Prescription lens inserts: Info & Questions

[arfung]

This is a thread for information and questions about the prescription lens inserts for Apple Vision Pro.

We know from todays announcement that prices of "readers" will be $99 and prescriptions will start at $149.

My guess is that specifics will come shortly. Here are some questions I have:

* what is the focal distance for Apple Vision Pro? (I have a different prescription for reading than for distance vision - this is true of lots of people in their 40s, 50s, 60s). I had thought that Vision Pro would simulate distance vision (e.g, something 20 feet away) but maybe the focal length is more like reading distance (18 inches or so).

* will we order inserts at initial order time, or can they be bought later?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This is a thread for information about the prescription lens inserts for Apple Vision Pro. We know from todays announcement that prices of "readers" will be $99 and prescriptions will start at $149.

My guess is that specifics will come shortly. Here are some questions I have:

* what is the focal distance for Apple Vision Pro? (I have a different prescription for reading than for distance vision - this is true of lots of people in their 40s, 50s, 60s). I had thought that Vision Pro would simulate distance vision (e.g, something 20 feet away) but maybe the focal length is more like reading distance (18 inches or so).

* will we order inserts at initial order time, or can they be bought later?

Why on Earth would anyone want to order (generic) prescription lens inserts from Apple rather than from one's own ophthalmologist and optician?

And I write as someone who has worn glasses, spectacles, prescriptive lenses on my nose since early childhood, and am someone who requires different lenses, not just for distance and reading, but different lenses for each eye.

 

[chrisn123]

I assume your local eye doctor may not be able to order lenses with the custom dimensions and magnetic mounts, that's why. Just use your Rx details from your eye doctor and let Apple's supplier make them for you. I recently got Rx inserts for my Quest 3 and they work great (and were $50). I was hoping for $99 for Vision Pro, but even $150 is not out of line with the already outrageous price of the device itself. Early adopter premium I guess.

 

[ericg301]

probably cheaper to get a supply of contacts...

 

[Polinsky]

probably cheaper to get a supply of contacts...

Except for those who can't use or don't want contacts, like myself, and use glasses instead!

 

[Polinsky]

I assume your local eye doctor may not be able to order lenses with the custom dimensions and magnetic mounts, that's why. Just use your Rx details from your eye doctor and let Apple's supplier make them for you. I recently got Rx inserts for my Quest 3 and they work great (and were $50). I was hoping for $99 for Vision Pro, but even $150 is not out of line with the already outrageous price of the device itself. Early adopter premium I guess.

What focal distance for your Quest inserts?

 

[mguzman]

What focal distance for your Quest inserts?

From what I’ve read from multiple sources, the Quest 3 focal distance simulates 1.3 meters (4 feet 4 inches according to Siri. I’m amazed the math wasn’t beyond her abilities). I have astigmatism and need progressive lenses for near vision. I bought the official Zinni Lenses for the Quest 3, provided the regular distance prescription not including the progressive portion, and the lenses work great.

I can see pretty well at 1.3 meters and never bothered with inserts (or glasses) with my Guest Go, original Quest, or Quest 2 but they turned out to make a big difference once I tried them with the Quest 3. I’ll be buying the Zeiss inserts for the Vision Pro..

 

[MisterSavage]

Why on Earth would anyone want to order (generic) prescription lens inserts from Apple rather than from one's own ophthalmologist and optician?

And I write as someone who has worn glasses, spectacles, prescriptive lenses on my nose since early childhood, and am someone who requires different lenses, not just for distance and reading, but different lenses for each eye.

Can you wear glasses and the Vision Pro at the same time? I haven't seen anyone clarify that.

 

[Jensend]

* what is the focal distance for Apple Vision Pro?

It will be close to the typical distance the floating windows are shown at in the promotional videos. If the focal distance were closer to the typical monitor viewing distance, the promotional videos would have shown that instead.

 

[xraydoc]

Can you wear glasses and the Vision Pro at the same time? I haven't seen anyone clarify that.

No.

 

[xraydoc]

Why on Earth would anyone want to order (generic) prescription lens inserts from Apple rather than from one's own ophthalmologist and optician?

And I write as someone who has worn glasses, spectacles, prescriptive lenses on my nose since early childhood, and am someone who requires different lenses, not just for distance and reading, but different lenses for each eye.

Sounds like you send your prescription info, and they will send you the proper lenses to snap in.

However, someone above asked a good question about what the focal distance is. I've got prescriptions for distance, reading, and a "computer screen" distance. Getting old sucks. So I'd need to know which the Vision Pro is -- far distance or arm's length distance.

 

[gerald.d]

It will be close to the typical distance the floating windows are shown at in the promotional videos. If the focal distance were closer to the typical monitor viewing distance, the promotional videos would have shown that instead.

This makes no sense.

