Thread Tools
Dec 11, 2015, 09:39 PM
dragon trainer
tronaton's Avatar
Thread OP
That defiantly is a better solution then double back tape.
Nice creativity Mr.Mongrel!

Looks like the feet are there to pinch together and insert into the headplays they then expand holding the lens in place.
Then just pinch the feet ends together to remove lens.
I think.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 11, 2015, 09:41 PM
Registered User
Wish I had a printer��
Dec 11, 2015, 09:49 PM
Registered User
Impact RC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tronaton
That defiantly is a better solution then double back tape.
Nice creativity Mr.Mongrel!

Looks like the feet are there to pinch together and insert into the headplays they then expand holding the lens in place.
Then just pinch the feet ends together to remove lens.
I think.
This was why I asked, because I was a bit confused at first. If I am reading it right, the rectangular part slides in to the groove where the original lens was. The arms hold the lens, and extend the lens backwards towards the nosepiece and users face.

My question now is should the lens be mounted a little lower, closer to the nosepiece, to account for the issue Daemon mentioned.
Dec 11, 2015, 09:56 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impact RC
This was why I asked, because I was a bit confused at first. If I am reading it right, the rectangular part slides in to the groove where the original lens was. The arms hold the lens, and extend the lens backwards towards the nosepiece and users face.

My question now is should the lens be mounted a little lower, closer to the nosepiece, to account for the issue Daemon mentioned.
Hi,

The bottom of the lens is sitting down on the Headplay itself. You'd have to cut some of the Headplay housing out to get it lower & then you'd run the risk of the lens actually touching your nose.

I've stuck some foam in the nose gap to fix the problem.

Mongrel.
Dec 11, 2015, 10:00 PM
Registered User
Impact RC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirMongrel
Hi,

The bottom of the lens is sitting down on the Headplay itself. You'd have to cut some of the Headplay housing out to get it lower & then you'd run the risk of the lens actually touching your nose.

I've stuck some foam in the nose gap to fix the problem.

Mongrel.
OK perfect.
Dec 12, 2015, 05:22 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirMongrel
Hi,

The bottom of the lens is sitting down on the Headplay itself. You'd have to cut some of the Headplay housing out to get it lower & then you'd run the risk of the lens actually touching your nose.

I've stuck some foam in the nose gap to fix the problem.

Mongrel.
Here is a photo with the foam in the gap between the lens and the nose bridge.

Mongrel
Dec 19, 2015, 04:55 PM
Ralf H's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon
The problem I have is that there's a pretty significant gap between the bottom of the RHO
lenses and the top of the nose piece, through which you can see the LCD screen directly.
Trying to bring the RHO lens any closer to the eyes just puts its rather sharp bottom edge
in contact with my nose, so that's not an option. I like them in all other respects, but it's
distracting and if there's OSD text along the bottom of the screen (such
as when flying a Phantom 3 Pro), you definitely notice it.
Is the RHO-Lens too far from your eyes? Is your head too low in the Headplay housing as there is a lot of foam at the forehead? I checked what I actually see of the picture and then tried to simulate the view of my left eye with the attached photo. The bond joint is at the right side and outside of the view. The nose curve cuts off some pixels of the bottom right corner, yes, but I cannot see a gap. Maybe you can post a photo so that we can get an idea of what is going wrong.
Cheers
Ralf
Dec 19, 2015, 05:09 PM
Ralf H's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon
No, it's not that dramatic. It's possible to get a clear in-focus image through the Fresnel lens.
Yes, sometimes you see a hint of the Fresnel ridges, or a little Moiré effect, and the fact that you
don't see any of that in the left hand sifr of the comparison pic, means the camera wasn't focused right.
I don't doubt that these new lenses will be a significant improvement for folks with
middle aged eyes (like mine), but a comparison pic that misleading, bothers me.
Hi again,
the comparison picture is a close-up but it's not a fake. The camera was focused correctly for both pictures. I used exactly the same settings, angles and distances for both. The yellow blur you see in the left picture is due to the chromatic abberation. Also fresnel lenses produce more smear due to the ridges and thus you cannot see the pixels. I would like to encourage more group members to post their pictures and reviews.
Dec 19, 2015, 06:04 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralf H
Is the RHO-Lens too far from your eyes?
The RHO lens is as close to my eyes as it can be without actually riding directly
on my nose. I still see a gap. Everyone's face shape is different.
Dec 25, 2015, 10:39 AM
kgb
kgb
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralf H
Hi again,
the comparison picture is a close-up but it's not a fake. The camera was focused correctly for both pictures. I used exactly the same settings, angles and distances for both. The yellow blur you see in the left picture is due to the chromatic abberation. Also fresnel lenses produce more smear due to the ridges and thus you cannot see the pixels. I would like to encourage more group members to post their pictures and reviews.
Are the words Composite black or K_Black?
Dec 29, 2015, 10:40 AM
Registered User

Blurry vision?


Hello to all,

I'm trying to figure out what blurriness are some people getting from the stock lens the HD's come with. I'm 44 and don't notice a thing, but I'm also using mine HDMI with my Inspire 1. The field of view and picture quality is outstanding.

Is the Rho-Lens better for Quad flying and racing?

I couldn't see any reason to make the FOV smaller.....
Dec 29, 2015, 01:16 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
If your 44yr old eyes can focus clearly and comfortably at 7-8 inches in front of your face,
then congratulations. You may be in the minority though. As we age, usually presbyopia sets
in, and our eyes lose the flexibility that allows them to focus close up.
The RHO lens changes the apparent focal distance to about 16 inches.
Dec 29, 2015, 05:20 PM
Registered User
Sorry, can't tell if your being a smartass but, whatever. I wasn't trying to come off as a person with great eye sight, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a step. Anyway, for the price I think I'll try out the RHO Lens, couldn't hurt.
Dec 29, 2015, 05:31 PM
Registered User
Impact RC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D
Sorry, can't tell if your being a smartass but, whatever. I wasn't trying to come off as a person with great eye sight, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a step. Anyway, for the price I think I'll try out the RHO Lens, couldn't hurt.
I just received my RHO lenses. They are well made and definitely an improvement for my old eyes. That being said, if the image is nice and clear with the stock lens then I would just stick with that. The RHO brings along some other issues so no need if they are working good for you as is.
Dec 29, 2015, 09:22 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impact RC
I just received my RHO lenses. They are well made and definitely an improvement for my old eyes. That being said, if the image is nice and clear with the stock lens then I would just stick with that. The RHO brings along some other issues so no need if they are working good for you as is.
Thanks for the input. Your probably right, don't mess with it if it ain't broke.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools