I hate being dismissive of a product I’ve never used (really), but I can’t help but cringe a little at the buzzwords that abound in the press release for the Gunnar Optiks “Digital Performance Eyewear” glasses, a line of $100 to $190 glasses that claim to reduce eyestrain when viewing LCD panels.
• diAMIX™ lens material offers an optically pure viewing experience with ultra-light, ergonomic properties;• iONik™ lens tint takes artificial light and precisely tunes it to the physiology of the eye;
• i-Fi™ lens coatings capture good light from digital screens while filtering out glare and reflective light; and
• fRACTYL™ lens geometry mimics nature to aid the natural focusing power of the corneal lens and creates a preferential ocular microclimate.
Those $10 polarized fishing shades you can get at the local Bass Pro might not have four trademarked technologies, but I suspect they do just about the same thing.
Press release [PRNewsWire.com]
Company page [GunnarOptiks.com]
They really went heavy on the lowercase i’s and f’s. The marketer should have done one lowercase i and one f. Trying to hit the buzzwords and internet speak, I think they over did it.
“preferential ocular microclimate” is my favorite bullshit there.
So what you really want is prescription eyeglasses, focusing around 2-3 ft (or just regular full-time glasses), with anti-glare coating and a slight yellow tint.
You don’t want polarizing, because it messes with the polarizing layers of LCD screens. (Look through some polarized glasses at a screen some time and tilt your head.)
Where can I buy the $30 “knock-off” equivalent of these (that are probably stamped out of the same factory)?
I just like the yellow-tinted glasses with red trim.
Oh, crap, do these filter UV at all?
(Maybe that’s the scam… they produced 1 million units of sunglasses and forgot to add UV coating, so they had to rebrand them as something else, and if you make the price high enough people think it’s high-quality.)
Hang on, polarising glasses to look at an LCD/TFT screen?
Light coming out of any LCD is polarised (is the angle standardised between displays?), so unless you hold your head at *exactly* the angle they’re expecting you to, you won’t be able to see any of the screen’s output.
I have to take my sunglasses off just to read my diving watch properly*; I can’t imagine what trying to work through those things would be like.
*Oh FSM, I wish I was diving somewhere sunny instead of working under a raincloud…
I didn’t see anywhere that they are polarised. They look pretty well made, and may well be of some benefit, but the pseudo-tech marketing speak is hilarious.
unless you hold your head at *exactly* the angle they’re expecting you to, you won’t be able to see any of the screen’s output
It’s actually the opposite of that – you will only be entirely unable to see the screen when you have your head at one particular angle. The rest of the time it’ll be viewable, if rather dark when you’re somewhere near the critical alignment.
There are a few brands of Magic Computer Glasses on the market. I wrote about a couple of them here.
I don’t see anything wrong with them. I mean, less eye strain AND look like Bono. You’d be the rock star of the graphic design department.
NYT’s David Pogue crushes these in an October 9th column.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/high-performance-eyewear-guess-again/
I dunno. No electrolytes, and no green tea? How good could they be?
sTuDlYcApS technology guards against abrupt termination after your boss calls you in for a WTF session over your expense reports, as long as he or she is exceptionally stupid.
…I would *not* wear these while doing Photoshop work. I can – no pun intended – see how these could result in serious color variations.
Pretty much the anti-pussy magnet of shades.
They should have gone the extra mile and had “dOUCHEBAG(TM)” laser-etched on the temples.
Does the extra hundred per glasses go towards paying their trademark lawyers?
It’s like how PT Barnum would label the exit door with the word “Egress” to keep ignorant suckers moving along.
WOW! Fun New York Times link, Andrew. Back in the day, they would have tarred and feathered these guys and set ‘em out of town on a rail. Now, we’ll just have to wait to see how long it’ll be before they end up on the shelf at the 99 Cent Store.
OK, I’ve had my fun at the expense of Gunnar’s ridiculously pompous “technology” claims, but I haven’t seen anyone (including the author) say if Gunnars work or not. Anyone?
Never mind. I just read the NY Times article and the readers’ comments. I think I’ll save my money for something more legitimate, like x-ray specs.
In an effort to “build the multiple as fast as possible” the company failed to spend a dime on r+d. They did spend a lot on a study whose results were quietly brushed under the rug when it was proven their solution had no benefit. It is a classic scenario of believing their own bullshit and man is it ever! All they did was buy off the shelf lenses and frames from China and come up with aLL KiNdS oF SIlly NAmEs. The glasses don’t do anything; they’re the ultimate PLACEBO.