Magnification without glasses?

As a nearsighted person with some mild presbyopia, I only need to take off my
myopia glasses to do fine work up close.

Lately I am of the impression that the closeup view without my glasses gives
me some very mild magnification. Perhaps of the order of 1.1X or thereabouts.

Is this "magnification" subjective (contrast between images with glasses and
without glasses ) or is it real?

Thanks,
--
I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/
----------------------------------------------------------
"There's ALWAYS a mistake somewhere"

"Mike Tyner" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ioannis" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> > Is this "magnification" subjective (contrast between images with glasses
> > and without glasses ) or is it real?
>
> It's relative - your glasses minify.

No, without glasses, you can focus at a closer distance than those with
"normal" vision, so it is real.

I'm very nearsighted and basically have a 5-10X magnifier built into my
head when I remove my glasses.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

On 5/22/07 6:13 AM, in article
(E-Mail Removed), "Mike Tyner"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Sam Goldwasser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>>> It's relative - your glasses minify.
>>
>> No, without glasses, you can focus at a closer distance than those with
>> "normal" vision, so it is real.
>
> No, that isn't optical magnification, it's trigonometry, and it's called
> "relative distance magnification." Retinal images are twice as big when the
> object is held half as far away.
>
> If you're nearsighted, your glasses still minify, over and above the effects
> of relative distance mag. The minification is proportional to the
> prescription and the distance off your eye.
>
> Just look in the distance and move your glasses in and out. As you push them
> away from your eye, the image gets smaller. Minification only approaches
> zero if you push the lens directly against your eye, as with contacts.
>
> -MT
>
>
That is exactly what magnifiers do! A magnifier, such as a hand lens, allows
you to get closer to the object. In ioannis's situation, he could get the
same effect using his glasses and using a hand lens simultaneously. It is
easier to just not use the hand lens and not use the glasses as well.
Whether you wish to call that magnification or not is just a matter of
definition.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.

Dr Judy schreef:
> On May 22, 1:13 am, "Ioannis" <morph...@olympus.mons> wrote:
>> As a nearsighted person with some mild presbyopia, I only need to take off my
>> myopia glasses to do fine work up close.
>>
>> Lately I am of the impression that the closeup view without my glasses gives
>> me some very mild magnification. Perhaps of the order of 1.1X or thereabouts.
>
> It's real. The myopic eye has a larger retinal image, when corrected
> with glasses it is minified to "normal" size.
>
> Dr Judy
>

Come on Dr Judy,I now you can do better.
What about the same myopic wearing contacts?
"abnormal size"?

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

Dr Judy schreef:
> On May 22, 1:13 am, "Ioannis" <morph...@olympus.mons> wrote:
>> As a nearsighted person with some mild presbyopia, I only need to take off my
>> myopia glasses to do fine work up close.
>>
>> Lately I am of the impression that the closeup view without my glasses gives
>> me some very mild magnification. Perhaps of the order of 1.1X or thereabouts.
>
> It's real. The myopic eye has a larger retinal image, when corrected
> with glasses it is minified to "normal" size.
>
> Dr Judy
>
Come on Dr Judy,I know you can do better.
What about the same myopic wearing contacts?
"abnormal size"?

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

I am not an optician, optometrist, ophthalmologist etc., not even a
physicist or engineer, but please allow me.

It seems you all ignore the fact that vision processing is done in the
brain, not in the eye. The image of an elephant on the retina is
always minimized, obviously. Not only that, it's also upside down.
However, the brain perceives the miniature retinal elephant standing
on its head as a full size upright elephant. Our brain learns how to
process the retinal image in a very young age.

The only time we really notice this minimization is when we switch
from no lens to a minus lens or to a stronger lens, but this lasts
only for a very short time. In other words, the size of the retinal
image is almost irrelevant and is only relative. Of course, a great
disparity between the lenses on both eyes will confuse the brain...

Ms.Brainy schreef:
> I am not an optician, optometrist, ophthalmologist etc., not even a
> physicist or engineer, but please allow me.

I do......
>
> It seems you all ignore the fact that vision processing is done in the
> brain, not in the eye.

Is that true, never thought of it.

