Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Vision Pro ZEISS Lens Inserts to Start at $99
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To be honest I'm really grateful that I don't need to buy a separate pair of glasses for my Mac, my iPhone, and my TV, my toaster, and my car. A single pair of glasses that works for all of them!
Yes. If you have very little upper lens correction, the refractive power of your eyes (curvature of the cornea, power of the crystalline lens, and length of the eyeball) is correct.
The only problem is then presbyopia (literally old man’s eye). The only way to avoid it is to die young. Fortunately, VR displays focus at infinity, so that anyone can feel young.
I can almost guarantee my prescription won't be supported - my glasses 'script is widely different than my contacts 'script, and I have almost no vision in my right eye. I mean, I'm at the age where I have to wear reading glasses over my contacts, but even that doesn't help my right eye.
It's always different, the lenses are much farther than the contacts.
My left eye is also quite inferior to the right one. It's one reason why I never liked VR, 3D goggles and all gizmos that separate eyes.
Anyone using prescription glsses knows there aren t two galsses equal. So using a new pair will need adaptation process… every time you switch.
contact lenses may do the trick but focus at short distance with them is worst than with glasses, I hope this isnt a problem.
Also, contavt lenses arent nice for long screen exposure as eye gets dry
contact lenses may do the trick but focus at short distance with them is worst than with glasses, I hope this isnt a problem.
Also, contavt lenses arent nice for long screen exposure as eye gets dry
Oh, I'm going to buy a pair and sell them at double or more to addicts like you! Call me on Feb. 3 or see my eBay listing.
Considering usual prescription lenses prices (European ones, I may be way off) they almost certainly are per eye.
And some odd cases don't even need a pair.
I do not have any inside information on the device, so I am not claiming your numbers would be wrong. They may well be right. However, I would not trust eyewitnesses in this case...
The big, ugly elephant in the virtual room is called vergence-accommodation conflict (or something similar depending on the context). Our brain has multiple ways of determining the distance of an object. Some of them only depend on the content of the image, e.g., we can determine or estimate depth from a 2D display by understanding what is in the image. For example, mountains are usually far and large, mice are small, an object occluded by another one is farther away, hazy objects are likely to be far away, etc.
However, there are two (or three, where two are closely interrelated) physical methods which we can use at close or intermediate distances.
First, we have stereopsis; each eye sees a slightly different image as the viewing angle is different. Stereopsis is good for up to a couple of hundred meters depending on a large number of variables. The accuracy, naturally, is better at closer range.
Second, or possibly another branch of stereopsis, is convergence. If we look at objects close to our eyes, we tend to squint our eyes inwards so that whatever we are focusing on is at the same position on both retinae. This mechanism blends seamlessly with the first mechanism, so telling them apart is difficult. What is important is that VR glasses (and 3D picture viewers from the 19th century) use this principle to create an illusion of depth.
Third, we use the eye accommodation information or, in photography terms, read the distance from the focusing ring of our lens. If we need to squeeze the lens, we know the object is relatively near. This mechanism functions up to a couple of meters, beyond that eyes should be relaxed. The full story behind accommodation information seems to be quite complex, but I'll save this audience from the interesting properties of the non-ideal PSF (Point Spread Function) of the human eye.
A major challenge with VR glasses is the mismatch between accommodation (focus) and convergence (stereo vision). Regardless of the virtual distance of an object, we use the same focus distance for our eyes when we focus on a virtual screen. This results in erroneous distance and size perception depending on the relative distance of an object and the virtual screen. Also, when our brain detects conflicting information, it often guesses it is because we have eaten something rotten and should immediately dispose of whatever is in the digestive tract. (This is not the only factor behind VR sickness. Motion sickness comes into play due to visual latency between movement and image, and due to mismatch between the balance information from the inner ear and the image from our eyes.)
Different VR glass vendors have chosen different focus distances. IIRC, Oculus DK1 was at infinity, and DK2 at around 1.5 m. Microsoft Hololens is at 2.0 m.
But back to the reliability of eyewitnesses in this case. Due to reasons loosely associated with the vergence-accomodation conflict, people usually underestimate the distance of a virtual screen. A screen at infinity may be reported to be floating at 2 m. So, if users say the screen looks as if it was at 1.5 m, its optical distance is probably between 2 m and infinity.
There is a lot of research on the topic, as reducing vergence-accommodation conflict is literally a billion-dollar question, but the distance setting seems to be a bit of a black art. Purely from the eye strain point of view, it would be best to place the screen at infinity. However, that maximizes the vergence-accommodation conflict for objects close to the viewer. It also ensures that mild myopes need glasses—or would need glasses—and thus a slightly closer focus distance makes more people happier with the expense of eye strain for emmetropes (people with "normal" vision; quotes due to the fact that they are in minority).
A long story, but we do not really know before a) Apple releases some specifications or b) someone measures the distance. Not that it would be very important, though.
So does the inside get covered with makeup residue? I do wonder how people will like attaching this so closely to their face, once the inside gets all gunky.
If you have contacts, that may be enough to not need any lenses. How is your vision at 6 feet with your contacts? That is supposed to be the virtual focal distance for the VP screens.
It will smear your makeup and destroy your hair styling. Just look at be absurd way they have the models’ hair fixed up in the publicity images.
The variable cost of manufacturing prescription lenses is low. The process involves cast/moulded blanks with one surface already finished and then freeform grinding (plus polishing) to shape the back surface. This may sound laborious, but the process is highly automated, and grinding takes a minute or two. (The machine is not cheap, though.) Then there might be different types of coatings (AR, UV, tint, scratch) applied, but even that is a relatively simple batch process.
The cost of eyeglasses comes from fashion and number of parameters. If one looks around in an eyewear shop, it is easy to notice there are people desperately looking for just the right pair of glasses to make them look more attractive/hip/thin/rich/smart. This process takes a long time and there are hundreds of different frames available. Someone must pay for this, and thus the markup on eyeglasses is either very high or extremely high.
Also, the number of possible prescriptions is very high, and different frames need different lenses which need to be fitted to the irregularly shaped frame. There are different lens materials and even brands. Would you like to have ZEISS or Essilor lenses?
What Apple and ZEISS can do is simplification. They do not need to worry about different frames. They do not need to worry about different lens materials or coatings. The lenses can be relatively small. They do not need to protect the user from sunshine, they do not need to be especially scratch resistant. The only variable is the prescription. Manufacturing volumes can be high if the headset becomes popular.
A significant cost-down step can be made by eliminating the grinding and polishing process. Depending on the material, the lens can be cast or injection molded, if the number of prescriptions can be limited. For example, if Apple/ZEISS decides to offer lenses for myopes from -.5D to -8D at .25D steps, there are 31 different refracting powers. Then we need astigmatism correction from 0 to 1D at .25D steps, which multiplies the number by 5, i.e., there would be around 150 sets of moulds. Finally, we need to have some (smaller) number of positive prescriptions available to cover 99 % of eligible population. We probably talk about a couple of million in setup costs but after that the lenses won't cost a dollar a piece to manufacture.
ZEISSApple may also choose to take a hybrid route where 90 % of people get a standard lens fresh out of mold, 9 % get a ground lens, and the rest get a friendly smile and a shrug.
This, of course, is speculation. It is interesting to see how limited the selection will be. The usual prescription lens consumer price is important only from the marketing point of view ("Look, you get genuine ZEISS lenses for a hundred dollars, isn't that a great deal? Not telling you their fully loaded manufacturing cost is under 10 dollars.")
Hi - just to clarify something if I may…
There have been two clear statements in this thread regarding the effective projected distance of the virtual display.
You stated it was at infinity.
Another stated it was at 1.5m.
Which is correct?
I will be getting a friend in the US to order a Vision Pro on my behalf, so will be unable to go to an Apple Store myself, so this is kinda important.
Yes, I'm sure they can be removed. They attach magnetically. Shareability is also a major concern of mine. It will be very disappointing to not be able to share with all of my family members after I buy one, hopefully by Christmas 2024.
If I needed to guess, I would say 2 m... The current trend is to bring it a bit closer than infinity. For most people the difference between 2 m (or 1.5 m) and infinity is not important even with presbyopia. It is unlikely to be closer than 1.5 m in any case, so if you can see objects at 1.5 m clearly without straining your eyes, you shouldn't need any correction.
Even if your eyes could not accommodate at all (e.g., due to cataract surgery), you would be fine with the standard reading lenses as long as there is a sufficiently long distance (> 1.5 m) where you can focus. If, however, you have myopia or significant astigmatism, you will need the prescription lenses (or contacts).
Ok thanks - very much appreciate the quick response, along with your detailed posts in this thread.
If it were at infinity, which with respect is what you stated earlier in the thread, then "readers" wouldn't be necessary - people who are only long sighted and require reading glasses would not need vision correction to view something at infinity, surely?
I have been using glasses for a lot of time.
The lenses (at least here) are irrelevant regarding fashion because you buy them separately.
I didn't mention the frame and that is where all the fashion/brand is .
You then choose the lenses and that was the cost I was mentioning. I'm assuming Apple will be going for the extra thin and light polycarbonate type. They are the most expensive but the best in this case (my opinion). They don't need all the coatings but will probably keep them.
I remember that people who got to demo VP at the product announcement said that they had a machine there to quickly check their eyesight, and popped in lens inserts if needed. They probably won't have lens inserts to match every prescription, and who knows if they'll have that kind of setup at every Apple Store, but I'm hoping that at minimum, they'll have that at the flagship stores.