View Single Post
Old 07-15-2011, 12:20 AM   #370
mickz
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
mickz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,906
Thanked 438 Times in 240 Posts
Failed 20 Times in 15 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidPenguin View Post
I wouldnt say that theyre MORE optically correct than anything else on the market, considering itech/bauer licensed the XYZ optics from Oakley to make their visors. Proof is on the bauer box, also confirmed by the Bauer and Oakley and reebok reps i've talked to.
Yes that's right, after Oakley and Itech had their little settlement a while back.

This is the original post I went off of from MSH in 2009: Bauer/Itech visor vs Oakley - ModSquadHockey

Quote:
Oakley holds 100's of patents. Oakley has a strong legal division that creates massive profits sueing anyone and everyone they can find. Patents are filed under use in vison products so it applies to just about everything.

If I remember correctly it the itech issue was curvature of the lens. The glass is not the same. Itech is more round and has less distortion "otherwise called Optically correct" as in similar shape to your eyeball. Oakley is more flat. So you get optical distortion while moving your eyes quickly from one object to the next but don't notice once your eyes have focused on that new object.

Visor tech 101
Most retail shields have a hardcoat on the outside and an anti-fog application on the inside. Suggestion - never touch the inside with anything, just wipe with a towel.
Pro shields are double sided hardcoat. Thats why you see them scrub the crap out of the visor and it doesn't have a mark. Also most NHL/pro teams are using cloths that cost around 25-30 buck each and have some tech to them.
I may have exaggerated it but I was leaning towards they are more optically correct than other brands like Under Armor which are flat.
__________________
My RS Feedback (34-0-0)
mickz is offline   Reply With Quote