Why No Red Iridium?

[da_nige]

Ok this has been bugging me for a while and I wasn't going to waste peoples time by asking but its now really bugging me.

Why have Oakley never produced a true red iridium?

Obviously there is +Red and OO Red but both of these have other colours that show too like blue or purple. I mean something that is just red the same way that Ice is just blue or Emerald is just green. No matter what direction you look at Ice it still looks blue but with OO Red and +Red if you tilt them you see other colours appear.

Does that make sense?

Thanks

Neil

 

[mihaixp]

Well, I am quite new to this industry but I know that there are some lenses called Ruby Iridium, mostly used on Juliet X-Metal range. They seem pretty red to me, even if they're not red per se.

 

[da_nige]

Again Ruby is like the other 2 I mentioned. It can sometimes look more like Fire and even the stronger Ruby shows some yellow.

I'm not complaining, just curious

Cheers

Neil

 

[qtrain23]

Well, I am quite new to this industry but I know that there are some lenses called Ruby Iridium, mostly used on Juliet X-Metal range. They seem pretty red to me, even if they're not red per se.

They're very hit or miss going from a deep purple red to a yellow orange between sets and even in the same set.

 

[qtrain23]

Again Ruby is like the other 2 I mentioned. It can sometimes look more like Fire and even the stronger Ruby shows some yellow.

I'm not complaining, just curious

Cheers

Neil

I've wondered too. You'd think with all the stuff they've done and all the tech they have, they'd be able to consistently make a red lens.

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

This is very much why people value the early generations Ruby lenses that were produced with the X Metals (and some batches today still have this shade but few and far between) is that while the average Ruby is a "Fruby" that is more yellow that red and Positive Red which is more purple or purple bluish than Red. Now WHY exactly that is the case? I don't know. I've always suspected it had something to do with what creating a true RED lens does to what you see looking THROUGH them. When some special red lenses were created for the X Men movies for Cyclops my understanding is looking through them gave the actor headaches, so clearly if you're an eyewear company you can't release something like that to the general public.

 

[gimpy]

Early +red were true red and looked nothing like the current ones (which really should be called +blue). Love my vintage +red, they have bright red glow.

Edit: if you look in the frog forum there Should be a thread near the top showing the differences.

 

[V2oak]

This is a good questions that bothers me for a couple of years too, and so How come aftermarket lens company like linegear can make a pure red ruby's and why oakley can't?

 

[Ventruck]

I remember reading something on an older thread that the firing time of the +Red and Ruby lenses was shortened to meet production demand. I've seen the lens often backordered for the Radarlock more often than not.

At least on my lens, the tint is closer to neutral behind the purple/red hues, but goes more blue behind the orange/yellow hue at the left end of the lens. I really hate stronger blue tints, but that section has no real presence when I'm wearing the glasses.

 

[mihaixp]

When some special red lenses were created for the X Men movies for Cyclops my understanding is looking through them gave the actor headaches, so clearly if you're an eyewear company you can't release something like that to the general public.

I didn't know that.
Always thought that he (Cyclops) worn stock Juliets with ruby iridium lenses.