The image of an elephant on the retina is
> always minimized, obviously.

Well, why not walk right to this elephant and look him in the eye,
enormous image, is it not?
Watch out by trying this, you easily could be minimized.

Not only that, it's also upside down.

No......., realy?

> However, the brain perceives the miniature retinal elephant standing
> on its head

I am a fan of the circus but elephants standing on their head is new to
me...

as a full size upright elephant. Our brain learns how to
> process the retinal image in a very young age.

Is that so...

>
> The only time we really notice this minimization is when we switch
> from no lens to a minus lens or to a stronger lens, but this lasts
> only for a very short time.

Dear Brainy, only when the lens is held at some distance in front of the
eye.

In other words, the size of the retinal
> image is almost irrelevant and is only relative.

Bullshit of this elephant, when you are standing next to this elephant
the size of your head looks a lot smaller to me as the elephant's does

Of course, a great
> disparity between the lenses on both eyes will confuse the brain...

Not always Brainy.

Jan (normally Duch spoken)

On 5/22/07 2:00 PM, in article
(E-Mail Removed). com, "Dr Judy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It's real. The myopic eye has a larger retinal image, when corrected
> with glasses it is minified to "normal" size.

So removing eyeglasses allows you to get closer to the object and provides a
larger clear image on the retina just as if you used a magnifying glass with
the eyeglasses. That sounds like magnification to me.

Bill

-- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.

Dear Brainy,

Welcome to the "attitude" of the majority-opinion OD.

He normally thinks he is a "God", and by that
standard, everyone -- the public, the patient, YOU --
are stupid, and must be "corrected" in every way
possible, and insulted to boot.

Just remember, there are second-opinion ODs who
are not like this. They will reason with you
and RESPECT you and your goals in life.
That is why I post here -- to show respect
to people like Steve Leung OD.

www.chinamyopia.org

Best,

Otis




On May 22, 7:44 pm, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently I have upset the Dutch Goddess. How Dared I!
>
> Your sarcasm is in bad taste, Jan. It's arrogant, patronizing and
> lacks any subtlety. I can assure you that I am sharper than you and
> can beat you in sarcasm, but I have no desire to get engageD in this
> activity at this point.
>
> I have only one question to you, Jan the Duchess: WHAT'S EATING YOU?
>
> On May 22, 3:57 pm, Jan <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ms.Brainy schreef:
>
> > > I am not an optician, optometrist, ophthalmologist etc., not even a
> > > physicist or engineer, but please allow me.
>
> > I do......
>
> > > It seems you all ignore the fact that vision processing is done in the
> > > brain, not in the eye.
>
> > Is that true, never thought of it.
>
> > The image of an elephant on the retina is
>
> > > always minimized, obviously.
>
> > Well, why not walk right to this elephant and look him in the eye,
> > enormous image, is it not?
> > Watch out by trying this, you easily could be minimized.
>
> > Not only that, it's also upside down.
>
> > No......., realy?
>
> > > However, the brain perceives the miniature retinal elephant standing
> > > on its head
>
> > I am a fan of the circus but elephants standing on their head is new to
> > me...
>
> > as a full size upright elephant. Our brain learns how to
>
> > > process the retinal image in a very young age.
>
> > Is that so...
>
> > > The only time we really notice this minimization is when we switch
> > > from no lens to a minus lens or to a stronger lens, but this lasts
> > > only for a very short time.
>
> > Dear Brainy, only when the lens is held at some distance in front of the
> > eye.
>
> > In other words, the size of the retinal
>
> > > image is almost irrelevant and is only relative.
>
> > Bullshit of this elephant, when you are standing next to this elephant
> > the size of your head looks a lot smaller to me as the elephant's does
>
> > Of course, a great
>
> > > disparity between the lenses on both eyes will confuse the brain...
>
> > Not always Brainy.
>
> > Jan (normally Duch spoken)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On May 22, 7:14 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, while his comments to Ms. Brainy WERE rather offensive, he
> normally reserves his disgust, disdain, AND contempt--quite
> reasonably--for you.
>

Jan is a "he"? If so, I apologize for assuming it's a "she". I
certainly did not intend to MINIFY him into a female. And vice versa.