Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2008
The Math of Reading/Computer Glasses?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 13 Jul 2008 23:35 GMT A friend of mine recently got some "computer glasses" to go with his regular glasses (he's nearsighted), and says that looking at his computer for long periods doesn't make his eyes hurt as much anymore. I may look into that myself, but what I'm immediately interested in is the math of the thing.
The cylinder and axis numbers for the two pairs of glasses are the same, which makes sense because he's equally astigmatic no matter what he's looking at.
The sphere numbers for the distance glasses are:
right: -3.50 left: -4.75
and for the computer glasses they are:
right: -2.75 left: -4.00
It doesn't take too long to work out that the change is to add 0.75 to the distance glasses to get the computer glasses. What I'm interested in is "How did the Dr. arrive at that figure?" (When I asked the question, he seemed astonished anyone would want to know.)
He said that he usually keeps his computer screen about 4 feet from his face, and so that's the distance he gave the doctor. He wants that to focus as if it were "infinity", thus allowing his ciliary muscles to be relaxed even while looking at something not so far away. Sort of like what you do with reading glasses, only not quite so much of it.
Best as we can figure, what's going on is that 4 feet is about 1.333... meters, and 1/1.333... gives 0.75 -- that is, you picture the eye as looking at infinity, where the rays of light coming from an object are parallel. Then you flip that around, and picture the lens as picking up parallel rays of light and focusing them at some distance, in this case 1.333... meters. Put together, we have the object at 4 feet, the light rays spreading out from it in all directions turned parallel by the lens, and then those parallel lines go into the eye, which focuses as if it were looking at something infinitely far away.
And if my friend had wanted reading glasses, then you might figure for half a meter to hold a book, and thus add 2 diopters to the distance prescription to get reading glasses. (He has no use for reading glasses, because he only reads things on-line, so he didn't bother.) Or if you had a really big monitor 6 feet away, you could figure that as 2 meters and then go for a 0.5 diopter difference.
Does that sound right? If so, it may turn into a homework problem.
Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "I told her she could ask anything but my weight. So she asked me, `What was the last porn video you watched?', and I said `I weigh 122 pounds.'" -- Nancy Glass, describing an interview by Gail Shister
Dave Bell - 14 Jul 2008 01:39 GMT > A friend of mine recently got some "computer glasses" to go with his > regular glasses (he's nearsighted), and says that looking at his [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Does that sound right? If so, it may turn into a homework problem. The basic concept looks exactly right, to me.
In your friend's case though, his eyes focus best on things that are close to him, so with divergent rays. You can figure exactly how close, from the original "distance" prescriptions. One eye naturally focuses at 1/3.5 meters, the other at 1/4.75 meters, or 11.2" and 8.26".
If he wore his distance-vision glasses, then added a pair of 0.75 diopter readers, you'd have the scenario you posted.
Dave
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 14 Jul 2008 22:09 GMT In reply to my question about the math of computer glasses, in which I treated the 0.75D correction as a separate lens,
> If he wore his distance-vision glasses, then added a pair of 0.75 > diopter readers, you'd have the scenario you posted. Hmm. That suggests that one could get a pair of spherical 0.75D clip-on lenses and make "computer glasses" out of any pair of prescription lenses. Is there any particular reason that wouldn't be a good idea? It seems like it might save some money. And if one's prescription changed, one could just keep the clip-ons instead of buying two new pairs of glasses.
For that matter, it suggests that someone with 20/20 vision could buy a pair of 0.75D glasses for use as computer glasses, just to ease eyestrain. Do people do that? I've heard for some time that it's bad to wear someone else's glasses, but would that apply to a situation like this, where it's a standard correction?
Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "One vision is produced by both eyes." -- Empedocles
Salmon Egg - 15 Jul 2008 07:14 GMT > In reply to my question about the math of computer glasses, in > which I treated the 0.75D correction as a separate lens, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy > "One vision is produced by both eyes." -- Empedocles Your ideas seem to be correct in principle. You are unlikely to find 0.75D reading glasses. The weakest ones I have seen seem to be about 1.00D.
I have tried using reading glasses over my distance glasses. I have my monitor much closer than four feet so I have no problem finding cheap reading glasses. When I do that, you can call me six-eyes. Nevertheless, it is more awkward than having a separate pair of glasses around. I use bifocals designed for looking at my screen through the upper parts of the lenses. The bifocal add is only about 1.00D to look at things a bit closer than my screen.
While strictly speaking arithmetic is part of mathematics, I cringe whenever arithmetic is called mathematics in an attempt to elevate its status closer to calculus or topology. Its status is that corresponding to the 'rithmetic of the three R's taught more than a century ago in one-room schools.
Bill
Nicolaas Hawkins - 15 Jul 2008 08:15 GMT >> In reply to my question about the math of computer glasses, in >> which I treated the 0.75D correction as a separate lens, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Bill ...but, sadly, seldom routinely taught today to any appreciable level of proficiency even in schools with scores - or even hundreds - of rooms. At least, not in my country - and neither, I daresay, in yours.
 Signature - Nic.
Pramesh Rutaji - 15 Jul 2008 18:03 GMT >> In reply to my question about the math of computer glasses, in >> which I treated the 0.75D correction as a separate lens, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 0.75D reading glasses. The weakest ones I have seen seem to be about > 1.00D. You can buy 0.75 D prescription glasses set to your eye's PD here. No prescription is necessary and the optics are much better than over the counter reading glasses (and the cost is cheaper too). I personally bought several pairs at $8 each plus a low shipping cost. Two pair were reading glasses set to move the far end of my focus range closer so that I could hold books closer making my eyes work a little. This is the only web site I've run into that does not require a prescription.
http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
 Signature Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Salmon Egg - 15 Jul 2008 20:11 GMT > You can buy 0.75 D prescription glasses set to your eye's PD here. No > prescription is necessary and the optics are much better than over the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I could hold books closer making my eyes work a little. This is the > only web site I've run into that does not require a prescription. I have been getting my off-the-shelf reading glasses at my local 99¢ store. They are good enough. I have also obtained them for $1 including sales tax at a swap meet.
