranges. |
Hi. The Spy lens tint is indeed more yellow, probably actually light brown in fact.
I think you're right, the Oakleys are "high pink"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
