OT Eye Glasses

[Bill Gill]

Try a smaller number. I use +2.0 reading glasses for reading, and

+1.5 reading glasses for the computer. You may just be going the wrong way.

Bill

[Metspitzer]

I think I will get a pair of 1.5x and 1x. I will have to just try them to see if it will let me see my monitor and keyboard (which is about half the length to the monitor) I don't think I would ever get trifocal. Maybe a set of bifocals for reading/computer. My long vision is off slightly, but I don't really need glasses for far off.

Thanks everyone

[ELGY]

I've got a solution that works for me. I hesitate to mention it because you're going to dismiss it as the ravings of someone whose been drinking too much Absinthe.

Get contact lenses in the +2.00 or so mode (equivalent to reading glasses). Note the "+" designation.

Wear only one.

The eye with the contact will focus correctly on stuff ~18" away while the non-contact eye will transmit blurry images to the brain. Your brain will sort it out.

Conversely, while driving, the eye without the contact will send proper images to the brain while the other eye, the one with the contact, will send somewhat out-of-focus pictures. Again, the brain will sort it out.

The downside is depth perception at close distances is somewhat difficult, that is, it's difficult to thread a needle and the like.

I like the Accu-View extended-wear lenses. They last me a couple of months' each. I have been using one reading contact lens for about 15 years or more. Works great for me. An Accu-View lens lasts me about 6 months before I have to change it (unless I get careless and tear it.) Elgy

[clare]

Reduce your resolution to 1024X768 - it will make ALL text, including your desktop icons etc, larger. If it is still too hard to read, go to

800X600

[clare]

I have the "invisible" bifocals - by tilting my head a bit I can focus on anything from about 10 inches to infinity. Without them, I can't see ANYTHING clearly - at any distance since about age 45. At 40, the doc said "her's your glasses" and at 50 "here's your bifocals"

[krw]

A much better solution is to make the icons and text larger. LCD displays suck when not run at their native resolution. "Larger" characters on a higher resolution display will be better formed and easier to read, too.

[LouB]

Why do "LCD displays suck when not run at their native resolution."?

[aemeijers]

Pixelization (sp?). Unless you happen to get lucky with a multiple or fractional resolution, something on screen will have a jagged edge, like when you zoom the weather radar image on most weather pages too close.

But having said that- modern LCD displays have pixels a lot smaller than the early ones. My father is damn near blind, and no way would the1400x1050 native rez on his Samsung monitor would have worked for him. I spent a couple hours fussing with various resolutions and windows custom settings, and came up with settings that while not perfect, are at least tolerable, and round stuff is pretty close to round. It's a trial and error thing, very monitor and video chipset dependent.

I love flatscreens just for the desk space they free up, and will never buy another glass monitor again. But at home, I'm still using a couple

19" Trinitrons- damn things just won't die, and they are sharper than any LCD in my current budget range.

[krw]

I bought this 24" (1920x1200) monitor four years ago for $270. It'll beat any

19" glass tube. ;-) LCDs have gotten incredibly cheap.

[aemeijers]

I bought these 2000-vintage Dell p991s for about $25 each maybe six years ago. They do 1600x1200, but my eyes aren't that good any more. I run them at 1152x864, with default XP font and icon sizes, and find them comfortable.

Yeah, LCDs have gotten cheap, but I'm cheaper. Until these die, I can't justify replacing them. And I haven't seen many LCD monitors make it to the 5-year mark (Judging by the 1700 or so at work), much less 11 years. Like I said, I'll never buy another glass monitor, but with these 2 19s, and half a dozen 17s stacked up in the other room, they may outlast me. (I can't even give the 17s away- Goodwill won't even take them. And I refuse to trash working equipment. It Just Ain't Right.)

[krw]

As I said, this one is four years old and I have another (a 21") that's six, though it's not used much (I'd run a third monitor on this laptop but I haven't figured out a way to do it, that works).

I've thrown away three 19s and have another that's only in my way. It'll go as soon as I can figure out how to get rid of it.