Bill
Pramesh Rutaji - 16 Jul 2008 01:56 GMT >> You can buy 0.75 D prescription glasses set to your eye's PD here. No >> prescription is necessary and the optics are much better than over the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bill Certainly an economical choice, no doubt about that, and one that works well for the right circumstances. I found problems with distortion and swimming with over the counter reading glasses and wanting a prescription pair with better optics that was fitted to my pupil distance. Over the counter ones are set for 'average' pupil distance which doesn't fit best for the majority of people.
I'm near sighted so I don't need any kind of reading glasses, but I prefer to read at the far end of my focus range and that either requires that I have LONG arms or used reading glasses to move that far end point closer. I read by scanning my eyes back and forth (not moving my head back and forth) and with over the counter glasses strong enough to move the far end of my focus to about 10-15 inches, only a point about the center of the over the counter glasses was undistorted. Everything up or down or right or left was distorted with over the counter reading glasses (tried a dozen or so brands) unless I moved my head to read or the book back and forth to read. That was an unacceptable limitation of over the counter reading glasses.
One additional factor is if one has any astigmatism, that can be correct with prescription reading glasses, something that cannot be obtained without a prescription in the US - a usually much more expensive option. Internet discount options is the way I choose to reduce costs.
If one finds the lower quality optics or average pupil distance acceptable (or only has a $1 or so in the budget), then the dollar store is certainly the way to go.
 Signature Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Salmon Egg - 17 Jul 2008 20:15 GMT > Certainly an economical choice, no doubt about that, and one that works > well for the right circumstances. I found problems with distortion and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > acceptable (or only has a $1 or so in the budget), then the dollar store > is certainly the way to go. In my usage, I sometimes wear the reading glasses over my prescription glasses when needed. (Call me six-eyes.) Most of the time at my computer, I usually use prescription bifocals to view the screen. When I leave home, I might carry a pair of the $1 glasses.
I have not found optical quality to be a problem. Spectacle lenses are not tightly toleranced compared to truly demanding optical applications. The surface figure could be wavelengths off. Ophthalmic lenses are not ordinarily shaped to minimize aberrations. For example, spherical aberration is usually minimized by having the amount of refraction at each surface designed to be equal. For the typical negative lens used to correct myopia, the concave side (closest to the eye) and the convex side combine to ENHANCE spherical aberration. Not a problem!
My guess is that the biggest problem arising from low cost lenses would come from plastic lenses that are not cured or molded well.
Bill
pki52572@bigpond.net.au - 26 Jul 2008 07:37 GMT > > In article <g5gfb3$hj...@pcls4.std.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Very interesting. I looked at the site quoted and I don't understand how I can access 0.75 or 0.50 diopter glasses on that system. What am I missing?
I am looking for some low power (I suspect 0.50)glasses to trial to solve an accommodation problem. It is a function of my presbyopia and Target archery with a compound bow. I need some intermediate glasses for sufficient short focus to prevent loss of focus on the sight lens (a 0.75 diopter) and long vision for the target which can be up to 90m away.. I can't find lower than 1.0 d here and that leaves the target gold too fuzzy..Any ideas?
If I can get it right I would proceed with proper shooting glasses.
Dave Bell - 26 Jul 2008 19:17 GMT > I need some intermediate glasses > for sufficient short focus to prevent loss of focus on the sight lens > (a 0.75 diopter) and long vision for the target which can be up to 90m > away.. I can't find lower than 1.0 d here and that leaves the target > gold too fuzzy..Any ideas? Huh! I had their site open, about to order some spare glasses for a daughter. I can pick up as low as +/- 0.25 diopter.
Dave
pki52572@bigpond.net.au - 26 Jul 2008 22:07 GMT > pki52...@bigpond.net.au wrote: > > I need some intermediateglasses [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave Dave Thanks...I have it now.
Pramesh Rutaji - 27 Jul 2008 17:19 GMT >>> In article <g5gfb3$hj...@pcls4.std.com>, >>>> In reply to my question about the math of computer glasses, in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > If I can get it right I would proceed with proper shooting glasses. Select the $8 glasses link and then select the first pair on the list. You will be able to set the OD-Right and OS-Left to the prescription you want. The choices are in 0.25 increments plus or minus.
 Signature Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
pki52572@bigpond.net.au - 28 Jul 2008 10:20 GMT > pki52...@bigpond.net.au wrote: > >>> In article <g5gfb3$hj...@pcls4.std.com>, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks...I get it now. Also found some info on accommodation in aiming sports at
http://www.bullseyepistol.com/wong1.htm
which deals with the same problem in an empirical manner...
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 14 Jul 2008 02:36 GMT > A friend of mine recently got some "computer glasses" to go with his > regular glasses (he's nearsighted), and says that looking at his [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > `What was the last porn video you watched?', and I said `I weigh 122 > pounds.'" -- Nancy Glass, describing an interview by Gail Shister your math is correct. however, in practice, giving someone +0.75D over their distance prescription works quite well for computer glasses. don't forget that the eye is capable of adding some dioptric power of its own via accommodation.
|
|
|