God help me - the Cricket thread

Topic: God help me - the Cricket thread (Read 1302861 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1890 – August 22, 2026, 02:07:34 pm

The Oakley glasses are specifically designed for fielding and highlight the ball colour so it's easier to track. Why do I know this? My daughter plays state grade and her last pair cost me $450.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1891 – August 22, 2026, 02:21:29 pm

Quote from: LP – on August 22, 2026, 11:30:35 am

If you don't believe me, given they reduce glare and increase contrast, ask yourself why they don't wear them batting?

Because they are never looking into the sun when they are batting!

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1892 – August 22, 2026, 04:54:06 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on August 22, 2026, 02:07:34 pm

The Oakley glasses are specifically designed for fielding and highlight the ball colour so it's easier to track. Why do I know this? My daughter plays state grade and her last pair cost me $450.

Then test them like I suggested. It's impossible for a curve surface not to cause deflection the moment the object is off axis.

The color shift thing is bogus, simple polarisation does the trick nothing special needed, it's marketing spin and the sales technique is called associate marketing.

A pair of Maui Jim polymer sports lenses will do the same job and if you buy them off a store you can get them for half the price. Of course your daughter will hate you because you've ruined her career, that's the head space issue associate marketing does on kids, FOMO.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1893 – August 22, 2026, 06:29:41 pm

Sorry but you're talking rubbish. The Oakley glasses are specifically designed for cricket and they have an aspheric lens to prevent distortion.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1894 – August 22, 2026, 06:32:11 pm

Anyway, back to the test cricket...another ****ing putrid batting effort which will end Webster's and Marnus' careers. Lost 4/3 to hand the momentum back to Bangla. Be nice if someone - anybody- would take the opportunity on offer.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1895 – August 22, 2026, 09:06:08 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on August 22, 2026, 06:32:11 pm

Anyway, back to the test cricket...another ****ing putrid batting effort which will end Webster's and Marnus' careers. Lost 4/3 to hand the momentum back to Bangla. Be nice if someone - anybody- would take the opportunity on offer.

Smith and Green have taken their opportunities. Nobody else has shown anything.
I didn't think Green had it in him, but he's been good with the bat.
Smith ... a pity he couldn't go on with it, but he has, at least, done something. I simply can't find anything positive about the rest.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1896 – Today at 11:42:47 am

His antics when dismissed were churlish and unwarranted, even if he was essentially correct in my opinion. But if you're going to go with technology for adjucation you need to accept the decision even if it is marginal. Inside the line is inside the line.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1897 – Today at 12:53:01 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on August 22, 2026, 06:29:41 pm

Sorry but you're talking rubbish. The Oakley glasses are specifically designed for cricket and they have an aspheric lens to prevent distortion.

See the word "lens", any lens is functional only on a specific optical axis, curved sunglasses are not a field lens and even a field lens has a specific functional focal length.

In laser optics "windows" are the term used for flat optics, optics that do not impart any refraction or diffraction at a certain bandwidth, but the key term is "flat" and they must be very flat! If they are slightly wedge shaped or slightly curved they distort the image, and that is a separate issue to being aspherical. The normal unit is angstrom, which is a measure of flatness relative to a wavelength of light, because any optical measurement is wavelength dependant.

As for being aspheric, that is the term used to describe optics minimising optical aberrations, common folk read aberration and think fuzzy distorted, an aspherical lens tries to bring all the colours of the spectrum to the same focal length. A perfect optic would be diffraction limited. The non-technical explanation is the amount of refraction from the lens is similar for a wide range of colours, refraction is that thing that means the fish isn't where you think it is! If a lens isn't aspheric the fish looks blurry, but it's still not where you think it is. You get a clear sharp image, like those fancy fishing googles, but it doesn't mean the image isn't refracted, so you see a sharp image but it doesn't mean the fish you see is really in that position. Whether it's water, air or the plastic of the lens causing the distortion makes no difference, refraction is still present, the lens can't magically remove the effects of the water.

btw., Your next argue will be that the lens is only thin, like the thickness of the water makes a difference, as opposed to the relative positions of the object and observer relative to the focal plane. The medium doing the refraction could be a plane 1 atom thick, and it would have the same effect.

The best lens money can buy with a flat field typically have a flat field measured in just a few degrees, the ones industry make use daily typically start at about $4500 and go up from there, for interferometry that requires a flat reference field, they start at $7500 and go up from there. They only have functional apertures measured in a few millimetres(or a few degrees either side of the prime axis). $450 isn't going to cut it!

For those fancy glasses to be accurate you have to turn your whole head so that you are looking through the same aperture of the lens, if you don't, if you move your eyes instead, the observed object will be move across the field of view non-linear fashion, not much but enough to cause what you saw Webster do yesterday. My suggestion is once you've chosen a type of lens stick with it, train with it, because it affects how you see the world!

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1898 – Today at 03:25:42 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on August 22, 2026, 02:07:34 pm

The Oakley glasses are specifically designed for fielding and highlight the ball colour so it's easier to track. Why do I know this? My daughter plays state grade and her last pair cost me $450.

Similar story with clay target shooting glasses. Pilla glasses are upwards of $500.

Re: God help me - the Cricket thread

Reply #1899 – Today at 04:03:58 pm

Quote from: Gointocarlton – on Today at 03:25:42 pm

Similar story with clay target shooting glasses. Pilla glasses are upwards of $500.

In trap shooting you swivel your head with the barrel and gun sights, you are always looking down the same line exactly as I describe. For non-prescription types the most important feature is polarisation, as this improves contrast between the target and background.

For any elite sport, if you use glasses (prescription or not) you have to use them all the time through practise and competition, 24x7, day or night, indoor or outdoor, because they change your vision, whether they are prescription or not. Your eyes and vision become the default with the glasses on, sunglasses or prescription.

If you swap them for fashion you are continually adjusting your eyesight, if you are continually being told to upgrade to the latest, usually by some spud connected to the team or sport, you are being duded by associate marketing strategy. Pick a pair, look after them, keep them for as long as you do not need a specific prescription.

So called shooting glasses, trap glasses, are used in a number of sports to permit clear vision over a larger vertical field of view. Which is why they sit high on the bridge of the nose and the lens usually extends above the eyebrow. Also used in a variety of cues sports, curling and bowling, etc. etc., but these are prescription types, not just protective.