Flak 2.0 rose gold

[BoostBear]

This is what is on Oakley's website:
PRIZM ROSE GOLD

• Light Transmission: 13%
• Contrast: Increased
• Base Lens Color: Bronze

This is from the Coldfuse - OO6042-0552 - Satin Toast / Prizm Rose Gold

https://www.oakley.com/en-us/product/W0OO6042?variant=888392426819

Yeah, but those images are all done via photoshop and 3D digital renderings, they give you a idea of what the lenses look like as well as how it would tint the environment but it's not the same as taking a photo of the sunglasses in the flesh in natural lighting.

 

[BoostBear]

Yeah, but those images are all done via photoshop and 3D digital renderings, they give you a idea of what the lenses look like as well as how it would tint the environment but it's not the same as taking a photo of the sunglasses in the flesh in natural lighting.

View attachment 641350

If you were to take all the various lenses that use the park scene for the FOV slider you'd notice they are all the same darkness regardless of the VLT% given per tint. Which at least to me doesn't seem a honest representation, as I know first hand prizm 24k iridium is not the same darkness as prizm ruby, yet that's how the FOV makes it seem.

 

[Chet Manley]

One interesting thing I noticed as well I can't seem to find replacement lenses if I wanted to buy them

 

[narplife]

Yeah, but those images are all done via photoshop and 3D digital renderings, they give you a idea of what the lenses look like as well as how it would tint the environment but it's not the same as taking a photo of the sunglasses in the flesh in natural lighting.

View attachment 641350

I don't understand why you need a actual photo of someone else's shades, when this image you just attached gives you exactly what you were asking? Was it not?

Also why do you say those are 3D digital renderings, do you mean to say the photos you provided aren't actual photos taken in a studio setting?

 

[BoostBear]

I don't understand why you need a actual photo of someone else's shades, when this image you just attached gives you exactly what you were asking? Was it not?

Also why do you say those are 3D digital renderings, do you mean to say the photos you provided aren't actual photos taken in a studio setting?

I can assure you working in product design field, that those are not actual photographs of the lenses or the frames. Very rarely will you find actual photos taken in a studio for a particular frame model these days, it's much more efficient for Oakley to do everything via rendering software like Keyshot or Maya.

Its great for getting concepts to a finalized state and giving customers a pretty good idea of what they look like, but it's still not the same as taking a photo of the frame outside in the flesh. Even photos of them in studio don't give as honest of a view as one from someone here, because studio shots a manicured to provide the most optimum lighting to make them look amazing from any angle.

One interesting thing I noticed as well I can't seem to find replacement lenses if I wanted to buy them

Give it time... you can't currently buy prizm trail torch or prizm road black lenses in replacements as far as I know.. So it will probably be a while until you can buy these as replacements. I bet LUX does it on purpose to force buyers to go buy a completely new pair if they want to try out a new lens, it's make sense from a marketing standpoint for them to do that.

It took oakley over a year from the release of the frogskins lite, before they offered replacement lenses for them.

 

[VirusSixZero]

I don't understand why you need a actual photo of someone else's shades, when this image you just attached gives you exactly what you were asking? Was it not?

Also why do you say those are 3D digital renderings, do you mean to say the photos you provided aren't actual photos taken in a studio setting?

Oakley's site is full of bullshots. They take a stock reference photo, then use digital after effects to simulate the lens. As pointed out, there's no way lenses released years apart, and with different profiles have identical effects and reference photos. A user-made shot shows a more accurate representation. No one has to provide their own shots, but Oakley's site is an abysmal reference for actual optics.

 

[BoostBear]

Oakley's site is full of bullshots. They take a stock reference photo, then use digital after effects to simulate the lens. As pointed out, there's no way lenses released years apart, and with different profiles have identical effects and reference photos. A user-made shot shows a more accurate representation. No one has to provide their own shots, but Oakley's site is an abysmal reference for actual optics.

Exactly!
The w/o lenses view is just an unedited raw photo, as you move you the slider for view with lenses on is an image which has had it's color saturation and contrast increased. Which yes, those lenses are suppose to increase those attributes, but the darkness of those images for Prizm 24k 11%| Prizm Rose Gold 13%| Prizm Tungsten 14%| Prizm Ruby 17%| should vary it their darkness, but they don't it's literally the same image for all 4 lenses.

The old style sliders for the snow goggle lenses, seem to provide a better representation than what Oakley is able to provide these days. They no longer have that slider, but I found one side which seems to still have a functioning one. Note it's the same image of snow, but depending on the chosen lens you get a different tint color as well as darkness.

Oakley Lens Simulator - Lens Guide | Blaze Sunglasses

Test the range of Oakley lenses with our online lens simulator which guide you to choose the right lenses for your Oakley sunglasses or ski goggles.

www.blazesunglasses.com

 

[Mike.vanderkoon]

If people are looking for actual photos of looking through the rose gold lens, I put some pictures in another rose gold thread.

 

[VirusSixZero]

If people are looking for actual photos of looking through the rose gold lens, I put some pictures in another rose gold thread.

Yes, it's in the Rumours/Releases forum I believe.

 

[narplife]

Oakley's site is full of bullshots. They take a stock reference photo, then use digital after effects to simulate the lens. As pointed out, there's no way lenses released years apart, and with different profiles have identical effects and reference photos. A user-made shot shows a more accurate representation. No one has to provide their own shots, but Oakley's site is an abysmal reference for actual optics.

So basically what your saying what is shown on their website is just a bunch of lies?

Boosty or you please explain wtf a 3D rendering is, like what do you mean by the models on the website are not actual photos of actual pairs but renderings? Because when I googled renderings I got a bunch of fancy modern looking architecture plans...