|
#7
10-22-2008, 04:13 AM
| |||
| |||
 Re: Question about color vision In article <P1xLk.5597$Zd.5174[at]newsfe10.iad> , "caveat" <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> wrote: - quote - > Thank you all!!!
Glass comes in a large number of varieties. Look, for example, at the> I will now set forth upon a great adventure and learn all I can about > chromatic aberration. > This leads to another question, would actual glass be better at minimizing > this characteristic than a poly lens? > Thanks > Chris Schott catalog. Color correction usually uses two different kinds of glass. That makes color correction for spectacles difficult and expensive. Bill -- Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall! |
 10-22-2008, 04:13 AM
| |||
| |||
 Sponsored links |
|
#6
10-22-2008, 03:24 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision Thank you all!!! I will now set forth upon a great adventure and learn all I can about chromatic aberration. This leads to another question, would actual glass be better at minimizing this characteristic than a poly lens? Thanks Chris |
|
#5
10-20-2008, 12:18 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision In article <dabel-398FA5.15181219102008[at]c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au> , Dan Abel <dabel[at]sonic.net> wrote: - quote - > In article <nc4nf4poqvkg167u00vjp42khm9tgg2uit[at]4ax.com> ,
In no way are camera lenses "perfect." The design is always a compromise> Mike Ruskai <BUTthannydI[at]DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote: > > On or about Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:31:49 -0700 did "caveat" > > <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> dribble thusly: > > > Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see > > > the > > > world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm > > > clock. > > > It's the correct group, and as you've been told already, it's chromatic > > aberration that's at the core of what you're experiencing. In theory, you > > could create an incredibly expensive, and incredibly heavy pair of glasses > > that minimized the problem by using several different types of lens > > material > > with different levels of dispersion (it'd look like a couple of miniature > > telescopes mounted in front of your eyes) > I was wondering about this. Camera lenses can be heavy and expensive, > but that's because you want perfect sharpness from edge to edge of the > film, and those lenses that are expensive usually are capable of very > low light use. Camera lenses that are small are really quite cheap. > Since only the macula requires sharpness, I don't see why glasses with > multiple elements would be that expensive and stick out a long ways. > Perhaps I just haven't thought it through or maybe I don't understand > the issues. among conflicting desires. Optical performance of an eye can be relatively lax because you turn your eye toward the object being used to obtain best acuity. Off-axis performance is relatively poor. As you turn your eye but not your head, you look through a different region of the spectacle lens. This increases aberration. - quote - > > I don't know off hand what's available for eyeglass use (likely not
There never was a guarantee that optometry would get you back to where> > fluorite, > > which would require coatings just to stay intact in the air), but aside > > from > > forcing your OD to look up the best materials for a new pair, the more > > practical solution would be to avoid alarm clocks with blue digits. > I agree that you have the practical solution for that small problem. I > bought an LED clock with 2" red digits when I couldn't see at night. It > still works well even though I can see OK now. > However, there are a whole lot of blue things in this world, and > sometimes they include numbers and letters, and not always very big. you were before glasses. In principle, lasik should be able to give you close to theoretical performance considering the fundamental limitation of eye anatomy. That performance, however, will be on-axis only. With glass lenses, the process akin to lasik is called figuring. I am not a vision or health professional. I know little about the nuts and bolts of lasik. Bill -- Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall! |
|
#4
10-19-2008, 10:18 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision In article <nc4nf4poqvkg167u00vjp42khm9tgg2uit[at]4ax.com> , Mike Ruskai <BUTthannydI[at]DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote: - quote - > On or about Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:31:49 -0700 did "caveat"
I was wondering about this. Camera lenses can be heavy and expensive,> <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> dribble thusly: > > Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see the > > world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm clock. > It's the correct group, and as you've been told already, it's chromatic > aberration that's at the core of what you're experiencing. In theory, you > could create an incredibly expensive, and incredibly heavy pair of glasses > that minimized the problem by using several different types of lens material > with different levels of dispersion (it'd look like a couple of miniature > telescopes mounted in front of your eyes) but that's because you want perfect sharpness from edge to edge of the film, and those lenses that are expensive usually are capable of very low light use. Camera lenses that are small are really quite cheap. Since only the macula requires sharpness, I don't see why glasses with multiple elements would be that expensive and stick out a long ways. Perhaps I just haven't thought it through or maybe I don't understand the issues. - quote - > I don't know off hand what's available for eyeglass use (likely not fluorite,
