HDL-3CT Sunglasses

http://www.hdl-3c.com/customer/mainm...?section=pilot

quote:
The patented HDL-3CT lens technology was designed specifically for the
Aviation Industry.
:unquote

Yet, a search of google archives does not come up with a single instance of
this technology being discussed in any aviation newsgroup.

When I asked my optometrist's dispenser, they claimed never to have heard of
it.

Anybody using this technology? Any comments?

The was supposed to be HDL-3C.

I pasted from the site, and it had the "TM" (trademark symbol) after the 3C.
Sorry.


"Icebound" wrote in message
...
http://www.hdl-3c.com/customer/mainm...?section=pilot

quote:
The patented HDL-3CT lens technology was designed specifically for the
Aviation Industry.
:unquote

Yet, a search of google archives does not come up with a single instance
of this technology being discussed in any aviation newsgroup.

When I asked my optometrist's dispenser, they claimed never to have heard
of it.

Anybody using this technology? Any comments?

Icebound wrote:
http://www.hdl-3c.com/customer/mainm...?section=pilot

Anybody using this technology? Any comments?

My nose says it's just a good bit of marketing spin.

I tend to buy good sunglasses and I like them, but to be quite honest I
can't tell much of a visual difference between my $100 Ray-Bans, my
$300 Maui Jims, and my $15 gas station backups, and I have pretty sharp
20/20 vision.

The Maui Jims are great for fishing because the polarization is really
good but for the same reason I can't wear them while flying floats, for
which I have the Ray-Bans. Some people swear by the various Oakley
colored lenses but I've never really gone down that road as I've
already invested enough in shades for one decade.

-cwk.

wrote:
My nose says it's just a good bit of marketing spin.
I tend to buy good sunglasses and I like them, but to be quite honest I
can't tell much of a visual difference between my $100 Ray-Bans, my
$300 Maui Jims, and my $15 gas station backups, and I have pretty sharp
20/20 vision.
The Maui Jims are great for fishing because the polarization is really
good but for the same reason I can't wear them while flying floats, for
which I have the Ray-Bans. Some people swear by the various Oakley
colored lenses but I've never really gone down that road as I've
already invested enough in shades for one decade.

Raybans are no longer the product they once were.
When Luxotica bought the brand, they reduced the warranty to uselessness.
When Bosch&Lomb owned the brand, the warranty was lifetime, and they
honored it.

"Icebound" wrote in
:

http://www.hdl-3c.com/customer/mainm...?section=pilot

quote:
The patented HDL-3CT lens technology was designed specifically for the
Aviation Industry.
:unquote

Yet, a search of google archives does not come up with a single instance
of this technology being discussed in any aviation newsgroup.

When I asked my optometrist's dispenser, they claimed never to have
heard of it.

Anybody using this technology? Any comments?

I'm not an expert, but I know a little about optics being a laser
junkie. Anyway, I read the webpage and after weeding throught the
marketing catch phrases here's my two inflation devalued cents:

These are just optical quality neutral density lenses.

By optical quality I mean that they've taken care to get the shape
of the lenses right as opposed to just any old shape. If a lens is
not ground to the right shape it will distort the image. Remember
Hubbles early woes? Most glasses are ground with a simple spherical
surface whereas the ideal shape is often a parabola or asphere.
Spherical lenses are easy to grind, parabolas difficult, and aspheres
downright nasty (usually molded). An asphere is a lens whose surface
follows a complex curve.

Neutral density means it filters all visible wavelengths equally.
Most sunglasses, even grey ones, tend to have a tint. They may
cut the blues more than reds making reds stand out more. My cheapo
$3 swap meet sunglasses do that. In the advertised glasses it
sounds like they've tried to reach that ideal neutral color where
there is no tinting caused by the glasses.

Also, these glasses are nice and dark. By reducing the amount of
light entering the eye in a full daylight view, the dynamic range
is increased. That is, bright objects don't wash out from being
too bright. One analogy would be music that's cranked so loud it's
hard to hear it clearly.

In a nutshell they're new technology probably isn't anything new.
What's special is these lenses may just simply be designed right
and manufactured to tighter specs.

I see on their products pages that they come in various colors,
which is contrary to the neutral density rule. Ideally one doesn't
want color as, of course, it colors what you see.

Ultimately though everyone's eyes and preferences are different
and the only reliable test is for the individual to try them. One
person may think they're a godsend while another may find them
unbearable.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

john smith wrote:
Raybans are no longer the product they once were.
When Luxotica bought the brand, they reduced the warranty to uselessness.
When Bosch&Lomb owned the brand, the warranty was lifetime, and they
honored it.

Obviously YMMV, but my impression with a pair I bought about 2 years ago in
Solvang on the way back from Catalina was that the lenses are as good as
ever and the frame is even better. Having said that, one piece of glass
sometimes pops out, but they have been dropped, pulled, twisted etc (I love
my girls...) and still going (relatively) strong.

I've always bought Rayban. For a 'computer geek' since the age of about 15
and after countless hours in front of TVs, crappy monitors, but lately only
DVI LCDs, I finally went in for my first ever full eye exam. Turns out I
almost have 20/10 vision - woohoo! Perhaps the lens do help, perhaps not,
but I'm sticking with Rayban.

Hilton