[The Daring Dufas]

I have a pair of Nokia 21" shielded CRT monitors with a .22 dot pitch and it's like looking at a film projection. As you may know, a .22 dot pitch on a large monitor like that is a bit unusual and high resolution. I think the original price on the boat anchors was $1,100.00 each years ago when they were new. I don't use them now due to their unwieldy character and my big LCD monitors that don't require a fork lift to place on a desk. ^_^

TDD

[krw]

If I didn't screw up the arithmetic, something like 1900 x 1500. If the geometry were perfect it would challenge a modern LCD. None were perfect. That's one of the little appreciated advantages of LCDs. There is no pin-cushion, trapezoid, rotation, or any other geometric distortions to deal with.

There's that too.

[The Daring Dufas]

The first 17" monitor I bought back in the early 90's was $549.00 wholesale because I was a dealer. What a wonderful picture it had. When I got the monster Nokia monitors years later, I was blown away by the resolution even though they weighed a ton apiece. Now I have all these big LCD monitors and think back about how complicated it was to get a clear big image on CRT displays. Ah, progress and the technology marches on. I can't wait for the direct implant for the brain's visual cortex. ^_^

TDD

[David Combs]

What I do is use bifocals, bottoms for reading distance, tops ground for screen distance. (Distance: over the top)

One trick I use:

For me, it's critical that my left and right eyes go into and out of focus at EXACTLY the same distance.

Now, the optician and her machines/lenses "which is better -- this -- or that" procedure isn't precise enough to do that. Here's how to get it not just right, but PERFECT:

After she's written down you prescription, ask her to put the lenses that add up to that into those test (and heavy) metal eyeglasses, AND to give you a couple of quarter diopter and a half diopter "hold up in front" lenses, and go out into the waiting room.

(Of course you've brought your measuring tape with you, and already know the exact distance from your slouched-down in your chair eye-distance to the screen.)

Then get a magazine with fine print, close one eye, looking at the magazine via the other, and bring it in until (with eye relaxed) it goes out of focus -- write down that distance, and extend away until it again goes out of focus, and write that down.

Then do the same with the other eye.

Now, how do he two eyes compare? (that will tell you how good her procedure was) Then start holding the quarter diopter lens up close in front of your test frame, etc, until you get what you want.

Oh, also ask her to give a "minus" (thicker at the edge ie rim than at the center=thin) quarter dioopter, to give you more freedom.

Anyway, when done, both eyes go into and out of focus (relaxed eye!) at the same distance, OR one range is totally WITHIN the other one.

That's about as good as you (or anyone else) is going to get it. Adjust your prescription by adding on the exter lenses diopters (that works for small amount of diopters, because then the sine of the angle (radians) is almost equal to the angle itself. I think that's the assumption behind much of this eye-optics stuff.)

-----

One other scheme I've read about is exactly the opposite. Have her prescribe for one eye at screen distance, and the other at near (or far?) distance, and presto, no bifocals needed. Not for me!

David

[David Combs]

Yeah, but you look at the ads for the progressives, and the clear vision areas of the glasses is in an hourglass shape, which even at the widest (part of the hourglass) is significantly (lly?) narrower than the full width of the lens.

So for near (reading) and for far away, you are able to see left and right by merely rotating your eyeballs left and right -- somewhat. But only somewhat left and right, otherwise you're looking outside the hourglass shape, ie nothing is in focus.

So you have to twist your head.

Whereas with "executive"-style bi/trifocals, you can switch your eyes back and forth for the full width of the lens, eg maybe what, 70% or so away from the straight ahead?

As usual, there's no free lunch.

Myself (having never tried the progressives, but having read quite a bit about them), I prefer the bifocals (or trifocals, but man, that middle part is SO thin as to be almost worthless. (Why they can't make them 1/3 1/3 1/3d, I don't know!)

David

[Ed Pawlowski]

"David Combs" wrote

Try the progressives. You can do so at not cost if yo don't like them. Most every optical house offers a 30 to 60 day warranty on them and will take them back at no cost to you.

I was not sure myself, but once I got progressive lenses, I was hooked. Been wearing them for over a dozen years and I'd never go back to regular bi-focals.

[David Combs]

Interesting.

Will think about it.

Thanks!

David