I agree that you have the practical solution for that small problem. I> which would require coatings just to stay intact in the air), but aside from > forcing your OD to look up the best materials for a new pair, the more > practical solution would be to avoid alarm clocks with blue digits. bought an LED clock with 2" red digits when I couldn't see at night. It still works well even though I can see OK now. However, there are a whole lot of blue things in this world, and sometimes they include numbers and letters, and not always very big. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel[at]sonic.net |
|
#3
10-19-2008, 08:04 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision On or about Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:31:49 -0700 did "caveat" <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> dribble thusly: - quote - > Hi all,
It's the correct group, and as you've been told already, it's chromatic> I'm not sure if this is the group to ask but I hope that you will point me > in the correct direction if it is not. > Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see the > world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm clock. aberration that's at the core of what you're experiencing. In theory, you could create an incredibly expensive, and incredibly heavy pair of glasses that minimized the problem by using several different types of lens material with different levels of dispersion (it'd look like a couple of miniature telescopes mounted in front of your eyes), but the best you can do in practice is use an extra-low dispersion material for the one lens. I don't know off hand what's available for eyeglass use (likely not fluorite, which would require coatings just to stay intact in the air), but aside from forcing your OD to look up the best materials for a new pair, the more practical solution would be to avoid alarm clocks with blue digits. -- - Mike Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail. |
|
#2
10-19-2008, 05:44 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision In article <DnBKk.5606$bK.634[at]newsfe04.iad> , "caveat" <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> wrote: - quote - > Hi all,
I think that you are seeing the effects of chromatic aberration. The> I'm not sure if this is the group to ask but I hope that you will point me > in the correct direction if it is not. > Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see the > world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm clock. > I have no problems with focus on my wife's red led alarm clock. > When I take off my glasses I can see the numbers on my blue led alarm clock > clearly (after a little focus) but can not see the rest of the world > clearly. > I tested my self on some of the online color vision tests and it seems like > I do NOT have any color blindness. > I have used both dime store reading glasses and the high quality ones from > my local eye doctor with expensive coatings with the same issue. > My doctor didn't know what would cause this issue. Time to find a new > doctor? > This is not a major issue to me but I was simply wondering why this is so. > I have some theories but I would like to know if anyone has any real world > explanation as to why this happens. > If it helps, I'm almost 40 and can no longer read small print clearly at > night without a 60-75 watt light bulb (bummer, I remember reading small > print in the dark with no light bulb or glasses) and have a slight > stigmatism. > Thanks, > Chris natural eye also has chromatic aberration, but your brain has accommodated to this by suitable processing of the color receptors (cones). Wearing glasses introduces new aberration which the brain has not been trained to process correctly. Use of this effect was made during the heyday of psychedelics. Posters in red and blue appeared to not be flat but in relief. I am not a vision professional. My comments are based upon some biological knowledge and fairly good understanding of optical physics. If you think that you do have a physical problem with your eyes, see an ophthalmologist. Bill -- Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall! |
|
#1
10-19-2008, 10:19 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision "caveat" <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> wrote - quote - > Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see