The promotional videos also show a virtual movie screen far off in the distance. In the mixed reality scenarios (which includes the one you describe), you are seeing everything the cameras see externally.

Just because a screen is virtually positioned a certain distance from the viewer does not mean the eye would need to focus at that distance in order to resolve it. Apple have not invented a true depth display - everything you see on the Vision Pro screens is projected at a fixed virtual distance from your eyes - regardless of whether it's a virtual monitor on a desk; the view out the window; or a virtual movie theatre on the Moon; and you simply need to be able to have that distance in focus.

 

[Dj64Mk7]

Thanks for the thread, as this is a major concern of mine.

As I’ve mentioned previously on other threads, my prescription lenses are beyond the scope of the existing options from VR lens companies. I’m cautiously optimistic that Apple will service a greater range of needs, primarily because of their partnership with Zeiss, which is a brand I seem to recall my low-vision eye doctor referencing in the past during eye exams. We shall see…

 

[Jensend]

This makes no sense.

The promotional videos also show a virtual movie screen far off in the distance. In the mixed reality scenarios (which includes the one you describe), you are seeing everything the cameras see externally.

Just because a screen is virtually positioned a certain distance from the viewer does not mean the eye would need to focus at that distance in order to resolve it. Apple have not invented a true depth display - everything you see on the Vision Pro screens is projected at a fixed virtual distance from your eyes - regardless of whether it's a virtual monitor on a desk; the view out the window; or a virtual movie theatre on the Moon; and you simply need to be able to have that distance in focus.

I think you must be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I realize the Vision Pro has a fixed focus distance. All I'm saying is that they will want to show virtual objects close to the fixed focus distance, when possible, for the most comfort. And if you can't show something at the native distance, pushing it farther away will be more visibly comfortable than bringing it closer to the viewer.

 

[gerald.d]

I think you must be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I realize the Vision Pro has a fixed focus distance. All I'm saying is that they will want to show virtual objects close to the fixed focus distance, when possible, for the most comfort. And if you can't show something at the native distance, pushing it farther away will be more visibly comfortable than bringing it closer to the viewer.

The eye is most relaxed when focused at infinity, not when it is focused at 1-2m (assuming perfect vision of course). Regardless of where a virtual object is positioned in the virtual environment, the eye still has to focus in the same spot. How does pushing something further away in the virtual space make it more comfortable to view?

 

[Jensend]

The eye is most relaxed when focused at infinity, not when it is focused at 1-2m (assuming perfect vision of course).

Not if you take the vergence-accommodation conflict into account. Your brain is used to a specific focusing strength (accommodation) corelating with how crossed your eyes are (vergence). When the values are in conflict, it can lead to discomfort/headaches.
For maximum comfort, it's best to have the virtual content at the same distance as the real world focusing distance for the given amount of vergence. Because the headset can't dynamically adjust the focusing distance, it's in users' best interest for apple to set the default virtual content distance to the focus distance (for floating windows, at least).
Of course, not everything, like virtual landscapes, can fit that pattern.

Regardless of where a virtual object is positioned in the virtual environment, the eye still has to focus in the same spot. How does pushing something further away in the virtual space make it more comfortable to view?

If the focus of the headset is set to 2 meters, it's more comfortable for vergence to be at 10 meters than 0.75 meters (but 2m vergence is the best).

Most VR headsets have their focus distance set somewhere in the 1 to 2 meter range.

 

[gerald.d]

Not if you take the vergence-accommodation conflict into account. Your brain is used to a specific focusing strength (accommodation) corelating with how crossed your eyes are (vergence). When the values are in conflict, it can lead to discomfort/headaches.
For maximum comfort, it's best to have the virtual content at the same distance as the real world focusing distance for the given amount of vergence. Because the headset can't dynamically adjust the focusing distance, it's in users' best interest for apple to set the default virtual content distance to the focus distance (for floating windows, at least).
Of course, not everything, like virtual landscapes, can fit that pattern.


If the focus of the headset is set to 2 meters, it's more comfortable for vergence to be at 10 meters than 0.75 meters (but 2m vergence is the best).

Most VR headsets have their focus distance set somewhere in the 1 to 2 meter range.

Thanks - a good explanation, and it makes sense, up to a point, because this is not a VR headset that is not just going to be used for virtual screens positioned 1.5m from the viewer. I know Apple are making a big song and dance about it being all about "spatial computing", but I'm not convinced that's how these things are ultimately going to be used.

It's a mixed reality headset, and scrolling down the product page on Apple's website, I stopped counting after the first 7 videos all showed it being used in a mixed reality environment. That "virtual content" that you refer to is not just the virtual screens - it's everything.

It's going to be interesting for sure to see how it all works out, and I'm sure smarter people than I have given a lot of thought to deciding what the optimum focus distance is. I'm certainly hoping to get one (might be difficult considering I don't live in the US, but I have a friend there who can hopefully order it for me), and it will be my first headset since the original Oculus Quest. That was interesting from a novelty perspective (particularly for someone like me who had been creating VR content for years, and previously had to rely on Google Cardboard), but it, and every headset since, has been compromised. It's been a long wait.

