Re: [ATM] Re: ATM visual size difference

["matt" <mariusrf@bellsouth.net>]

eyes don't integrate. The brain does.
It's not a blind integration like in Registax adding frames , it goes
through pattern and shape recognition and correlation first , and it's
iterative. You could be half blind in one eye and that eye would still
supply useful information that your brain could correlate with what comes
from your dominant eye.
You brain can adapt to very diverse image distortions, just remember how
hard it appeared for the first time to estimate distances in a convex rear
view mirror , and how natural it becomes after a while for example.

best regards,
matt tudor

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob May <bobmay@nethere.com>
To: atm@atmlist.net <atm@atmlist.net>
Date: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:41 PM
Subject: [ATM] Re: ATM visual size difference


>Yes, I've got the same problem with my eyes.  At 60 years of age, I've
>already goine through most of the freezing of the eye curvature and, while
I
>now need to wear glasses for driving, I don't need them for the more
>leisurely activity of reading and watching TV when it is close.
>I know that there is a definite size difference in the two images that I
now
>integrate (never had stereo vision at any distance before!) and I find that
>I really don't use it as much as my "normal" size rate estimation of
>distance to an object.  I wouldn't be supprised if the size difference
>between the two images that the eyes can still integrate is larger than
what
>is commonly realized.  Does anybody know of any investigations on this??
>Bob May
>bobmay@nethere.com
>http://nav.to/bobmay
>http://bobmay.astronomy.net
>----- Original Message -----
>From: The Alarm Co. <tac@i1.net>
>To: <bobmay@nethere.com>
>Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 11:01 AM
>Subject: ATM visual size difference
>
>
>An interesting observation (so to speak).  I too have such a difference
>between my eyes.  I don't recall the actual numbers, but I have one nearly
>normal eye, while the other is extremely nearsighted.  I have never been
>aware of a difference in image size, even to this day, looking for it.
>However, when I started wearing glasses, the negative correction for the
>nearsighted eye caused a BIG differnce in image size.  By big, I mean
>holding my glasses a arm's length. the image size in one is no more than
2/3
>the size in the other!  This was extremely disconcerting at first, but I
got
>used to it after wearing them constantly for several days.  I had a
similar,
>though longer, period of adjustment when, decades later, I switched to
>progressive bifocals.  At first, it was just about impossible to walk down
a
>flight of stairs.  The positive correction in the lower part of the glasses
>made the stairs look closer and therefore less steep than the rest of my
>senses told me they were.  That took a couple of months to pass.
>So, I think that indicates some boundaries for mismatch;  30% difference
>takes a LOT of getting used to, but can be done.  This would clearly be
>impractical for a scope intended to be used by the general public.  I'm
>guessing the 2% difference you mention would 'pass quite unnoticed while
>observing a star at focus'.  Somewhere in between should be 'momentarily
>confusing, but okay in a few seconds'.
>
>Interestingly enough, the laser eye docs are now making folks like us on
>purpose.  I was in my mid-late thirties when laser eye surgery became truly
>practical and routine, and I seriously considered it.  Glasses were a bit
of
>a hindrance to my career as a photographer.  Back then, the standard
>technique was to do both eyes to 20/20 or better.  But, surprise!  people
>continued to age, and in their 40's lose their ability to focus close, just
>like always.  I would have had only 5 or so years without glasses, and then
>would have been wearing reading glasses.  Finally, the eyedocs realized
that
>people like us have the best of both worlds: one near eye and one far eye.
>Takes a little getting used to, but works fine for most people.  Finally,
>medical science catches up with nature.  Now that I'm out of photography,
if
>my distant eye were just a bit better, I wouldn't wear glasses at all.
>
> *  Best regards, Bob
>*
>         *           *   *
>
>            *         *
>
>_______________________________________________
>ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/

_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/