Optical properties are different for different colors. Refractive index> the world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm > clock. > I have no problems with focus on my wife's red led alarm clock. > When I take off my glasses I can see the numbers on my blue led alarm > clock clearly (after a little focus) but can not see the rest of the world > clearly. tables usually assume yellow light, in the middle of the spectrum. Real-world examples are most evident when you compare the extremes of the visible spectrum, eg red and blue. Blue light bends more than red. That means blue things focus closer and red things focus further away. Take your glasses off and it's easier to focus a close blue object than any other color. The difference in behavior across the visible spectrum is called chromatic dispersion. The difference in focal lengths is called the chromatic interval. In the right circumstances, the chromatic interval can be several feet. The chromatic interval can be used to fine-tune spectacle prescriptions. It also causes visual confusion ("vibration") when you print orange or pink letters on a blue background. -MT |
|
10-19-2008, 07:47 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Question about color vision "caveat" <caveat-lector[at]cox.net> wrote in message news  nBKk.5606$bK.634[at]newsfe04.iad...- quote - > Hi all,
P.S. I just remembered this, I am nearly blind in one eye (lazy muscle is> I'm not sure if this is the group to ask but I hope that you will point me > in the correct direction if it is not. > Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see > the world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm > clock. > I have no problems with focus on my wife's red led alarm clock. > When I take off my glasses I can see the numbers on my blue led alarm > clock clearly (after a little focus) but can not see the rest of the world > clearly. > I tested my self on some of the online color vision tests and it seems > like I do NOT have any color blindness. > I have used both dime store reading glasses and the high quality ones from > my local eye doctor with expensive coatings with the same issue. > My doctor didn't know what would cause this issue. Time to find a new > doctor? > This is not a major issue to me but I was simply wondering why this is so. > I have some theories but I would like to know if anyone has any real world > explanation as to why this happens. > If it helps, I'm almost 40 and can no longer read small print clearly at > night without a 60-75 watt light bulb (bummer, I remember reading small > print in the dark with no light bulb or glasses) and have a slight > stigmatism. > Thanks, > Chris what I was told, eye is good but the optic nerve is defective) and can only make out faint shapes in that eye. If you are born like this then you grow used to it and don't think about it much. Chris |
|
#-1
10-19-2008, 07:31 AM
| |||
| |||
| Question about color vision Hi all, I'm not sure if this is the group to ask but I hope that you will point me in the correct direction if it is not. Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see the world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm clock. I have no problems with focus on my wife's red led alarm clock. When I take off my glasses I can see the numbers on my blue led alarm clock clearly (after a little focus) but can not see the rest of the world clearly. I tested my self on some of the online color vision tests and it seems like I do NOT have any color blindness. I have used both dime store reading glasses and the high quality ones from my local eye doctor with expensive coatings with the same issue. My doctor didn't know what would cause this issue. Time to find a new doctor? This is not a major issue to me but I was simply wondering why this is so. I have some theories but I would like to know if anyone has any real world explanation as to why this happens. If it helps, I'm almost 40 and can no longer read small print clearly at night without a 60-75 watt light bulb (bummer, I remember reading small print in the dark with no light bulb or glasses) and have a slight stigmatism. Thanks, Chris |
| Tags |
| color, question, vision |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| Question for Otis and other experts about me getting new glasses and vision improvement acemanvx@yahoo.com: Hello all, I present this dilemna. Right now I wear -4.25 glasses for distance, same power for both eyes. The -5.5(left) and -5(right) I was... | Vision | 22 | 01-24-2006 09:52 PM | |
| question about vision problems Borashi: Okay, the last 2-3 months my eyes have been really watery so I tend to thought it was just allergy symptoms cause it rained a lot the last few... | Vision | 2 | 06-29-2005 02:20 PM | |
| REQ: Any info about Dr. Whitaker and his "Vision Essential" supplementals, Are the claimes about improved vision proven????? Diogenes: Hi all: Recieved today in the (junk)mail the "Vision Nutrition OUTRAGE" booklet by Dr. Whitaker. His nutritional supplements are purported to... | Main Category | 1 | 08-21-2003 03:56 PM | |
| REQ: Any info about Dr. Whitaker and his "Vision Essential" supplementals, Are the claimes about improved vision proven????? Diogenes: Hi all: Recieved today in the (junk)mail the "Vision Nutrition OUTRAGE" booklet by Dr. Whitaker. His nutritional supplements are purported to... | Vision | 1 | 08-21-2003 03:56 PM | |
| Question about post-PRK double-vision Keenan Clay Wilkie: I thought that I was having a LASEK procedure, but Dr. Timothy E. Schmitt, M.D. does not believe that LASEK offers improved healing over PRK (and in... | Lasik Eye Surgery | 6 | 08-21-2003 12:31 AM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
