> I looked at a TV screen about 10 metres away. I didn't realise just how
> blurry it was until I popped on the glasses. Incredible.
> I take it this is just the results from the astigmatism correction?
> But, and here's the question, is it normal to have some blurriness, or
> should things definitely be sharp?

> "Simon Dean" <sjdean[at]gmail.com> wrote
> > What's the term for the issue where if you look at a light with one eye in
> > the dark, you see two of them (or at least you see a halo?).
> Monocular diplopia. Some degree of it is normal. There are four causes.
> Usually it's only visible at the extremes of focus, so if you fix the
> long-or-shortsightedness, the diplopia becomes less noticeable. And it
> disappears in bright light, or thru a pinhole.
> Haloes and rings are different.

> What's the term for the issue where if you look at a light with one eye in
> the dark, you see two of them (or at least you see a halo?).

> But with longsighted corrective glasses, my distance vision is atrocious.
> I can't see how they would help with driving. Maybe I should consult a
> legal newsgroup, because I think in Britain we have a recourse for being
> sold something that we don't need.

> Mike Tyner wrote:
> > Glasses will help if you need to read small details at great distance,
> > esp in the dark (eg license tags and street numbers). They might help
> > your near vision but if you don't need near correction most people would
> > take them off except to drive or watch a movie.
> > > I get suspicious when someone sells glasses to "reduce glare." In optics,
> > "glare" and "blur" are not the same thing, tho they may have similar
> > results. But glasses normally reduce blur and _increase_ glare, defined
> > as competing internal reflections, flare and haze that come with
> > real-world spectacle lenses, with their fingerprints and nosegrease.
> > > Next suggestion is to use prism only to solve problems. If you weren't
> > having performance issues, or problems with diplopia or asthenopia, head
> > tilt or turn, my training says leave it alone.
> > > Prescribing for every little anomaly generally makes people unhappy and
> > it's astounding how many would be more comfortable withOUT this or that,
> > but they suffer thru just because someone told them they "need it." Don't
> > fix what ain't broke.
> As I can't be asked to go to my car to get the results, I've always been
> slightly longsighted, never more than about 0.50 in each eye (plus or
> minus whatever it is for longsightedness).
> Glasses in the past, even with very slight longsightedness and slight
> astigmatism as I have said have helped previously. Text becomes a lot
> clearer, and find text especially becomes black and not grey as it
> normally appears to me. It's a lot more focussed with glasses. But I can
> still see without quite well.
> But with longsighted corrective glasses, my distance vision is atrocious.
> I can't see how they would help with driving. Maybe I should consult a
> legal newsgroup, because I think in Britain we have a recourse for being
> sold something that we don't need.
> My eye doc reckons I do have a very slight head tilt, but I don't get
> diplopia (double vision right). I've never heard of asthenopia, but sounds
> interesting, as the areas around my eyes feels tired constantly.
> What's the term for the issue where if you look at a light with one eye in
> the dark, you see two of them (or at least you see a halo?).
> Cheers
> Simon

> Glasses will help if you need to read small details at great distance, esp
> in the dark (eg license tags and street numbers). They might help your near
> vision but if you don't need near correction most people would take them off
> except to drive or watch a movie.
> I get suspicious when someone sells glasses to "reduce glare." In optics,
> "glare" and "blur" are not the same thing, tho they may have similar
> results. But glasses normally reduce blur and _increase_ glare, defined as
> competing internal reflections, flare and haze that come with real-world
> spectacle lenses, with their fingerprints and nosegrease.
> Next suggestion is to use prism only to solve problems. If you weren't
> having performance issues, or problems with diplopia or asthenopia, head
> tilt or turn, my training says leave it alone.
> Prescribing for every little anomaly generally makes people unhappy and it's
> astounding how many would be more comfortable withOUT this or that, but they
> suffer thru just because someone told them they "need it." Don't fix what
> ain't broke.

> On Dec 11, 7:12 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a58849...[at]w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com> ,
> > Simon Dean <sjd...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I went to see the optician on Monday. They're usually very good and
> > > won't prescribe something unless it's needed. They'll even say I don't
> > > need glasses if my prescription amounts to anything like 0.50
> > > longsightedness or astigmatism. They talk me out of glasses.
> > Where did you go? Opticians in most states are not allowed to prescribe.
> Simon's all kinds of British, if I recall correctly.

> In article
> <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a58849...[at]w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com> ,
> *Simon *Dean <sjd...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > I went to see the optician on Monday. They're usually very good and
> > won't prescribe something unless it's needed. They'll even say I don't
> > need glasses if my prescription amounts to anything like 0.50
> > longsightedness or astigmatism. They talk me out of glasses.
> Where did you go? Opticians in most states are not allowed to prescribe.

> I went to see the optician on Monday. They're usually very good and
> won't prescribe something unless it's needed. They'll even say I don't
> need glasses if my prescription amounts to anything like 0.50
> longsightedness or astigmatism. They talk me out of glasses.

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article
> > <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a588498b8[at]w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com> ,
> > Simon Dean <sjdean[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > But I got home and began to fume as I read my prescription. -0.50
> > > astigmatism in each eye. Is that it? That warrants glasses?
> > > Yes. If you find that they are more trouble than they are worth, then
> > you won't wear them. If they help more than they hinder, then you
> > probably will.
> > Ok, that's a relief then... I think. I've just known some opticians who
> won't bother with anything that low, suggesting it could even just be a
> blip on that day as Im up and down from year to year.
> Is it just personal preference by the optician then at the end of the day?

> In article
> <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a588498b8[at]w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com> ,
> Simon Dean <sjdean[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > But I got home and began to fume as I read my prescription. -0.50
> > astigmatism in each eye. Is that it? That warrants glasses?
> Yes. If you find that they are more trouble than they are worth, then
> you won't wear them. If they help more than they hinder, then you
> probably will.