On 30/05/2021 14:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Bennet wrote:
On 30/05/2021 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.


Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!

Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.

Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.

Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with
eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen
about 7" off the desk.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/05/2021 19:09, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/05/2021 14:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andy Bennet wrote:
On 30/05/2021 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000
quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is
nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.


Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!

Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the
eyeline.

Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets
also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.

Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with
eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen
about 7" off the desk.


https://historydaily.org/what-you-di...eck-elongation

According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their
sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most
common size for living room is 55 inches.

The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner
just look incredibly tiny now.

Andrew

On 31/05/2021 16:13, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Tiny??
Mine is43 inch and to be honest most people find it a bit large. Its on the
mantle piece, I hasten to add there is no fire, only a storage heater and
the shelf its on deflects the heat out into the room.
Brian

On 31/05/2021 19:49, Andrew wrote:
According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their
sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most
common size for living room is 55 inches.

The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner
just look incredibly tiny now.

24" works well for a kitchen TV and 32" doubles up nicely as a TV and
second monitor in a kid's bedroom.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2021 06:03 pm, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2021 02:10 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Bennet wrote:

Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.

Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...

... but it usually is.

Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.

In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.

I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.

I'm the reverse, cant think of anyone with the TV in a corner like that.

We do however generally have much bigger houses than you lot do.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:24:46 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.

I'm the reverse, cant think of anyone with the TV in a corner like that.

We do however generally have much bigger houses than you lot do.

Oh, yeah? Post PROOF, you endlessly bull****ting senile asshole from Oz!

The place for a modern TV (with short aerial cables) depends of course
mainly on where the antenna output is located in the room, senile bull****
artist!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

Well maybe they think if you can afford 3 grand on
a tv you can afford to live in a property with big walls

Yeah, it would have to be a pretty big room
for that size screen to be viable imo.

or employ a joiner to make a nice stand for it.

I'm not sure I'd want to stand mount something so
big and top heavy, asking for trouble if you ask me.

Yeah, me too, specially with something so stupidly expensive.


Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.

--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:41:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Senile Rodent about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

LOL!!!!!

On 31/05/2021 21:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2021 06:03 pm, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2021 02:10 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Bennet wrote:

Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use.
Can't see what the attraction is.

Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...

... but it usually is.

Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.

In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to
be very many places in an average size room where the set could be
attached flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions
of seating.

I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took
in either the whole room or pretty close to that.

I'm the reverse, cant think of anyone with the TV in a corner like that.

We do however generally have much bigger houses than you lot do.

.... and much smaller willys

On 31/05/2021 19:49, Andrew wrote:

According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their
sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most
common size for living room is 55 inches.

Yup I can believe that... I replaced our 32" bedroom TV with a 42" set
that was physically smaller than the 32" (far less bezel and no side
mounted speakers).

The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner
just look incredibly tiny now.

Last time I needed a smaller screen for a customer's windows display,
there was a grand choice of about two models of 20 something inch sets!

As you say even 32" which used to be a very popular size in now quite
scarce.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/05/2021 13:36, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 30/05/2021 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.


Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!

There is nothing compelling you to mount a wall mounted TV above the
recommended height.
https://www.hellotech.com/blog/how-h...-tv-be-mounted

There are numerous links saying essentially the same thing.

On 30/05/2021 13:36, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 30/05/2021 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.


Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!

and me

On 31/05/2021 19:09, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/05/2021 14:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andy Bennet wrote:
On 30/05/2021 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000
quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is
nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.


Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!

Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the
eyeline.

Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets
also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.

Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with
eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen
about 7" off the desk.


I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.

--

Jeff

On 07/06/2021 10:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

I keep +1.5 clip-ons in my office, these combined with the computer
glasses are good for reading fairly small print. And another pair of +3
clip-ons for close-up work. For the very fine print (such as laser
etching of serial numbers on small electronic devices) I often find it
as easy to take a photo and view that instead.


As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.


At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Multiple eye tests would be a PITA, though.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.

My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
I didn't.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/06/2021 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.

I'm sure you're right. Mine have been +2.75 (not 2.5) for at least 4
years, perhaps 6.

My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
I didn't.

That is most interesting. It suggests there is an undivulged "agenda"
that opticians apply to a patient's prescription, if the use of "most"
is taken at face value. Well, if I am not keen and you are not keen,
either we are outliers or the premise is wrong. There are many here who
wear glasses and are probably long-sighted, I wonder if they have found
their new glasses to be unsatisfactory because of that correction?

--

Jeff

"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get my
head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else. Why
is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked if
different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

It represents one "measurement" at one point in time.

Yes.

I often wonder that, if the test was repeated at different times on
different days, it would give the same result.

Yes it does.

"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 10:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get my
head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else. Why
is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without magnification?

I keep +1.5 clip-ons in my office, these combined with the computer
glasses are good for reading fairly small print. And another pair of +3
clip-ons for close-up work. For the very fine print (such as laser etching
of serial numbers on small electronic devices) I often find it as easy to
take a photo and view that instead.