The two main things Apple have nailed here (and I'm sure they were waiting for the latter to become available before committing to a retail product) are the field of view and the resolution per eye. Nothing else currently on the market that I'm aware of comes close, and both are essential for great immersive experiences.

 

[Jensend]

Thanks - a good explanation, and it makes sense, up to a point, because this is not a VR headset that is not just going to be used for virtual screens positioned 1.5m from the viewer. I know Apple are making a big song and dance about it being all about "spatial computing", but I'm not convinced that's how these things are ultimately going to be used.

It's a mixed reality headset

I look at things in my PC VR headset that are represented at a variety of distances. The considerations for optics are the same whether or not you are using video passthrough. I think the VR/MR distinction is a largely irrelevant consideration.

The biggest differences are the input method. PC and Quest headsets are more likely to use direct touch because of their control methods, while the Vision Pro is primarily eye tracking and hand gestures, so interactable elements can be placed further from the user. So while I think the Vision Pro will have a focus distance in the ballpark of other headsets, I think it can afford to have the focal distance a bit farther away.

 

[ascender]

Apologies if this has been answered already, but in my use case, I wear glasses for up-close reading and when working at my monitor, laptop etc. For anything further away than that, I don't need glasses. I suspect that's pretty common for people in their late 40s'+ who suffer from the effects of aging.

In that scenario, presumably I just order my normal prescription for the inserts as the screens are up-close to my eyes? And any scaling of what I'm watching is "virtual", so I will still need the prescription - i.e. when watching a movie on what seems like a 100ft wide screen?

 

[MisterSavage]

Apologies if this has been answered already, but in my use case, I wear glasses for up-close reading and when working at my monitor, laptop etc. For anything further away than that, I don't need glasses. I suspect that's pretty common for people in their late 40s'+ who suffer from the effects of aging.

In that scenario, presumably I just order my normal prescription for the inserts as the screens are up-close to my eyes? And any scaling of what I'm watching is "virtual", so I will still need the prescription - i.e. when watching a movie on what seems like a 100ft wide screen?

I've actually been curious about the same thing because I'm the opposite. No glasses for computer or phone, but glasses for watching tv or driving.

 

[arfung]

Apologies if this has been answered already, but in my use case, I wear glasses for up-close reading and when working at my monitor, laptop etc. For anything further away than that, I don't need glasses. I suspect that's pretty common for people in their late 40s'+ who suffer from the effects of aging.

In that scenario, presumably I just order my normal prescription for the inserts as the screens are up-close to my eyes? And any scaling of what I'm watching is "virtual", so I will still need the prescription - i.e. when watching a movie on what seems like a 100ft wide screen?

Not necessarily. We don't know if the Apple Vision Pro focal distance is set to close, as with a laptop, or far, as with driving, etc. Some people think maybe the focal distance will be set to a meter or two away like some other VR sets. You might try a vision test with things 4-6 ft away to see if you can see clearly at that distance without glasses.

Hopefully we'll get more news on this from Apple soon!

 

[ascender]

Not necessarily. We don't know if the Apple Vision Pro focal distance is set to close, as with a laptop, or far, as with driving, etc. Some people think maybe the focal distance will be set to a meter or two away like some other VR sets. You might try a vision test with things 4-6 ft away to see if you can see clearly at that distance without glasses.

Hopefully we'll get more news on this from Apple soon!

That's interesting... I've really not paid much attention to VR sets over the years, but setting that focal distance makes sense. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough!

 

[zach-coleman]

Thanks for the thread, as this is a major concern of mine.

As I’ve mentioned previously on other threads, my prescription lenses are beyond the scope of the existing options from VR lens companies. I’m cautiously optimistic that Apple will service a greater range of needs, primarily because of their partnership with Zeiss, which is a brand I seem to recall my low-vision eye doctor referencing in the past during eye exams. We shall see…

Hopefully they have it sorted out day one, but at the very least I’m sure they’ll sort that out eventually. They like to make a big deal out of accessibility, after all.

 

[musicpenguy]

2 meters is the focal distance for Apple Vision Pro - little birdies have shared that tidbit with me for that same reason of making sure my prescription is accurate

 

[poorcody]

Thanks for the thread, as this is a major concern of mine.

Me too, and with pre-orders coming soon, I really hope Apple provides some insight on this.

For me, last time I went to the eye doctor he said I needed 1.25x magnification. I generally have avoided using glasses just by blowing things up the screen, but I wonder if I will need lenses to use Vision Pro at all.

If it's true you have to go to an Apple Store to buy one and get "fitted", I hope that includes an eye test of some sort to see what you need. it's an expensive investment if you won't be able to see properly.