And the photo fixes the often very poor contrast
ratio too thats very common with some items, likely
so it looks better without a very visible number.


As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.


At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription" can
sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because it
actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Multiple eye tests would be a PITA, though.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 06:08:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 06:02:53 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
newshound wrote:
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.

Mine are nothing like that and I am older than that.

My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.

Likely for the better focus on finer stuff like labels in the supermarket
etc.

I didn't.

On 07/06/2021 21:02, Joey wrote:


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them
because apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I
can't get my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of
the lenses correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's
something else. Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency
without magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 21:02, Joey wrote:


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

It doesnt replace what he doesnt like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses

On 08/06/2021 03:58, Joey wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 21:02, Joey wrote:


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use
varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC
+1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them
because apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I
can't get my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence
of the lenses correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's
something else. Why is it not possible to correct the focal
deficiency without magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

It doesnt replace what he doesnt like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses

Fair enough.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:58:43 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

Yup. You can correct eyesight in an animal unable to communicate.

You must have noticed that your optician starts with correction very
nearly there - even for a first prescription. Because he's measured the
power of your eye first.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/06/2021 03:58, Joey wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 21:02, Joey wrote:


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for pointing it out.

It doesnt replace what he doesnt like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses

The conclusions stated under "Retinoscopy" in that Wiki are based on old
papers from about 15 years ago. Even the stated "recent studies..."
references papers from 2006 and 2007.

If you look at ref 2, which is from 2005
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630406/), at the bottom of the
paper is a list headed "Similar articles". The second paper is from
2019. and if you also look at the "Cited by" heading you will find
papers from 2018 - 2021. I had a look at all the conclusions in these
recent papers, and it seems to me the general view was that modern
automatic methods give a satisfactory result, acceptably similar to
clinical retinoscopy in most cases.

If I do a self-test for reading strength (eg at
https://www.readingglassesetc.com/pages/reading-lens-guide/reading-glasses-strength-and-reading-test.html),
I can read down to the smallest line (+1.25D) without problem. Why then
does my optician prescribe +2.75D glasses for me? I assume it's because
of the responses I gave during the eye test, which is entirely
subjective. I don't have an issue with corrective lenses for astigmatic
issues, but I find the "solution" for long-sightedness less than
satisfactory. Do those with short-sightedness have the same problem with
their prescribed glasses?

--

Jeff

On 08/06/2021 11:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

Yup. You can correct eyesight in an animal unable to communicate.

Or, I assume, a human unable to read.

You must have noticed that your optician starts with correction very
nearly there - even for a first prescription. Because he's measured the
power of your eye first.

Do all opticians use autorefractors now, at least to start the
diagnostic process?

--

Jeff

"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/2021 03:58, Joey wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 21:02, Joey wrote:


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the
tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use
varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC
+1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them
because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the
lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for pointing it out.

It doesnt replace what he doesnt like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses

The conclusions stated under "Retinoscopy" in that Wiki are based on old
papers from about 15 years ago. Even the stated "recent studies..."
references papers from 2006 and 2007.

If you look at ref 2, which is from 2005
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630406/), at the bottom of the paper
is a list headed "Similar articles". The second paper is from 2019. and if
you also look at the "Cited by" heading you will find papers from 2018 -
2021. I had a look at all the conclusions in these recent papers, and it
seems to me the general view was that modern automatic methods give a
satisfactory result, acceptably similar to clinical retinoscopy in most
cases.

If I do a self-test for reading strength (eg at
https://www.readingglassesetc.com/pages/reading-lens-guide/reading-glasses-strength-and-reading-test.html),
I can read down to the smallest line (+1.25D) without problem. Why then
does my optician prescribe +2.75D glasses for me? I assume it's because of
the responses I gave during the eye test, which is entirely subjective. I
don't have an issue with corrective lenses for astigmatic issues, but I
find the "solution" for long-sightedness less than satisfactory. Do those
with short-sightedness have the same problem with their prescribed
glasses?

I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.

My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various lenses
the last time just recently.

For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.

I now find a real problem with reading the labels on stuff when
buying stuff in a supermarket and should really have a second
pair to use in that situation so I dont have to pick up the item
to be able to read the label.

But I am about to have the cataracts done so havent bothered
until I see what things are like with cataracts done.

In article ,
Joey wrote:
I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.

My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various
lenses the last time just recently.

For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.

I take it you don't drive?

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Joey wrote:
I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.

My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various
lenses the last time just recently.

For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.

I take it you don't drive?

Yes I do and can read the small street signs with the
street name on them and the car number plates fine.

I should have said that its only a problem recognising people
when they are a long way away, hundreds of feet away.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:52:10 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rodent Speed:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On 07/06/2021 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.

My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
I didn't.

Certainly when I was a short sighted kid they used to under-correct for
infinity, I suspect based on the theory that your eyes would "try
harder" and otherwise deteriorate more rapidly. I always found that
slightly irritating. For my "bike" test (silver numberplate days of
course) I could not completely read the plate at the requested distance
(which was more like 35 yards than 25), but fortunately a couple of
paces was all I needed.